Support NeoGAF

[Link648099]

People have justified the theory of evolution in this thread but


Nobody can justify the bible, it’s almost blind faith.

Nobody, eh? I beg to disagree. You are a scientist, not a theologian. Stay in the area and make comments about what you know, not what you do not. Second, as a lay student of the Bible with ambitions for Seminary someday, I can easily talk about true Biblical faith if you'd like to get into a discussion. Just PM me as I do not want to skew this thread off topic too much.

How can people not believe a well proven theory but base there beliefs on a book which provides NO solid evidence for human evolution?

Why should it have to provide any evidence for human evolution anyways? The Bible is not a biology text book, its a record of God's ivolvement with humanity over the ages. Dont listen to the fundamental creationists. Most of them simply do not know what they are talking about, both from a scientific perspective and an exegetical and hermeunatical perspective on Biblical interpretation. Read my previous posts, one of them has a link to an interpretation of Genesis 1. You might find it interesting.

The Bible is accurate in what it claims and records. That much has been demonstrated many times over. It has a solid record of accurate information. Thats why i believe what it says, not off of blind faith, but off what I call trust faith. You trust someone because they have proved reliable in the past. Hence, I trust the Bible because it has proved reliable in the past. You do the same for science.

The beginnings of Genesis has this point to make: God is responsible for all of creation. Science cannot prove or disprove that claim as it is untestable. Genesis never says how old the earth is, nor does it say exactly how God created life on this planet. All it does say is that God did create it, so I really cannot understand why all the conflict with science and religion. I actually think the two compliment each other very nicely.

Personally, I think each group's (naturalists and creationist's) specific definitions of each phenomenon (evolution and creation) are the things that are the root of all the conflicts between the two groups. If evolution is wholly true, partly true, or not true, that doesnt deny the existence of God or the accuracy of the Bible in any way.

I'd recommend to some readers here the book "The Genesis Question" by Hugh Ross. It's an interesting book that seeks to meld science into the Genesis account of creation, and I think he does a pretty good job with it all. Many people here might be surprised how close the Genesis account of creation is to what modern science has determined to have taken place in the past.

 

[Phoenix]

What the fuck is an "evolutionist"? Someone who accepts scientific merit? A scientist who studies biological processes? Or rather, someone who "uses whatever they find as evidence to the debate"? If it's the latter, then holy shit, you're right. X does equal X.

ev·o·lu·tion·ism Audio pronunciation of "evolutionist" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (v-lsh-nzm, v-)
n.

1. A theory of biological evolution, especially that formulated by Charles Darwin.
2. Advocacy of or belief in biological evolution.

evo·lution·ist n.

[Download or Buy Now]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Main Entry: evo·lu·tion·ist
Pronunciation: -sh(&-)n&st
Function: noun
: a student of or adherent to a theory of evolution

Egads - its in the dictionary. Next time try using it before making such a statement.

 

[Link648099]

Not me. Give me a petrie dish, some E. Coli, and some penicillin, and I can "prove" it in about a day (grow the bacteria, apply the antibiotic, watch most of them die, the survivors repopulate, the E. Coli now all have penicillin resistance). I really don't even consider it a theory any more, the terms "Biology" and "Evolution" are interchangable at this point IMO. Also, Carbon dating is very accurate, but not for recent "stuff", that's always been known. But for older specmens, it's considered to constitute rock hard evidence.

That is only microevolution (i.e. horizontal), verses macroevoltution which is more vertical. The e.coli are still that, e.coli. The resistence to the antibiotic comes about because of a loss in genetic information. Of course, simple logic tells you that if you loose information, then that means that information first had to be present. No new genetic information was created to aid e.coli in attaining resistence, only modified. This is one of the first concepts taught in most microbiology courses. Take some.

You dont go from single celled organisms with some 4 million base pairs to human beings with some 3 billion base pairs by simply modifying existing DNA. You have to create new DNA to achieve that. That is one of the limitations of natural selection and mutation. It can only select and modify existing genetic information. The creation of new genetic information must occur through other means.

 

[Dilbert]

You dont go from single celled organisms with some 4 million base pairs to human beings with some 3 billion base pairs by simply modifying existing DNA. You have to create new DNA to achieve that. That is one of the limitations of natural selection and mutation. It can only select and modify existing genetic information. The creation of new genetic information must occur through other means.

Since my argument got ignored the first time, let's go for Round 2.

People keep saying that genetic "information" must come from SOMEWHERE, and I still don't understand what the fuck that's supposed to mean. DNA is made up of the same four nucleotides, no matter what type of Earth-based life you're talking about. "New genetic information" is simply a reordering of those same four building blocks with varying "string lengths," and mechanisms by which that reordering takes place are well-known.

Your argument is like saying that the creation of a new word in the English language is impossible without some special intervention...but any "new" word is just a different arrangement (with repetition and with a variable length) of the 26 English letters. The meaning of individual combinations of letters changes over time -- words get discarded from lack of use, addtional words get created -- but the underlying set, the 26 letters that define what can be "implemented" in English, do not change. So, in what sense is any English word shockingly "new?"

 

[Link648099]

I can't say I've ever truly understood the faith people put in the Bible either. There's absolutely no way whatsoever to verify what's written or to verify who actually wrote each section. Also, without a lot of knowledge about ancient languages, the common person can't verify the translation either! The Bible's translation is something academics still debate.

The empirical evidence just isn't there.

I disagree. If youd like to talk about true Biblical faith, PM me. There are plenty of ways to verify what has been written and recorded in the Bible. Archeology is one field devoted to that. Of course, thats using external evidence to validate the internal claims of the Bible, and thus far, its been very succesful. Frankly put, I find it incredible that most people simply do not trust the Bible as a sound historical record. After all the evidence I have seen and studied over the years, anyone who says other wise is simply speaking from opinion or wishful thinking, not actual fact.

The Bible is reliable. It has proven that hundreds of times over. If you deny that, you are doing exactly what young earth creationists are doing: denying all the obvious and scientifically credited evidence.

Of course, if you disagree with me, oh well. A forum like this is not the place to discuss this issue, as it is no small matter! I have studied this very topic for many years, I would suggest you at least do half that before you make claims such as the one's youve made above.

Just some advice.

 

[Dilbert]

The Bible is accurate in what it claims and records. That much has been demonstrated many times over. It has a solid record of accurate information. Thats why i believe what it says, not off of blind faith, but off what I call trust faith. You trust someone because they have proved reliable in the past. Hence, I trust the Bible because it has proved reliable in the past. You do the same for science.

How do you know?

For all the verbal runaround, you STILL manage to come around to the point that your "reason" for believing the Bible to be "accurate" and "reliable" is FAITH. You don't present any evidence why your statement is true, or even bother to define what is meant by "accurate" and "reliable." Hell, how do you even know that your favorite translation of the Bible into English or whatever other language you prefer is valid?

 

[Phoenix]

I can't say I've ever truly understood the faith people put in the Bible either. There's absolutely no way whatsoever to verify what's written or to verify who actually wrote each section. Also, without a lot of knowledge about ancient languages, the common person can't verify the translation either! The Bible's translation is something academics still debate.

The empirical evidence just isn't there.

We can verify what was written and much has gone into that. There are some issues, however, knowing WHO wrote it, and again - WHY they wrote it. There are many translations of the bible however and many of the commonly accepted interpretations of many passages therein are actually 100% incorrect for reasons that would seem to be obvious. However if you find someone who understands the language, the original text didn't burn up in the Vatican or anything. Its commonly available and debated by many linguists, historians, etc.

 

[Mejilan]

I've always wondered. What really was the original languge of the bible. Hebrew or Aramaic? I haven't spoken to many historians or Rabbis in my time, but the historians I've spoken to say Aramaic, and the Rabbis say Hebrew.

As to translations, isn't the King James version a translation of a translation or a translation? Or something like that?

 

[Phoenix]

Since my argument got ignored the first time, let's go for Round 2.

People keep saying that genetic "information" must come from SOMEWHERE, and I still don't understand what the fuck that's supposed to mean. DNA is made up of the same four nucleotides, no matter what type of Earth-based life you're talking about. "New genetic information" is simply a reordering of those same four building blocks with varying "string lengths," and mechanisms by which that reordering takes place are well-known.

Well I kinda understand what he's trying to say, though the conclusion he's reaching through it seems to be lacking. What he's trying to say is that reordering of the base pairs and the 'strands' on them that determine the various growth would require some intervention - which it doesn't. A mutation can reorder the base pairs and the strands and create a new creature accordingly. So that in itself does not lend to an inability to have lower level life forms become more complex life forms. There are just a lot of 'missing' links in the middle and only assumptions that lead us from one stage to another. Natural selection isn't entirely compelling because many of the organisms that we would have kinda evolved from - well they still exist, so that selection is either very damn local or something doesn't quite fly.

 

[Phoenix]

I've always wondered. What really was the original languge of the bible. Hebrew or Aramaic? I haven't spoken to many historians or Rabbis in my time, but the historians I've spoken to say Aramaic, and the Rabbis say Hebrew.

All of the above. You have to understand the history of the period to really comprehend that the question doesn't really have a singular answer.

Like many ancient works, the oldest parts of the Bible were passed along orally before they were ever written down. Many devout Jews and Christians believe that the full text of the Bible was given to Moses by God on Mount Sinai. Though the Bible's earliest origin may always be a matter of faith, it remains a fact that after the Bible was recorded, many different versions existed. It wasn't until the first century B.C.E. (Before the Common Era, aka B.C.) that Jews settled on the canon of their scripture, and it was around 400 C.E. (Common Era, aka A.D.) that Christians agreed on all the books of their New Testament. Today, countless translations and interpretations of the Bible exist in English and many other languages.

The oldest written parts of the Bible found were transcribed in three languages. What scholars call the Hebrew Bible (the same books Jews call the Tanakh or Written Torah and Christians call the Old Testament) was first written in Hebrew with a few chapters of the books of Ezra and Daniel recorded in Aramaic. Hebrew had long been the language of the Jewish people, so their scriptures were passed down in Hebrew. Some of the books of the Hebrew Bible may have been written as far back as 1,400 B.C.E., although most of the text was probably written between 900 and 400 B.C.E.

Aramaic is a Semitic language that was widely spoken from 600 to 200 B.C.E. in the near Middle East. It was one of the common languages of the region until the 13th century, when Arabic became more prominent. Many people believe Jesus and his apostles spoke Aramaic.

The Christian New Testament was written in the first century C.E. in the common Greek of the Mediterranean area and parts of the Middle East at the time. This form of Greek is called Koine Greek. It developed from classical Greek spread by the conquests of Alexander the Great. As different people began to use the tongue, it evolved and changed into Koine Greek between 300 B.C.E. and 300 C.E. This form may have been the second language of Jesus and his apostles -- after all, the gospels note that Jesus spoke with Pontius Pilate, who would have been more likely to understand Greek than Aramaic. The New Testament was probably written in Greek because it was the most common language around the Mediterranean at the time.

After the Roman Empire itself was Christianized and Latin become the common language, the entire Bible was translated into Latin. The first Latin version is called the Vulgate. In the mid-15th century, when Johannes Gutenberg invented movable type, the Latin Vulgate edition of the Christian Bible was the first work he printed.

As to translations, isn't the King James version a translation of a translation or a translation? Or something like that?

Yep. A translation many levels deep and we all know what happens in translations

 

[Dilbert]

Natural selection isn't entirely compelling because many of the organisms that we would have kinda evolved from - well they still exist, so that selection is either very damn local or something doesn't quite fly.

:lol :lol :lol

I don't know if you meant to make that pun or not, but it just struck me as very funny.

 

[Link648099]

Since my argument got ignored the first time, let's go for Round 2.

People keep saying that genetic "information" must come from SOMEWHERE, and I still don't understand what the fuck that's supposed to mean. DNA is made up of the same four nucleotides, no matter what type of Earth-based life you're talking about. "New genetic information" is simply a reordering of those same four building blocks with varying "string lengths," and mechanisms by which that reordering takes place are well-known.

I understand what your saying, but the problem is much greater then you make it out to be. Microevolution occurs primarily by the loss or modification of already existing genetic information. It does not create new base pairs and more codons. But, we do know how base pairs and codons are created, but that only occurs with things like cell division when a copy of the DNA must be made. For macroevolution to occur, new genetic information (i.e. codons that did not exist in the organism before) must somehow come into existence. But not only that, these codons must also proove somehow beneficial, or at the least, benign in their effects on the cell. And remember. All of this has to occur by random mutations. Random mutations do not create additional base pairs and codons. All random mutations do is alter already existing base pairs. Much easier then creating new pairs. This is a hundred times more complicated then it seems, trust me on that. Take a few Microbiology and biology courses to see what Im talking about. You will go deep into the process of DNA replication and transcription.

Your argument is like saying that the creation of a new word in the English language is impossible without some special intervention...

Show me when a single english word, or actually any word ever, came about without some form of special intervention. Last time I checked, some form of intelligent modification was needed to form any kind of word, not just a new one.

but any "new" word is just a different arrangement (with repetition and with a variable length) of the 26 English letters. The meaning of individual combinations of letters changes over time -- words get discarded from lack of use, addtional words get created -- but the underlying set, the 26 letters that define what can be "implemented" in English, do not change. So, in what sense is any English word shockingly "new?"

Your analogy is severely flawed, as anyone knows some form of intelligence (in this case, humans) is needed to go about creating words out of the 26 english letters. How did the 26 letters come into being? Random chance? I doubt it. How did these words on this page come into being? Did I just sit here and randomly hit my keyboard over and over again until the right sequence came up so that you would be able to read my reply and understand what I am saying?

Your analogy actually argues for an intelligent cause to the arrangement of genetic information.

You did realize that, right?

 

[Do The Mario]

"
Do The Mario, although informative and although I can take out my high-school sophomore Biology book and read it myself, your post doesn't address the issue. To me your two posts are examples of a tactic known as "elephant hurling", hoping that by showing an overload of information (quantity) might be equated to validity (quality)

You should've addressed a vitally important issue; the origin of life through lifeless chemicals instead of focusing what happens after the fact. First address the issue that grants merit to the following issue (prove the pre-supposition being valid). If one doesn't do this, one would have to do some serious inductive work with the handy tool of Bayes's theorem.

The debate is about the theory of evolution not about the origins of life, and most of what I posted isn’t “sophomore biology” but some of it is.

You are changing the issue to suit your argument


But fuck do you want me to post information from 2nd and 3rd year biology university units that would fly right past people.

Once again

This thread is about the theory of evolution NOT the origins of life, I don’t know how the traces of life started but my post addressed the issue this thread is about unlike yours.

You must not have listen studied your biology book very carefully because the theory of evolution has NOTHING to do with the origins of life.
Can you understand the thread title????

What are your credentials?

You all already posted some grossly untrue facts about chordates!

They all have some from of Pharyngeal silts; they don’t have to be used for respiration.

Chordates without such features are NOT chordates; please name one chordate without pharyngeal silts.

What are your biological credentials? Because if I was you I would refrain from posting untrue scientific facts.

 

[Do The Mario]

Nobody, eh? I beg to disagree. You are a scientist, not a theologian. Stay in the area and make comments about what you know, not what you do not. Second, as a lay student of the Bible with ambitions for Seminary someday, I can easily talk about true Biblical faith if you'd like to get into a discussion. Just PM me as I do not want to skew this thread off topic too much.



Why should it have to provide any evidence for human evolution anyways? The Bible is not a biology text book, its a record of God's ivolvement with humanity over the ages. Dont listen to the fundamental creationists. Most of them simply do not know what they are talking about, both from a scientific perspective and an exegetical and hermeunatical perspective on Biblical interpretation. Read my previous posts, one of them has a link to an interpretation of Genesis 1. You might find it interesting.

The Bible is accurate in what it claims and records. That much has been demonstrated many times over. It has a solid record of accurate information. Thats why i believe what it says, not off of blind faith, but off what I call trust faith. You trust someone because they have proved reliable in the past. Hence, I trust the Bible because it has proved reliable in the past. You do the same for science.

The beginnings of Genesis has this point to make: God is responsible for all of creation. Science cannot prove or disprove that claim as it is untestable. Genesis never says how old the earth is, nor does it say exactly how God created life on this planet. All it does say is that God did create it, so I really cannot understand why all the conflict with science and religion. I actually think the two compliment each other very nicely.

Personally, I think each group's (naturalists and creationist's) specific definitions of each phenomenon (evolution and creation) are the things that are the root of all the conflicts between the two groups. If evolution is wholly true, partly true, or not true, that doesnt deny the existence of God or the accuracy of the Bible in any way.

I'd recommend to some readers here the book "The Genesis Question" by Hugh Ross. It's an interesting book that seeks to meld science into the Genesis account of creation, and I think he does a pretty good job with it all. Many people here might be surprised how close the Genesis account of creation is to what modern science has determined to have taken place in the past.

Did you not read my posts?

- I went to a catholic Primary School
- I went to a catholic High School

I have had my reconciliation, Communion, confirmation etc..

 

[Mejilan]

Thanks for the clarification Phoenix. I'm Jewish, but not devout. And it's irked me on and off throughout my earlier life to hear Rabbis claim that Hebrew was the original language of the Torah (Bible), but then to learn in school that Aramaic predated Hebrew, thus making it the original language of the Torah. What a headache.

That's interesting, what you posted there. I've only ever read it in Hebrew (though admittedly, not all of it.) Never bothered in English except occasionally as an idle curiosity during prayers when I was a kid.

 

[Link648099]

How do you know?

For all the verbal runaround, you STILL manage to come around to the point that your "reason" for believing the Bible to be "accurate" and "reliable" is FAITH. You don't present any evidence why your statement is true, or even bother to define what is meant by "accurate" and "reliable." Hell, how do you even know that your favorite translation of the Bible into English or whatever other language you prefer is valid?

::sigh::

In one of my previous posts, I told who ever i was talking to stick to science, and not theology, as he knows a lot about the former, and nothing about the latter. I say the same thing to you.

I personally like the original Koine Greek myself. I think it's fairly accurate, as the 5,000 or so ancient Greek manuscripts that we have in our possesion testify.

Concerning faith, do you not even read my posts? I guess not. Read them, understand it, and then get back to me. There is a vast difference between your understanding of the concept of faith, and the faith I am talking about. I explain it in a few of my posts. Read them, and then get back to me.

You want evidence? Define the kind of evidence you want, or what would be acceptable to you. Whether I can impress you or not is not my concern. You want instantaneious proof to satisfy whatever, but I'm telling you that this is no small topic. Understand that please. The resources are out there, and I would much rather recommend those to you so you can investigate it on your own then simply tell you what there is to know.

But, oh well, you decide what you want to do.

Either, talk about what you know, not what you do not.

 

[Dilbert]

No, no, no, NO. Intelligent design is bullshit, and you should know better than to equate what I'm saying to that. I also should have known better than to try to propose an analogy, since the first fucking thing everyone does with an analogy is to say, "Well, your analogy sucks!"

A "word" is nothing more than a grouping of letters pulled from the set of all permissible letters. If I had a random process by which I would generate groupings of letters (of length 1 to n), the outcome would be all kinds of "words," some of which would end up having meaning to you when you looked at the list, and others of which you would regard as gibberish. If I were supremely lucky, the outcome of my random process might even result in a sentence which made sense to the reader. However, concluding that the process must not be random because a "random" process resulted in something serendipitous is flat-out wrong.

The point of my analogy was supposed to be that known natural processes, however complicated they may be, CAN result in a new arrangement of nucleotides, which we call "genes." Some of those new arrangments will be "gibberish" (read as: "will not be selected for or will be fatal") and others will be "meaningful" (read as: "will be beneficial or benign enough to pass on"). Yeah, it's a bad analogy, yadda yadda yadda cough.

Still, the fact remains that just because a certain outcome is unlikely or is only possible through a complex set of steps, it does NOT mean that the outcome was determined by the intervention of some outside force. Intelligent design arguments ALWAYS fall back on some kind of underestimation of how "random" or "simple" rules can result in highly complex outcomes.

 

[Do The Mario]

::sigh::

In one of my previous posts, I told who ever i was talking to stick to science, and not theology, as he knows a lot about the former, and nothing about the latter. I say the same thing to you.

I personally like the original Koine Greek myself. I think it's fairly accurate, as the 5,000 or so ancient Greek manuscripts that we have in our possesion testify.

Concerning faith, do you not even read my posts? I guess not. Read them, understand it, and then get back to me. There is a vast difference between your understanding of the concept of faith, and the faith I am talking about. I explain it in a few of my posts. Read them, and then get back to me.

You want evidence? Define the kind of evidence you want, or what would be acceptable to you. Whether I can impress you or not is not my concern. You want instantaneious proof to satisfy whatever, but I'm telling you that this is no small topic. Understand that please. The resources are out there, and I would much rather recommend those to you so you can investigate it on your own then simply tell you what there is to know.

But, oh well, you decide what you want to do.

Either, talk about what you know, not what you do not.

I was the person you told to stick to science, go read my reply.
.

 

[Link648099]

I've always wondered. What really was the original languge of the bible. Hebrew or Aramaic? I haven't spoken to many historians or Rabbis in my time, but the historians I've spoken to say Aramaic, and the Rabbis say Hebrew.

As to translations, isn't the King James version a translation of a translation or a translation? Or something like that?

Much of the New Testament was writtin in Greek, although the Gospel of Matthew might have first been written in Aramaic and also Greek, with only the Greek surviving down to us today. A few of the early church fathers in the second century AD mention the Aramaic version.

The Old Testament, on the other hand, was probably a mixture of both Hebrew and Aramaic, to an extent. Hebrew probably being the main language used.

The King James version of the Bible was originally translated in 1611, and the scholars who did it used the best Greek and Hebrew manuscripts they had at the time, with various consulations with others, such as in Latin and Syrian, etc. Of course, we have much more ancient manuscripts to base our current translations off of, so we get more accurate translations now then what was actually available to the people who did the KJV. Personally, I prefer the New American Standard Bible as it's a very literal translation, or in other words, it seeks to preserve the grammatical and linguistic structure of the Greek and Hebrew as much as possible in it's transition over to english.

Of course, the best thing to do obviously is to read the Bible in the original languages. But, most people cant, and thats why it's good to have a pretty good translation on hand.

 

[Link648099]

I was the person you told to stick to science, go read my reply.
.

i know, just read it. Concerning your schooling, thats great, but have you taken it further then that when it comes to biblical studies? When I say biblical studies though, im not talking about "take this verse and see what it says" but more along the lines of the entire realm of biblical studies, not just the theological aspects of it.

Either way, it doesnt matter. You have some good posts here, very informative. I'm taking an Evolutionary Bio course this spring, so I hope to learn a lot about what you have posted in here about. Being a science major myself, I have a general understanding of most things, so I usually keep my posts general when it comes to what I dont fully know about. But, id consider myself more of a lay theologian then a scientist.

 

[Dilbert]

In one of my previous posts, I told who ever i was talking to stick to science, and not theology, as he knows a lot about the former, and nothing about the latter. I say the same thing to you.

Wow, that's a charming ad hominem. You'll be scanning in a copy of your degree in biology, right? And you know all about my educational background, right?

I personally like the original Koine Greek myself. I think it's fairly accurate, as the 5,000 or so ancient Greek manuscripts that we have in our possesion testify.

But WHY do you make the statement that you think it's accurate? You keep dodging a simple question.

Concerning faith, do you not even read my posts? I guess not. Read them, understand it, and then get back to me. There is a vast difference between your understanding of the concept of faith, and the faith I am talking about. I explain it in a few of my posts. Read them, and then get back to me.

No, I'm not going to play a stupid semantic game about the meaning of "true faith" versus "blind faith" versus whatever those two terms mean compared to the accepted dictionary definition of "faith." I'm sorry, but the truth doesn't have to hide between word games, and the fact that you want to redefine terms in a convenient way makes me highly suspicious.

You want evidence? Define the kind of evidence you want, or what would be acceptable to you.

Look, this is getting ridiculous. The Bible contains a lot of extraordinary claims, and I wouldn't even know where to start if I had to make a list of the stuff that I find incredible. I know for a FACT that a good chunk of Genesis is a nice little bit of hearsay, since man didn't even show up until Day 6. But, quite frankly, it's completely off the topic. This discussion is about evolution, and the reasons for believing or not believing in it. As you yourself point out, the Bible is NOT a biology textbook...and aside from God creating things up front (and meddling around in human affairs when he's bored, or whatever), it doesn't say a damn thing about God creating "new genetic material" to help the process of speciation. So, if you don't mind, I'd rather just get the Bible out of the conversation entirely.

 

[Link648099]

Wow, that's a charming ad hominem. You'll be scanning in a copy of your degree in biology, right? And you know all about my educational background, right?

Never claimed I had one, although im working on a bachelors in science, and I've taken a number of courses that concern what we have been talking about. So what is your educational background? Include everything related to science and theology please.

But WHY do you make the statement that you think it's accurate? You keep dodging a simple question.

I make the statement because they are accurate. You want numbers? Here: The New Testament Greek text is about 99.5% accurate, i.e. based off of the 5,000 Greek manuscripts (and some 20,000 others), as well as the 37,000 New Testament quotations of the early church fathers. This is hard evidence. It cannot be denied. The .5% of the NT that we are unsure of is pretty much inconsequential in it's affects. It's mainly attributed to misspellings, bad grammer, copyists mistakes, etc. and none of it even affects or changes any doctrines or teachings in the New Testament. The same can be said about the Old testament, cept then the number goes down to about 98.5% accurate.

If you dont accept those numbers, then you have to reject all other ancient works, such as those of Plato, Homer, Aristotle, Ceaser, Tacitus, and even some of William Shakespear's plays!!

No, I'm not going to play a stupid semantic game about the meaning of "true faith" versus "blind faith" versus whatever those two terms mean compared to the accepted dictionary definition of "faith." I'm sorry, but the truth doesn't have to hide between word games, and the fact that you want to redefine terms in a convenient way makes me highly suspicious.

Any philospher will tell you it is always wise to understand the meaning of a word in the context it is used in. If you cannot accept that basic premise, then anything i say further on the subject of Biblical faith is useless. But, i'll try. Think of biblical faith as trust. You trust someone because they have proved reliable in the past. At least, thats reasonable trust. Hence, thats biblical faith, a faith based on past events proving to be true. We can talk for a few hours on this topic alone, but would you even be interested?

Look, this is getting ridiculous. The Bible contains a lot of extraordinary claims, and I wouldn't even know where to start if I had to make a list of the stuff that I find incredible.

Give me your best one. My specialty is Christian apologetics and philosophy.

I know for a FACT that a good chunk of Genesis is a nice little bit of hearsay, since man didn't even show up until Day 6.

First mistake: Not being familair with the litererary structure of Genesis, as it solves this problem. It's divided into 11 segments, each one providing a basic historical narrative. I'm not going to get into the fullness of this topic, as it is quite large, but I will say this: Moses wrote (or at least compiled Genesis), and Moses spoke with God for 40 days up on Mount Sanai. Whos to say God did not reveal to Moses the creation "days"?

But, quite frankly, it's completely off the topic. This discussion is about evolution, and the reasons for believing or not believing in it. As you yourself point out, the Bible is NOT a biology textbook...and aside from God creating things up front (and meddling around in human affairs when he's bored, or whatever), it doesn't say a damn thing about God creating "new genetic material" to help the process of speciation. So, if you don't mind, I'd rather just get the Bible out of the conversation entirely.

Thats fine, but dont tell that to me. I simply responded to people's posts concerning the Bible.

 

[LakeEarth]

I make the statement because they are accurate. You want numbers? Here: The New Testament Greek text is about 99.5% accurate, i.e. based off of the 5,000 Greek manuscripts (and some 20,000 others), as well as the 37,000 New Testament quotations of the early church fathers. This is hard evidence. It cannot be denied. The .5% of the NT that we are unsure of is pretty much inconsequential in it's affects. It's mainly attributed to misspellings, bad grammer, copyists mistakes, etc. and none of it even affects or changes any doctrines or teachings in the New Testament. The same can be said about the Old testament, cept then the number goes down to about 98.5% accurate.

If you dont accept those numbers, then you have to reject all other ancient works, such as those of Plato, Homer, Aristotle, Ceaser, Tacitus, and even some of William Shakespear's plays!!

Hehe... I love it... "This is true" "Prove it" "Why it's true" "Give proof" "The proof is that I've heard that it is!" "Then how do you know it's true" "Cause I don't want it to be false, therefore it isn't"

 

[Saturnman]

If you dont accept those numbers, then you have to reject all other ancient works, such as those of Plato, Homer, Aristotle, Ceaser, Tacitus, and even some of William Shakespear's plays!!

None of those pretend to be the infallible word of God. That's the important difference.

 

[Phoenix]

One of the few things that concerns me about the literary record of the Bible itself and many other religious texts is that they spent many years being passed down verbally, especially when the Christians were being persecuted. Additionally there have been books/texts/etc that have not been incorporated into the bible for a variety of reasons. I put this up there with some of the contradictory scientific data in a variety of fields that gets dismissed, downplayed, and never really ridiculed even though it does follow the scientific method. Unfortunately things that vary from the 'truth' get pushed away until it becomes so apparent that it is the truth that it must be examined further and "science is the end of all things folks" - yes this happens within the scientific community the same as it happens in the "we know everything about the universe because of religion" folks.

 

[brooklyngooner]

I make the statement because they are accurate. You want numbers? Here: The New Testament Greek text is about 99.5% accurate, i.e. based off of the 5,000 Greek manuscripts (and some 20,000 others), as well as the 37,000 New Testament quotations of the early church fathers. This is hard evidence. It cannot be denied.

Unintentional comedy gold!

 

[Phoenix]

None of those pretend to be the infallible word of God. That's the important difference.

Here's the thing. Who tells you that the word of God is infallable?

 

[DaMan121]

Moses was not attributed to writting, nor compiling Genesis.. All passages were written anonymously, later (MUCH laterr) given names of the appostles. Moseis is merely a character in what is really, the 2000 year old equivalent to Lord of the Rings.

Edit:

One of the few things that concerns me about the literary record of the Bible itself and many other religious texts is that they spent many years being passed down verbally, especially when the Christians were being persecuted. Additionally there have been books/texts/etc that have not been incorporated into the bible for a variety of reasons.

Yep.. take a look around for the un-official accounts of Jesus et al, theres some weird shit!

 

[Saturnman]

Here's the thing. Who tells you that the word of God is infallable?

The Bible, of course.

 

[Phoenix]

The Bible, of course.

I must've missed that section, along with the one that says that God is omnipotent.

 

[DaMan121]

Most of the omni- labels that are attributed to god, are due to appologetics, trying to maintain the infallability of the bible... They back themselevs into a corner... then cry "FAITH!" when they have nowhere else to go.

Fact is that either evolution HAS/ IS occuring, or god / satan / allah / insert whatever here made it look that way..

 

[LakeEarth]

Fact is that either evolution HAS/ IS occuring, or god / satan / allah / insert whatever here made it look that way..

I think the choice is obvious.

HAIL SATAN!

 

[Saturnman]

I must've missed that section, along with the one that says that God is omnipotent.

You must have missed the created the whole universe part, God putting Job in his place for daring to question why he had to suffer so much and God laying out all the laws for humanity and telling people not to use their smarts (exclusively) to live their lives.

He clearly establishes an omnipotent, all-knowing God

 

[Phoenix]

Most of the omni- labels that are attributed to god, are due to appologetics, trying to maintain the infallability of the bible... They back themselevs into a corner... then cry "FAITH!" when they have nowhere else to go.

This is one of the bigger problems with much happening in religion - people making a lot of claims and interpretations that aren't even there to begin with.

Fact is that either evolution HAS/ IS occuring, or god / satan / allah / insert whatever here made it look that way..

Nope. As with most things I'm not sure that ANY answer to this question is that cut and dry. Nothing in life nor in science is that cut and dry, nor black and white.

 

[DaMan121]

Nope. As with most things I'm not sure that ANY answer to this question is that cut and dry. Nothing in life nor in science is that cut and dry, nor black and white.

Your right. The THEORY of gravity is only bout 99.999999% correct, along with evolution, thermodynamics etc. Science will never by 100% true... but hey, we keep using it... and theists will keep mocking it will enjoying their big screen tvs, medical advances, computers, etc

 

[Phoenix]

You must have missed the created the whole universe part, God putting Job in his place for daring to question why he had to suffer so much and God laying out all the laws for humanity and telling people not to use their smarts (exclusively) to live their lives.

He clearly establishes an omnipotent, all-knowing God

Not a single thing you said implies omnipotence. Omnipotence is a claim that has not been made in the bible. Being powerful beyond our comprehension is not the same as all powerful, nor all-knowing.

 

[Phoenix]

Your right. The THEORY of gravity is only bout 99.999999% correct, along with evolution, thermodynamics etc. Science will never by 100% true... but hey, we keep using it... and theists will keep mocking it will enjoying their big screen tvs, medical advances, computers, etc

Actually its not even that correct. As soon as you get to very small objects, you get to a new physics altogether that is incompatible. People have been trying to come up with a unified view of forces for many many years in order to unify the fact that physics for the very small and the very large are in fact, very different Its not like science and the universe itself is not without its contradictions.

 

[LakeEarth]

Your right. The THEORY of gravity is only bout 99.999999% correct, along with evolution, thermodynamics etc. Science will never by 100% true... but hey, we keep using it... and theists will keep mocking it will enjoying their big screen tvs, medical advances, computers, etc

You offically know crap. Thanks for coming out.

 

[DaMan121]

Well yeah, empirical evidence might not win you many philosophical debates, but in the real world it works.

 

[DaMan121]

You offically know crap. Thanks for coming out.

What part is crap?

 

[Saturnman]

You seem to be debating just for the sake of debating again. If you create something out of nothing, establishing everything and all the rules, you are omnipotent. You have your fingers on all possible strings. This is not beyond comprehension. How he did it might be, but the ramifications of it all is not.

Christian doctrine furthers the argument that God is all knowing with the end of times and how all people, whether dead or alive, are going to be judged for their actions/heart.

 

[Phoenix]

Well yeah, empirical evidence might not win you many philosophical debates, but in the real world it works.

Don't know much about advanced physics I take it. What we are talking about here is science, not philosophy. So I too will have to add in my "thanks for playing"

 

[Phoenix]

You seem to be debating just for the sake of debating again. If you create something out of nothing, establishing everything and all the rules, you are omnipotent. You have your fingers on all possible strings. This is not beyond comprehension. How he did it might be, but the ramifications of it all is not.

I don't even know how to begin addressing that. You can assume that if you like, but I'll stick to what's been said and claimed in the actual document.

Christian doctrine furthers the argument that God is all knowing with the end of times and how all people, whether dead or alive, are going to be judged for their actions/heart.

Ah finally you get to the heart of the matter.

 

[Saturnman]

You... do that.

 

[DaMan121]

Don't know much about advanced physics I take it. What we are talking about here is science, not philosophy. So I too will have to add in my "thanks for playing"

Well, not too much.. Reading about quantum mechanics etc though... thanks for humouring me

You seem to be debating just for the sake of debating again. If you create something out of nothing, establishing everything and all the rules, you are omnipotent.

He.. can do EVERYTHING!!... except... be around sin, or commit sin... or.. defeat an army with iron chariots!

 

[Phoenix]

You... do that.

I mean if you can show me how that shows that there are no limits (omnipotence requires continual at all times unlimited power) at all to God's abilities I'd be happy to debate it. If God is all knowing and all powerful, then what are we - just a joke to pass the time?

 

[Drinky Crow]

I don't "believe" in evolution, but I sure as hell consider it to be the most plausible theory of the lot.

 

[Saturnman]

I mean if you can show me how that shows that there are no limits (omnipotence requires continual at all times unlimited power) at all to God's abilities I'd be happy to debate it. If God is all knowing and all powerful, then what are we - just a joke to pass the time?

Then you get in the philosophical argument more than the theology. The place of humanity or the reason for creation is a completely different debate and it is not something actually discussed in the scriptures.

God's omnipotence is established through creation of absolutely everything and indirectly in comparison to other mythologies (in the Old Testament, God is competing with a variety of pagan gods) as he is one all powerful god as opposed to a pantheon of deities with different powers.

 

[Phoenix]

God's omnipotence is established through creation of absolutely everything and indirectly in comparison to other mythologies (in the Old Testament, God is competing with a variety of pagan gods) as he is one all powerful god as opposed to a pantheon of deities with different powers.

But if God is omnipotent, why would he require man in order to do his will? Something about an all powerful being using a lesser being to make things happen just doesn't make any sense.


Note I could go along this line of reason for a while. If God is all-knowing, then he knew that his creation would betray him and that it would be banished from the garden of eden and incur sin. Then he would send prophets and his son (christianity) to bring us back on the way of righteousness? Sorry, don't buyt that. It just doesn't make any sense... unless we're just like a game of the Sims.

 

[DaMan121]

God's omnipotence is established through creation of absolutely everything and indirectly in comparison to other mythologies (in the Old Testament, God is competing with a variety of pagan gods) as he is one all powerful god as opposed to a pantheon of deities with different powers.

Yet in that very same book that makes these claims, he never battles these gods Godzilla vs Mothra style... Instead, he gets his followers to rape and murder entire cities ... genocide much?

Ok.. time for some humour... IDers want transitional forms??? HERE http://www.olympictrans.ru/fun/img/uglyZoo/