[poquas]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

poquas poquas:

The only factual information in the bible are names of places, and references to people or events that are confirmed to have existed or occurred by other historical references.

So you're saying that the Bible, in addition to being a religious book, is also a historical document whose veracity on selected issues is confirmed as accurate and valid by other contemporary sources?

I've been saying this all along here.

Not quite.

I don't believe anything in the bible. The fact the writer includes the name of a real place is not a historical fact.

You, on the other hand, use the bible as a basis of faith and believe the various stories to support that faith. Someone using Alice in Wonderland as a basis for a religion would be as relevant to me.

[fifeboy]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

There are mosquitoes...therefore God does not exist.

Mosquitoes are proof that socialists exist in the firmament of the universe.

They're blood sucking parasites who serve no useful purpose other than to buzz around and irritate the productive individuals they depend on for their very survival.

There is PluggyRug, therefore Moderators do not exist

[BartSimpson]

poquas poquas:

Much like the virgin birth and Jesus is connected to the Egyptian myth of Horus and was co-opted by the break-away sect of Jews to justify the arrival of a messiah.

You're cute with your little ideas about Christianity and Judaic prophesy.

[BartSimpson]

poquas poquas:

The fact the writer includes the name of a real place is not a historical fact.

It is a fact and you just said so yourself.

poquas poquas:

You, on the other hand, use the bible as a basis of faith and believe the various stories to support that faith.

Now you're making unfounded assumptions about the source and cause of my faith. The Bible is not at all the source or cause of my faith. In one of the 20,000+ posts I have on this site I once elaborated on this and I'll leave it to you to find the correct citation or to remain silent on this topic as you do not know what you're talking about.

poquas poquas:

Someone using Alice in Wonderland as a basis for a religion would be as relevant to me.

To myself, as well, given that Charles Dodgson noted in interviews that much of the framework of the tale was drawn from Biblical references and from Dante's Inferno.

[poquas]

Great! So let’s settle this.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

poquas poquas:

The fact the writer includes the name of a real place is not a historical fact.

It is a fact and you just said so yourself.

San Francisco. God never existed. Real place so the rest must be true too.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

poquas poquas:

You, on the other hand, use the bible as a basis of faith and believe the various stories to support that faith.

Now you're making unfounded assumptions about the source and cause of my faith. The Bible is not at all the source or cause of my faith. In one of the 20,000+ posts I have on this site I once elaborated on this and I'll leave it to you to find the correct citation or to remain silent on this topic as you do not know what you're talking about.

You claim to be Christian and you claim the bible is factual. I see my mistake. You’re an Islamic terrorist following the teachings of Buddha.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

poquas poquas:

Someone using Alice in Wonderland as a basis for a religion would be as relevant to me.

To myself, as well, given that Charles Dodgson noted in interviews that much of the framework of the tale was drawn from Biblical references and from Dante's Inferno.

Seriously? That was really over your head?

[DerbyX]

I rather use the Kama Sutra as a religious text!

[KorbenDeck]

andyt andyt:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

gonavy47 gonavy47:

Fairey tale.

More likely it was based in fact. Robert Ballard found inundated villages about 100 meters down in the Black Sea indicating a catastrophic flood some 7,500 years ago when the Mediterranean overflowed the Bosporous. To the locals on the gound it would have appeared that the "whole world" was flooding and thus the story.

How does this incident explain the Aboriginal myth that Public Animal referred to, or the Asian or American versions?

Floods aren't limited to one part of the world?

[PublicAnimalNo9]

sandorski sandorski:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

sandorski sandorski:

Certain parts of the Bible are certainly Historic. The Old Testament is like a "Best of" of Ancient Israeli Literature and Historic records. The Literature ranges from Art to Folklore. The Historic ranges from Events to Family Trees to the Law. People, Religious people mostly, tend to confuse the differences.

Joshua blew Trumpets and the Walls fell? BS. The Walls may have fallen, but the Trumpets were not the cause. Miracles do not happen, end of discussion.

Maybe you should go back and re-read that part before you make comments that show off your incredibly limited comprehension skills.

What did I miss?

*sigh*

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Then scientists determined that an earthquake had hit the region around the time of Joshua.

Although the trumpets may have been blown, it's pretty apparent that it was the EARTHQUAKE that was responsible. The miracle wasn't the trumpets blowing the walls down. The miracle was the timing of the event and Joshua somehow knowing just when to lay siege to Jericho.

[andyt]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

The miracle was the timing of the event and Joshua somehow knowing just when to lay siege to Jericho.

Or he just lucked out, and after 10,000 years the story got changed a mite or two, and now it's a miracle.

The problem with creationism is that it tries to take on Science on Science's own, objective ground, yet all creationism can do is find fault with evolution. If offers no objective evidence of it's own.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

andyt andyt:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

The miracle was the timing of the event and Joshua somehow knowing just when to lay siege to Jericho.

Or he just lucked out, and after 10,000 years the story got changed a mite or two, and now it's a miracle.

The problem with creationism is that it tries to take on Science on Science's own, objective ground, yet all creationism can do is find fault with evolution. If offers no objective evidence of it's own.

Well, it seems to me that certain branches of science have lost their objectivity, so it's not something that is exclusive to religion.
So far, the only real evidence I've seen of evolution is in the simple act of adapting to an environment, which requires NO new genetic material or information.
I've heard evolutionists that are so fanatical in their belief about the origin of life that it elevates them to the same plane as religious fundies.
Do not DARE doubt them or question what they believe. And yet, the origin of life is being taught as fact in schools when even honest, secular scientists will still tell you that the origin of life is STILL an axiom and nowhere near understood.
Even the more recent AGW scam/scandal/whatever you wanna call it is a great example of someone doing their science to fit an agenda, instead of for the pure science. Is it common practice in science to cook data to support one's belief?
Is there an agenda among evolutionists because they just can't conceive of a God or some Super Natural entity, so evolution is nothing more than a "logical" response to Creation?
And how many scientists today have their paycheques come from the study of evolution? It gets hard to debunk something that's paying your way through life.
That's why I respect the scientists that still believe in evolution but aren't afraid to admit that a LOT of what's being taught today doesn't really have enough empirical data backing it up to actually be taught in schools.
If you want to see what I mean, check out as many sites as you can about Dr. Hubert Yockey. He is well published in many peer reviewed books, journals and papers.

$1:

What should be taught in science classes is why the origin of life is one of science’s unsolvable problems. Information theory and coding theory show why life could not originate proteins first, RNA first, in a pond or ocean, on a rock or on other planets. Life originated, but must be taken as an axiom [something we know to be true, but cannot prove]. For a more detailed explanation, contact Dr. Yockey.

The problem in the origin of life that science is unable to solve is to explain how information began to govern chemical reactions through the means of a code.

One of the reasons that science has not correctly addressed how to solve the problem of the origin of life-and accepted more widely that it is unsolvable-is that it has lacked a definition of the distinction between living and non-living matter.

Dr. Yockey is the first scientist to define the distinction between living and non-living matter, which he does as follows:

“The existence of the genome and the genetic code divides living organisms from non-living matter. There is nothing in the non-living physico-chemical world that remotely resembles the reactions that are determined by a sequence (i.e., the genome) and codes between sequences (i.e., the genetic code) that occur in living matter.”

[andyt]

The quote discusses the origin of life. When I was taught evolution, the origin of life was not what was discussed. Sure I was taught about Miller's experiments etc, but evolution concerns itself with what happens after life has begun.

So let me turn tables. There seem to be two types of creationists. The ones that see God literally making all life fully formed, and the ones who say he just got the ball rolling.

If the first, we know that humans have been only around 70,000 years - did a big hand come from the sky and deposit Adam and Eve in Eden? And did they really commit incest to further populate the earth? There are other species that are also deemed to be no older than humans - God drop them off too? And any new species we find - it's always been there, we just didn't see it before?

For the second, if God got the ball rolling, but now evolution functions to changes species. Well great, you're an evolutionist who chooses to use a mythical story for the beginning of life. You certainly have no more evidence for your theory than the life out of inanimate matter people.

But Bart for instance seems to want it both ways. He says he believes in evolution, but not of the eye. So that means sometimes species develop by purely materialist ways, other times a hand comes down and plops off a species that's got this fully formed eye that can't evolve. That's a real mishmash of belief.

So, what's your theory, Public? It's easy to just snipe at other's ideas, but how do you think we got the incredible variety of species we have on this planet?

[BartSimpson]

poquas poquas:

You claim to be Christian and you claim the bible is factual.

I claim to be Christian, true. Where have I claimed that the Bible is factual?

Seriously, you need to get past your biases and start actually READING what I write and stop claiming I've said things I haven't.

Just because I say I'm a Christian does not mean I fit every bigoted stereotype you've ever heard of Christians.

[poquas]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

poquas poquas:

You claim to be Christian and you claim the bible is factual.

I claim to be Christian, true. Where have I claimed that the Bible is factual?

Seriously, you need to get past your biases and start actually READING what I write and stop claiming I've said things I haven't.

Just because I say I'm a Christian does not mean I fit every bigoted stereotype you've ever heard of Christians.

BartSimpson from page 1 BartSimpson from page 1:

The Bible is an historical document......

This is where we started on page one. An historical document is a document that states facts about a place, people, or an event.

You may wish to weasel out of this any way you wish, but that statement and subsequent statements proclaiming your faith in “Christianity” to all puts you squarely in that stereotype you insist that you are not. Maybe you aren’t as comfortable with your beliefs as you claim to be. Don’t feel bad though. That simply puts you in with the majority of “fair weather believers”.

[Dayseed]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

This then begs the question, why do we even have a conscience? If we are just an accident of nature, why would we need an internal alarm to tell us what we're doing is wrong? Why are we the only species that instinctively knows what we're doing is wrong, WHILE we do it? Can't blame it on religion, because non-religious peole feel guilt and remorse as well.

Very simple. Those persons that act with a conscience are naturally more inclined to behave in a manner consistent with the tribal behaviour. Most things that I would presume you would label as "moral" are things such as murder, theft, lying, cheating, hurting, hoarding, rape and pillaging. All of these things bear a common theme; they advance the individual at the expense of the group.

It's no secret there's safety in numbers. More food is provided to and by the tribe, mutual defence is better assured and there's plenty o' women at the buffet o' boffin'. So, those persons who more conform to the tribe are selected for and those who rail against it are cast out where they can huff it on their own, limiting their chance of survival.

After thousands of millions of generations, it's no real mystery at all that this sense of "tribe first" has manifested itself or emerged as what we now label as a "conscience".

Wow, another win for evolution!

[Dayseed]

$1:

The problem with creationism is that it tries to take on Science on Science's own, objective ground, yet all creationism can do is find fault with evolution. If offers no objective evidence of it's own.
Well, it seems to me that certain branches of science have lost their objectivity, so it's not something that is exclusive to religion.
So far, the only real evidence I've seen of evolution is in the simple act of adapting to an environment, which requires NO new genetic material or information.
I've heard evolutionists that are so fanatical in their belief about the origin of life that it elevates them to the same plane as religious fundies.
Do not DARE doubt them or question what they believe. And yet, the origin of life is being taught as fact in schools when even honest, secular scientists will still tell you that the origin of life is STILL an axiom and nowhere near understood.
Even the more recent AGW scam/scandal/whatever you wanna call it is a great example of someone doing their science to fit an agenda, instead of for the pure science. Is it common practice in science to cook data to support one's belief?
Is there an agenda among evolutionists because they just can't conceive of a God or some Super Natural entity, so evolution is nothing more than a "logical" response to Creation?
And how many scientists today have their paycheques come from the study of evolution? It gets hard to debunk something that's paying your way through life.
That's why I respect the scientists that still believe in evolution but aren't afraid to admit that a LOT of what's being taught today doesn't really have enough empirical data backing it up to actually be taught in schools.
If you want to see what I mean, check out as many sites as you can about Dr. Hubert Yockey. He is well published in many peer reviewed books, journals and papers.

Your above statement is pitiable nonsense. The data supporting evolution is abundant, clear and available for anybody to look at if they simply care to go to a museum. Dr Richard Lenski et al's experiment on the long-term evolution of E. Coli is pretty much the death knell for your nonsense. Oh, and it DOES include a two-stage introduction of new information to the genome allowing for the movement of citrate across the bacterial membrane thus "evolving" the bacterium in a brand new direction.

There are no "secular scientists" that are skeptical of evolution; provided that they're at least biologists.

Your "agenda" is nothing more than the definition of science itself; natural explanations for observed phenomena that can be measured, tested and are falsifiable. Supernatural explanations are none of those. Therefore, they are excluded from even hitting the hypothesis stage.

If you want to sit with your head in the sand and say "Goddidit" for everything, then you may as well conclude with discovery at all.

Good luck with that!

Any more things about evolution that boggle your noodle, let me know, I'm here all day. Tip your waitress and try the veal.