The Bible is 100% true and to be read literally

[ceo_esq]

In the context of my point, it was specifically geared not toward those that totally recant, but modify their theories as more study on their field progresses. I would venture to guess that more scientists modify their theories on their fields as study as a group progresses than do theologians.

Not that I have numbers to back it up. The point was those who dictate religious tenant claim infallability without review. Science welcomes review and "being wrong" to further understanding.

Theology has some traits in common with just about any non-empirical field, I think. If your field of inquiry is one where it's relatively feasible to carry out experiments that will yield objective information about the subject-matter, you have the luxury of being able to confidently and frequently modify your theories. I'd agree that probably scientists modify their theories about their fields more rapidly and often than do theologians, but I'm not sure what conclusions we should draw from that fact.

In more metaphysical areas of inquiry, most of the time we can't tell for sure when someone ought to admit error (except, perhaps, where the error is one of formal logic).

 

[Ducky]

Theology has some traits in common with just about any non-empirical field, I think. If your field of inquiry is one where it's relatively feasible to carry out experiments that will yield objective information about the subject-matter, you have the luxury of being able to confidently and frequently modify your theories. I'd agree that probably scientists modify their theories about their fields more rapidly and often than do theologians, but I'm not sure what conclusions we should draw from that fact.

2Life's original point that scientists being wrong is a detriment. In that sense, I have shown why that is a fact that bears pertinence to gaining knowledge, and pointed out that his ideas about science and religious authority are diametrically opposed. In the context of what he was trying to argue, it was pertinent to draw said conclusion.

In more metaphysical areas of inquiry, most of the time we can't tell for sure when someone ought to admit error (except, perhaps, where the error is one of formal logic).

Which is another detriment when attempting to ascertain scientific fact about the history of the world through religious doctorine.

 

[The Atheist]

There is a great book about the Grand Canyon that I am sure the skeptics among us are familiar with. (Yes i am a skeptic of evolution) Anyway, this is a great source for the evidence of a global flood as described in the Bible, and it includes photos of the straight lines between strata that are supposedly millions of years separate in age. Other observations of the physical features of the Canyon indicate global flood conditions. Check it out if you get a chance! It's great for answering questions about geologic evidence for accuracy of the Bible regarding the global flood account.

The book is Grand Canyon a different view by Tom Vail

Thanks for all that, 2LifeGuy.

I've been on a voyage of discovery as I move closer and closer to christianity and your evidence has conviced me of the bible's accuracy. The Flood clearly happened, and accordingly, the bible must be true.

As you're such an excellent analyst of the bible, could you please just let me have your opinion on the following:

Did all the creatures which weren't on the ark evolve after the flood or did god create new ones thereafter? It's quite plain, from measurements given in the bible, that there wasn't anywhere near sufficient room for all animals alive today.

As we are all descendants of Noah and his wife, and share the same DNA, the only possibility of god's creation of black-skinned people is that Ham and his descendants were destined to become these people. Do you subscribe to that? If not, where do the genetic differences between races come from?

 

[ceo_esq]

2Life's original point that scientists being wrong is a detriment. In that sense, I have shown why that is a fact that bears pertinence to gaining knowledge, and pointed out that his ideas about science and religious authority are diametrically opposed. In the context of what he was trying to argue, it was pertinent to draw said conclusion.

Understood.

Which is another detriment when attempting to ascertain scientific fact about the history of the world through religious doctorine.

I agree. Where empirical evidence is (or was in the past) not forthcoming for one reason or another, it's at least understandable that someone might try to infer a working hypothesis from philosophy or theology. It's sticking with that idea after contrary and convincing empirical evidence becomes available that seems strange to us. In that limited respect, fundies arguably have more in common with, say, Aristotle than with traditional Christianity.

 

[Ducky]

Understood.





I agree. Where empirical evidence is (or was in the past) not forthcoming for one reason or another, it's at least understandable that someone might try to infer a working hypothesis from philosophy or theology. It's sticking with that idea after contrary and convincing empirical evidence becomes available that seems strange to us. In that limited respect, fundies arguably have more in common with, say, Aristotle than with traditional Christianity.

ceo, I believe the world will end now that we've agreed on something.



Cheers, sir.


ETA:

And thank you for helping me clarify my original clunky point. I shoudl learn to write better.




(typos left in for amusement.)

 

[Ipecac]

I don't mean to sound condescending but this really is like arguing with a child. 2LifeGuy apparently knows nothing about science (especially geology) and critical thinking and just keeps spouting out nonsense. Some people just don't want to grow up and face the real world. I pity them.

 

[Skeptic Guy]

I've not seen any peer reviewed material from him or from San Diego Christian College or its offshoot the Institute for Creation Research.

Perhaps this is why in 2006 the Western Association of Schools and Colleges yanked its accreditation.

From that:




Now 2Life, do you have any credible academics to support your position? Because if you're quoting people with a PHD from those institutes, then you're not helping your credibility.

Perhaps this explains "Dr." Gish's profound misunderstanding of evolution as described in Eugenie Scott's excellent book, Evolution Vs. Creationism. Gish argues that the mathematics of probability would make it impossible for life to develop from nonlife without any help. Of course, this is based on the flawed premise that the long strands of DNA and RNA were assembled as whole from the very beginning and not over time from shorter chains of nucleotides. As Ms. Scott writes, "Indeed, many of the molecules found in living things bear evidence of having evolved in exactly this way".

The reason I go into this in such detail, is to point out that just because someone has a PhD (legitimately or not) doesn't mean that he has a corner on rational thought.

 

[Ladewig]

Except that the Romans, who with the Egyptians loved record keeping, don't actually have any record of this....

Matthew 27

50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. 51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom, and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; 52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, 53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared to many.

The Roman also seem to have forgotten to write down that zombies walked the streets of one of the largest cities in the ancient world.

 

[Skeptic Guy]

Matthew 27


The Roman also seem to have forgotten to write down that zombies walked the streets of one of the largest cities in the ancient world.

That's because George Romero wasn't around yet to document it.

 

[Belz...]

And how many times have thousands of scientists over the last 150 years been wrong? I've lost track.

Me too. But that's the beauty of science. The ability to admit your mistakes and learn from them.

Also it is misleading to say that magic and the Bible are somehow connected.

The Egyptian priests turned their sticks into snakes.

 

[Paulhoff]

A paraphrase of Richard Dawkins

It is amazing that religious people have a big problem with understanding that things can develop over billions of years in very small steps. But it absolutely no problem for them to believe that a so-called all-power and all-knowing super complex being can just jump right into exist all at once.

Paul

 

[Belz...]

Ans. The same number who decided to disbelieve that "by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:"

FS: The Bible is God reaching out to us.

What about the Qu'Ran ?

There is so much historical evidence of the Bible even surrounding the birth of Christ.

Not a single historian can say for sure that Jesus even existed. So much for your evidence.

Also, don't you find that amazing? Goat-herders writing the Bible? Seems to indicate divine inspiration

Non sequitur.

The Bible really is God's Word!

"No, really guys. Come on!"

While skepticism is good, it is also good when a skeptic like me finally finds a few answers. I still say the Bible is 100% accurate as written.

So skepticism is good, but not about the bible ? Sorry nothing should be immune to skepticism.

 

[Belz...]

Evidence 1... Ceasar Augustus was an actual figure at the time reported... this at least is not a myth based on the evidence, of which I only note the smallest bit.

So... because the bibble mentions a historical character, it is automatically authentic and reliable ?

It's a good thing you don't built bridges.

Freethinker, please see my last post of the day...and may you truly be free, as we all wish to be!

Appeal to emotions.

 

[Belz...]

So she rewrote it and what was she up to?
What was her agenda?
She may have been a sheepherder too.
Was she a pesdo-skeptic or a believer?
H.A. Lorentz may have been even smarter than Einstein..

Seriously, I'm wondering what "agenda" people like you think scientists and skeptics have. Devil-worship, maybe ?

 

[Ducky]

So... because the bibble mentions a historical character, it is automatically authentic and reliable ?

It's a good thing you don't built bridges.



Appeal to emotions.

By his logic Paul Bunyan is real. I have yet to hear him tell me why Paul Bunyan is fake and Jesus is real by his logic.

 

[cyborg]

By his logic so is Spiderman.

 

[Ducky]

By his logic so is Spiderman.

Or the Peanuts characters. There's statues of them all around the Twin Cities.

 

[Mr Clingford]

[The Bible was] then purposely "edited" by politically motivated clergy during "translation" hundreds of years later.

What leads you to state this? I am curious.

 

[fuelair]

Except that the Romans, who with the Egyptians loved record keeping, don't actually have any record of this....

There's lots of fiction and mythology that incorporates the odd historical figure to add authenticity...

Jack Finney, Thomas Berger, Sam Clemens just to name a very few.

 

[Ossai]

2LifeGuy
Let me mention one big piece of evidence that will throw into doubt everything you’ve mentioned: The White Cliffs of Dover.

1. There should be no living tree older than 5000 years.

Ever hear of Dendrochronology? From the site linked “The bristlecone pine chronology in the White Mountains currently extends back almost 9,000 years continuously.”

3. There should be no coral reef older than 5000 years.

Considering neither trees nor coral live that long, as a general rule, wouldn’t it be a major exception to find either of those?

2. There should be no current dessert over 5000 years old.

I think you mean desert and not the usually sweet course or dish, as of fruit, ice cream, or pastry, served at the end of a meal. Now with that out of the way, I’ve got a desert over 5,000 years old and still going strong, Antarctica. If you don’t like that answer how about the Namib desert.

4. We should be able to observe evidence of entire jungles under sedimentary rock
5. We should be able to find seashells at the tops of any ancient mountain

Actually this would disprove a rapid flood and recession of water. The time and conditions required for permineralization would not be found on top of a mountain. Those tops of mountains you are probably referencing were once bottoms of seas.

6. We should find not one or two scattered fossils, but entire swaths of fossilized creatures
7. Since trees often sink in a vertical position we should be able to find thousands of petrified trees standing straight up in the (supposed ancient) sedimentary layers that would settle during flood conditions.
8. We should be able to find evidence of sedementary layers spanning whole continents.

Got any?

9. We should be able to find fossilized "fragile or soft tissues" of animals including even fragile eggs and jellyfish.

Go here for a brief rundown of permineralization.

I don't think there are any flaws in "real" science. I do think there are plenty of flaws in evolution. There are no missing links, though... for that you would have to have a chain. In evolution, the whole chain is missing!

Your ignorance is quiet apparent. Go here or here for a quick rundown of evolution.

There is so much historical evidence of the Bible even surrounding the birth of Christ. But if you heard it, would you be willing to reconsider?

Present the evidence, if it exists. (I won't hold my breath.)

Ossai