Contridictions in the Bible

[Hitsumei]

The Philistines find their home in oral history and story, that is what we know about them, and the scant archeological evidence by no means establishes their antagonistic place in Hebrew legend. Exodus is recorded in oral history, only we are lucky enough to have the Egyptian contemporaneous accounts of those events, and we know that it didn't take place. They have tied to name of a particular Mediterranean tribe to the Israelites, who slowly moved to the Nile as a result of famine over the run of a millennium. There is no record of their being enslaved, or any of the events of exodus taking place.

Oral tradition is not trustworthy for accuracy, and within groups that use oral tradition, accuracy is not even expected. The Philistines are quite loosely tied with the "sea people", a group of seafaring raiders that were conveniently in the area, and causing trouble around the time the stories date to. Again, the Egpytians, the only group to have had a written language at the time, never referred to them as "Philistines", but referred to them as "the foreign-countries (or 'peoples') of the sea".

The region "Philistia" is again, merely called that by the Hebrews through their oral tradition, and was an area occupied by the Canaanites.

I don't discount that oral history is surely based on something that mildly, or vaguely resembles the stories, but I think that saying that the Philistine's existed based on what we know about ancient history all because they could correspond to some group, is like saying that Zeus existed because he could have been based on some warrior or king.

[Man-ofGod]

Does not matter, scientific method or no scientific method, with the instruments at the time, flat world is all that made sense based on observable evidence.

That's false, it is trivial to prove that the world is a sphere, and could have been done at any point in history, and was done nearly two thousand years before Columbus, as I explained.

That the world is flat is merely intuitive, and is the conclusion people that never actually looked into it reached, and like the vast majority of intuitive guesses made about reality, was wrong.

OK, I said I'd stay out of this, but now I'm finding this turning in the direction of either trolling, or a complete prank. The other alternative is that Maofgod is serious. That is the hardest to believe of the three, especially in light of the blatant historical lies in the posts regarding Columbus, round vs. Flat Earth, and then saying "it doesn't matter" when shown to be in error (among several others).


No offense, but your response was way out of line mod.  If I am wrong, their is a way to go about it.  As it so happens, you missed the real point.  My point is that we are in the science of the day.  I recant that science did not believe the world to be round back in the day.  But they did not know for sure if it was not flat. Some people "believed" it to be round (based on some evidence perhaps?), some did not , but not until Columbus sailed the seas did they know for sure.  There was no observable evidence that people could look at to conclusively tell that the earth was round.  All they saw was a horizon.  Some hypothesized, obviously Columbus had to hypothesize before he ventured out to actually prove it.

If science knew everything from beginning to end, then they would be no science, do you not admit that yourself?

[McQ]

No offense, but your response was way out of line mod.  If I am wrong, their is a way to go about it.  As it so happens, you missed the real point.  My point is that we are in the science of the day.  I recant that science did not believe the world to be round back in the day.  But they did not know for sure if it was not flat. Some people "believed" it to be round (based on some evidence perhaps?), some did not , but not until Columbus sailed the seas did they know for sure.  There was no observable evidence that people could look at to conclusively tell that the earth was round.  All they saw was a horizon.  Some hypothesized, obviously Columbus had to hypothesize before he ventured out to actually prove it.

If science knew everything from beginning to end, then they would be no science, do you not admit that yourself?

Man-of-god, first, use the quotes feature correctly. Second, I took no offense to your post just now, but will disagree that I was in any way out of line. You were not only demonstrably wrong, but also perpetuating what you must know to be wrong, or are just too lazy to look up. How many times do you need to be told the Columbus did not discover that the world is round?

I repeat my assertion: You must either be trolling, pranking, or serious. If you are serious, then you need an education in history and science. If one of the first two, then your time on this forum will be short lived.

As for missing your point, I just re-read it in your response above. I must be missing at least some point you're making, but it's hard to tell, since you haven't actually explained whatever your point is. And your final question makes no sense whatsoever. Science does not now or ever claim to know everything from beginning to end.

Do some homework, and don't waste other peoples' time with things that you could have looked up on Google for yourself.

[curiosityandthecat]

Where is the facepalm smiley?  

[McQ]

Where is the facepalm smiley?  

No kidding. We have got to get one of those.

[Man-ofGod]

No offense, but your response was way out of line mod.  If I am wrong, their is a way to go about it.  As it so happens, you missed the real point.  My point is that we are in the science of the day.  I recant that science did not believe the world to be round back in the day.  But they did not know for sure if it was not flat. Some people "believed" it to be round (based on some evidence perhaps?), some did not , but not until Columbus sailed the seas did they know for sure.  There was no observable evidence that people could look at to conclusively tell that the earth was round.  All they saw was a horizon.  Some hypothesized, obviously Columbus had to hypothesize before he ventured out to actually prove it.

If science knew everything from beginning to end, then they would be no science, do you not admit that yourself?

Man-of-god, first, use the quotes feature correctly. Second, I took no offense to your post just now, but will disagree that I was in any way out of line. You were not only demonstrably wrong, but also perpetuating what you must know to be wrong, or are just too lazy to look up. How many times do you need to be told the Columbus did not discover that the world is round?

I repeat my assertion: You must either be trolling, pranking, or serious. If you are serious, then you need an education in history and science. If one of the first two, then your time on this forum will be short lived.

As for missing your point, I just re-read it in your response above. I must be missing at least some point you're making, but it's hard to tell, since you haven't actually explained whatever your point is. And your final question makes no sense whatsoever. Science does not now or ever claim to know everything from beginning to end.

Do some homework, and don't waste other peoples' time with things that you could have looked up on Google for yourself.

Fair enough.  I am not explaining clearly. First let me clarify the facts,  Magellan verified the world was round. Eratosthenes measured the radius 1700 BC.  Before Magellan though, people still was not positive that you could not fall off the "edge."  Sounds silly in hind site, in their time it made perfect sense.  Magellans journey was still very much a necessity, not just for the laymen, but for science in general.  It provided the conclusive evidence needed.

My point is that we did not know everything then, and we do not know everything now.  We only know, what we know.  Its unscientific to conclude that evolution is fact, or that the Bible is fiction.  Evolution takes faith too you know, unless someone has observed a species evolving into a separate species?  Did you know that evolution uses more catastrophic events to explain its theory that of the entire Bible?  Evolution needs as much faith, if not more then that of the Bible.  When your indoctrinated though, it becomes second nature.

[Recusant]

Evolution takes faith too you know, unless someone has observed a species evolving into a separate species? Did you know that evolution uses more catastrophic events to explain its theory that of the entire Bible? Evolution needs as much faith, if not more then that of the Bible. When your indoctrinated though, it becomes second nature.

Willful ignorance, much?  The theory of evolution is based on observable facts. I give you one example, but there are many.

By 'catastrophic events' I gather that you are referring to what are known as extinction events.  These events are recorded in the fossil record, and in fact do not 'explain' the theory of evolution at all.  Where did you get the idea that there is a large element of catastrophism in the theory of evolution? Please give sources for this idea.

There is profound irony in this common practice of creationist bible-thumpers; accusing  science of being a system of indoctrination.  It's mildly amusing, and exposes a deep misunderstanding of what science actually is, but it gets old quickly.

[Man-ofGod]

Evolution takes faith too you know, unless someone has observed a species evolving into a separate species? Did you know that evolution uses more catastrophic events to explain its theory that of the entire Bible? Evolution needs as much faith, if not more then that of the Bible. When your indoctrinated though, it becomes second nature.

Willful ignorance, much?  The theory of evolution is based on observable facts. I give you one example, but there are many.

By 'catastrophic events' I gather that you are referring to what are known as extinction events.  These events are recorded in the fossil record, and in fact do not 'explain' the theory of evolution at all.  Where did you get the idea that there is a large element of catastrophism in the theory of evolution? Please give sources for this idea.

Viral evolution? Fist of all explain how this is a benefit?  Second, in order for evolution to occur, there must be new genetic information.  Where is the new genetic information in viral mutation?

Yes fossil record, indicates catastrophe,  the Bible says only one ever occured that wiped out all life on the planet.  Evolution has to come up w/ at least 5 different catastrophic events to explain mass extinction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_extinction

Here is an entertaining video about your belief..  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3318/01.html  

 

There is profound irony in this common practice of creationist bible-thumpers; accusing  science of being a system of indoctrination.  It's mildly amusing, and exposes a deep misunderstanding of what science actually is, but it gets old quickly.

Science and evolution is not the same thing.  You heard that already I am sure.  Evolution is a belief, and their is no observable evidence.

[McQ]

Viral evolution? Fist of all explain how this is a benefit?  Second, in order for evolution to occur, there must be new genetic information.  Where is the new genetic information in viral mutation?

Yes fossil record, indicates catastrophe,  the Bible says only one ever occured that wiped out all life on the planet.  Evolution has to come up w/ at least 5 different catastrophic events to explain mass extinction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_extinction

Here is an entertaining video about your belief..  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3318/01.html  

 
Science and evolution is not the same thing.  You heard that already I am sure.  Evolution is a belief, and their is no observable evidence.

Man-of-god, here is the problem I see. You know almost zero about evolution, don't you? You are spouting stuff right out of the ID/creationist books and web pages. Have you ever taken at least a biology course? How about genetics? It is seriously insulting to have someone like you, who has no idea what he is talking about, try to tell others about their fields of expertise. It's also horribly sad and yet amusing at the same time. You're so wrong as to be almost absurd.

That's why I hope you're not serious about this. Because if you are, then you are, indeed, practicing willful ignorance, as has been mentioned.

Do not confuse what I am stating as a personal, ad hominem attack. I am stating facts about your level of misunderstanding about evolution, science, and probably even the bible.

You really need to quit while your behind. Really.

Additionally, we need to get this thread back onto the subject of contradictions in the bible. Evolution belongs in the science section.

[curiosityandthecat]

Since when did a mutation require new information and not simply different information?

[Hitsumei]

No offense, but your response was way out of line mod.  If I am wrong, their is a way to go about it.  As it so happens, you missed the real point.  My point is that we are in the science of the day.  I recant that science did not believe the world to be round back in the day.  But they did not know for sure if it was not flat. Some people "believed" it to be round (based on some evidence perhaps?), some did not , but not until Columbus sailed the seas did they know for sure.  There was no observable evidence that people could look at to conclusively tell that the earth was round.  All they saw was a horizon.  Some hypothesized, obviously Columbus had to hypothesize before he ventured out to actually prove it.

If science knew everything from beginning to end, then they would be no science, do you not admit that yourself?

Man-of-god, first, use the quotes feature correctly. Second, I took no offense to your post just now, but will disagree that I was in any way out of line. You were not only demonstrably wrong, but also perpetuating what you must know to be wrong, or are just too lazy to look up. How many times do you need to be told the Columbus did not discover that the world is round?

I repeat my assertion: You must either be trolling, pranking, or serious. If you are serious, then you need an education in history and science. If one of the first two, then your time on this forum will be short lived.

As for missing your point, I just re-read it in your response above. I must be missing at least some point you're making, but it's hard to tell, since you haven't actually explained whatever your point is. And your final question makes no sense whatsoever. Science does not now or ever claim to know everything from beginning to end.

Do some homework, and don't waste other peoples' time with things that you could have looked up on Google for yourself.

Fair enough.  I am not explaining clearly. First let me clarify the facts,  Magellan verified the world was round. Eratosthenes measured the radius 1700 BC.  Before Magellan though, people still was not positive that you could not fall off the "edge."  Sounds silly in hind site, in their time it made perfect sense.  Magellans journey was still very much a necessity, not just for the laymen, but for science in general.  It provided the conclusive evidence needed.

My point is that we did not know everything then, and we do not know everything now.  We only know, what we know.  Its unscientific to conclude that evolution is fact, or that the Bible is fiction.  Evolution takes faith too you know, unless someone has observed a species evolving into a separate species?  Did you know that evolution uses more catastrophic events to explain its theory that of the entire Bible?  Evolution needs as much faith, if not more then that of the Bible.  When your indoctrinated though, it becomes second nature.

What you need to understand is that Columbus had absolutely nothing to do with establishing the world as a sphere, or anything even remotely related to it. Columbus was looking for a passage to India, and argued that the earth was smaller than it was estimated to be, and he was wrong. This is why Native Americans are called "Indians", because he was too much of a tool to admit that he was wrong.

That he has anything to do with the establishing of the earth as round if entirely legend, and just something repeated in true memetic form, that survives in "pop knowledge", along with human beings only using 10% of their brains, and suicidal lemmings.

In fact the navigation technology of Columbus' day relied on the stars, and the curvature of the earth. Columbus had absolutely nothing to do with it.

[Recusant]

Evolution belongs in the science section.

I agree, this discussion has gotten off topic.  I don't hold out much hope that it'll be productive, but I'll start a new thread in the science section devoted to Man-ofGod's attempt to critique the theory of evolution.

Thanks McQ, for your timely effort to maintain some semblance of proper placement of subjects.

[Hitsumei]

For a neat example of some related species thats intermediates have not died off, and can thus breed with an unbroken chain of living species, but not each other, see Ring Species.

As for the information question, this requires that you understand some information theory as well as some computer language, and how the genome stores information.

Dawkins puts it pretty simply that if you imagine a genome like a computer hard drive, and the same bit information system, then in theory, the storage system has far more potential information than it has information. New genes are generated from genetic mutation, which is a kind of copying error when a gene is being copies.

Basically, how specific bodies are made, and which phenotypes will present themselves is governed by things like natural selection, sexual selection, artificial, luck, and such, but the genes by which these forces can act upon come about quite randomly through mutation, and genetic drift.

[Man-ofGod]

Viral evolution? Fist of all explain how this is a benefit?  Second, in order for evolution to occur, there must be new genetic information.  Where is the new genetic information in viral mutation?

Yes fossil record, indicates catastrophe,  the Bible says only one ever occured that wiped out all life on the planet.  Evolution has to come up w/ at least 5 different catastrophic events to explain mass extinction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_extinction

Here is an entertaining video about your belief..  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3318/01.html  

 
Science and evolution is not the same thing.  You heard that already I am sure.  Evolution is a belief, and their is no observable evidence.

Man-of-god, here is the problem I see. You know almost zero about evolution, don't you? You are spouting stuff right out of the ID/creationist books and web pages. Have you ever taken at least a biology course? How about genetics? It is seriously insulting to have someone like you, who has no idea what he is talking about, try to tell others about their fields of expertise. It's also horribly sad and yet amusing at the same time. You're so wrong as to be almost absurd.

That's why I hope you're not serious about this. Because if you are, then you are, indeed, practicing willful ignorance, as has been mentioned.

Do not confuse what I am stating as a personal, ad hominem attack. I am stating facts about your level of misunderstanding about evolution, science, and probably even the bible.

You really need to quit while your behind. Really.

Additionally, we need to get this thread back onto the subject of contradictions in the bible. Evolution belongs in the science section.

I agree, we need to get back to the topic.  I think you will find that I was trying to avoid this discussion back on the third page of this thread.  

It is obvious that you get offended when your world view is challenged.  You automatically assume that what I say is incorrect w/ out asking for clarification or with out even "setting the record straight."  

I had made 2 points that you grossly overlooked based on the lame excuse that I do not understand evolution. I never said I was not a laymen, but if your an expert, then you need to point out where I went wrong. That is the whole point of debate.  You want me to accept what you been taught as fact and get upset when I do not.  It is obvious that I am challenging the fundamentals of your belief.  It is also obvious that you do not want to admit that it is a belief.

This is why I say people have been indoctrinated into evolution.  All branches of science today are taught that evolution is fact when its not, and therefore do their research through the framework of the evolution theory.  Since the mantra is that evolution is fact, then anything that challenges this establishment is not allowed (your attitude to this discussion is evidence of this), despite the enigmas that plague this theory ( for example, polonium halos).  Evolution is a business, the sooner you realize that the sooner you realize that its not about what the majority thinks.

Realize that when I talk about the origins as it relates to evolution, weather it be on a cosmic level or a biological level, it all stems from the basis that biological evolution is true.  If their is no evolution their is no mass extinction as modern science defines it.  If their is no mass distinction then dating via the geologic column is false.  If this is false, the estimated age of the earth could be false.  If the age of the earth is false then the theory on how it was created may also be false.. etc...  Do you see how important biologic evolution is to modern science?

So yes, my definition of evolution is a lot broader then yours, because for me, all modern science its built under the evolution umbrella.  

That's why I hope you're not serious about this. Because if you are, then you are, indeed, practicing willful ignorance, as has been mentioned.

BTW, if you look back on this thread, this willful ignorance you speak of is a two way street.  I could easily get as upset as you and complain how people bring up stupid disputes about the Bible with out even taking the time to find out for themselves.  Like the contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2? come on, 2nd grade English is all you need to understand that.  People can literally go on google and get these answers but do not.  But instead of insulting someone and telling them to do a google search, I figure its better to explain it instead. Isn't that the point of a message board, exchange of information no matter how ridiculous the information might be?  Most of the contradictions that atheist bring up is ridiculous to me just like some of the points I bring up may seem ridiculous to you.  Help me understand and I will help you understand.  Even if we do not agree, we can always agree to disagree.  But there should be no question about what I accept as true and what you accept as true before it gets to this point.

And again, I am all for moving the science portion of this thread to the science forum.

[Recusant]

Man-ofGod vs Evolution, etc.
by Recusant » Tue Apr 28, 2009 4:31 pm

Re: Contridictions in the Bible
 by Man-ofGod » Tue Apr 28, 2009 4:54 pm

Meh.  I tried.

To McQ:  Feel free to delete this post when and if you split the threads.