Contridictions in the Bible

[joeactor]

Are you sure the Oddyssey is just a story?

Recent advances in archeology and linguistics offer the strongest support yet that the Trojan War did take place, with evidence coming from the large excavation at the likely site of Troy, as well as new analysis of cuneiform tablets from the dominant empire of the region.

Full article here:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas ... histories/

Many of the statements you've made about the Odyssey could easily be made about the bible.
That is the point I and others are attempting to make.

That the bible "inspires" followers does not make it true.  Many "holy" books and teachings do that.
In some cases it is only to allow the priests to maintain control of their followers.

As for evolution, it is more than millions of believers that make it true.
It is millions of experiments.  Millions of results.  Millions of effects on your everyday life.

Ever been vaccinated?  Taken antibiotics?  Been diagnosed using a genetic marker? (such as prostate testing).
These are all results of the study of genetics and evolution.
How about fruit - do you eat it?  Or have any pets?  Welcome to selective breeding... using man to alter the course of evolution.

The bible contains some facts.  It also has unverifiable stories, inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and outright falsehoods.  If it were written today, it's hard to believe any publisher would touch such a shoddy mish-mash of writings without severe editing.

I for one find the Illiad and Odyssey much more enjoyable reads, and much better written.

All the exciting story, with none of the guilt.

JoeActor

[Hitsumei]

I know exactly what your talking about.  Thats why I never thought I would be on the other side of the conversation.  BTW, whats funny is that the world being flat was the science of that day. Based on observable evidence (uniformitarianism), a flat world made sense.  Christopher Columbus was off his bonkers with his ideas at the time.  In hind site, we know he was right. Today, it is no different.

This is false on several levels. Science did not exist at the time, its closest approximation was natural philosophy, and the scientific method had yet to be devised. Also Eratosthenes, an Egyptian librarian from Alexandria proved that the earth was round in the third century B.C.E. Columbus believed that the earth was smaller than it was, and he could sail to India, and was wrong. It was well established and accepted that the earth was round by the intelligentsia long before Columbus. Washington Irving popularized this urban legend in his 1828 autobiography of Columbus.

[Ihateyoumike]

Evolution is fact, Darwinism is theory. Evolutionary theory encompasses the process, not the occurrence, this is a common misconception. Just as gravitational theory attempts to explain gravity, gravity itself is not a theory. Theories are explanations for observed phenomena, evolution is such an observed phenomena, and evolutionary theory is the explanation for it.

QFT.


Man-ofGod, since this thread is moving so fast, I just wanted to take this paragraph and ask you to read it. Really read it, and digest what Hitsumei is saying.

Very well put Hitsumei.  

[Man-ofGod]

Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with how the earth formed. Not even knowing this shows a staggering ignorance of evolutionary theory.

Just a quick reply, then I have to go eat w/ my family.


Cosmic evolution is the scientific study of universal change. It is an intellectual framework that offers a grand synthesis of the many varied changes in the assembly and composition of radiation, matter, and life throughout the history of the universe. While engaging the time-honored queries of who we are and whence we came, this interdisciplinary subject attempts to unify the sciences within the entirety of natural historyâ€"a single broad scientific narrative of a possible origin and evolution of all material things, from an inferred big bang to humankind.

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

[Hitsumei]

Just a quick reply, then I have to go eat w/ my family.


Cosmic evolution is the scientific study of universal change. It is an intellectual framework that offers a grand synthesis of the many varied changes in the assembly and composition of radiation, matter, and life throughout the history of the universe. While engaging the time-honored queries of who we are and whence we came, this interdisciplinary subject attempts to unify the sciences within the entirety of natural historyâ€"a single broad scientific narrative of a possible origin and evolution of all material things, from an inferred big bang to humankind.

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

That is just a term to describe a large body of study, not a theory, and has no direct relation to any specific scientific theories, which we were discussing. "Cosmic evolution" is not itself a scientific theory. How the earth formed is covered under physics, geology and cosmology.

[PipeBox]

I'm sorry, are we discussing different topics as though they were the same thing?  Mincing words?  Cosmological evolution describes biological evolution like geology describes the movements of atoms, and vice versa.  These are so very different we may as well discuss radioactive decay and astronomy aside biological evolution just to keep them from bleeding over (evidently they're hard to keep separate because of that word, evolution).

Now, I'm heading out to watch a theatrical bomb.  

[joeactor]

I'm sorry, are we discussing different topics as though they were the same thing?  Mincing words?  Cosmological evolution describes biological evolution like geology describes the movements of atoms, and vice versa.  These are so very different we may as well discuss radioactive decay and astronomy aside biological evolution just to keep them from bleeding over (evidently they're hard to keep separate because of that word, evolution).

Now, I'm heading out to watch a theatrical bomb.  

Yeppers, this thread has it all:

Misinformation, Misdirection, and Miss Congeniality!

Everyone enjoy your movie/dinner/evening,
JoeActor

[Hitsumei]

Because I'm feeling rather ostentatious, I thought I'd address the other points this post attempts to make.

Evolution is the science of the day, and everyone thinks they can explain the origins of the universe on what we can observe today.

No half descent cosmologist would assert that we have an explanation for the origin of the universe, or even that we know that the universe had an origin. If you think that big bang cosmology attempts to explain this, you would be wrong.

Or they admit that they cant, but there like "go with it", its better then using the Bible.

Go with what?

Anything but the bible is acceptable.

The bible doesn't offer an explanation, it merely says that god did it, but it doesn't say how, it doesn't offer a mechanism, and thus does not offer an explanation. That is what scientific theories do, and that is why they are explanations, because they tell us how it is done. You may say that the bible explains why it was done, and about half of the scientific community is religious, and would agree that their religion offers an explanation for why it was done, but that isn't the question science is asking. Science is asking how.

Remember that when you read a scientific article whose evidence appears it could fit in a theory that supports scripture but then goes off into the opposite direction.

Most evidence can't, that is why it has to be ignored, distorted, or ad hoc'd away with miracles. Just go look up outside on a cloudless night and it disproves the idea that the universe is young. You can see galaxies that are billions of light years away. This evidence in no way supports such a notion, so you must either discount it completely, or claim that the universe worked differently in the past, or that god created the light already en route, all of which is not accepting the evidence, but attempting to undermine it, and explain it away.

Radiometric decay, tectonic plate activity, geological distribution of minerals from the ocean floor to mountains created by volcanic activity, rock layers, the fossil record having increasingly more complex life on each layer being dated closer and closer to our time, without ever finding a fossil in a period that it should not be in. Genealogy, geological distribution of species, comparative biology, and psychology. The formation of embryos, the appearance of virus DNA in the same gene of animals that share a common ancestor with us, but not ones before. A. Aferensis, A. Africanus, H. Habalis, H. Ergaster, H. Erectus, H. Heidelbergensis, H. Neandertalensis and H. Floresiensis, the latter two possessing language, culture and tool use -- only the former two not possessing any of those -- as well as the abstract cognitive centre of their brains being analogous to H. Sapiens, Neanderthalensis having a 20% large brain size to body mass ratio. The adaptation of viruses and bacteria to our efforts to fight them. Ring species, transitional forms between orders, such as fish like tetrapods, mammal like reptiles, and bird like reptiles. Hereditary traits, such as eye, hair, and skin colour. Vestigial organs and features, such as the vomero-nasal organ in H Sapiens, and the hind-leg bones in Blue Whales. Design flaws resulting from a blind process, such as nipples on male mammals, the blind spot in H Sapien eyes, back problems due to a spine designed for quadrupeds being distorted for bipeds. A weak abdomen in H Sapien males do to the gonads developing near the stomach -- as they reside in fish -- and traveling down the abdomen, making males susceptible to abdominal hernias.

Not only does creationism not explain any of that, but it contradicts it, and must either be ignored, or ad hoc'd away. The evidence cannot fit both conclusions as it is. It all must be denied in some way. I have never heard a creationist even attempt to explain any of that, it is either ignored completely, or denied.

All this aside, even if evolutionary theory were to be disproved tomorrow, that would not mean that evolution did not occur, that would mean that it did not occur by means of spontaneous genetic mutation, and various types of natural, artificial, and sexual selective processes.

Gravitational theory could also be disproved tomorrow, that wouldn't mean that stuff would start falling up.

[Man-ofGod]

I know exactly what your talking about.  Thats why I never thought I would be on the other side of the conversation.  BTW, whats funny is that the world being flat was the science of that day. Based on observable evidence (uniformitarianism), a flat world made sense.  Christopher Columbus was off his bonkers with his ideas at the time.  In hind site, we know he was right. Today, it is no different.

This is false on several levels. Science did not exist at the time, its closest approximation was natural philosophy, and the scientific method had yet to be devised. Also Eratosthenes, an Egyptian librarian from Alexandria proved that the earth was round in the third century B.C.E. Columbus believed that the earth was smaller than it was, and he could sail to India, and was wrong. It was well established and accepted that the earth was round by the intelligentsia long before Columbus. Washington Irving popularized this urban legend in his 1828 autobiography of Columbus.

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.

[Hitsumei]

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.

[McQ]

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).

Here's the deal, MOG. You either start being honest and stop posting things that you must know to be undeniably false, or you at least take the time to do some actual research. You've stated the most absurd things and Hitsumei has demonstrated your errors. What you are engaging in is not honest debate. It is the equivalent of covering your ears and saying, "I can't hear you!" while the other person is speaking.

Get it together, please, or this is going to go south really fast. That's as sugar coated as I'm going to put it.

[rlrose328]

Point is, you have archeological evidence and a movement tied into the contents of scripture, that both testify to its validity.  Finally, the Odyssey does not claim to be the truth that all should follow.  This last point may sound minor but its important.  The authors of the Bible is asking its readers to believe its contents.  Yet why would a book of fiction do this?

Again with the "archeological evidence."  Peer-reviewed, scientific evidence provided by unbiased sources are required.

This is not to say that there are no Christian scientists (not to be confused with Christian Scientists).  There ARE scientists who believe in god yet do not let it cloud their scientific judgement.

The authors of the bible may very well have existed and written what is being said was written by them.  But that doesn't make it the truth.  Why can you not understand that?  Charlatans all over the world have wanted people to believe what they say.  It is a basis of power.  Belief in god has been used and manipulated for centuries to get the "ignorant masses" to do what they want.  From Constantine on down, those at the top of the religious organizations enjoy power.  How many good Christians have been felled by their own greed and avarice??  How many leaders have become drunk with power using religion to their advantage.  These actions are not divinely inspired, but they use god and religion do carry out these deeds.

Many rulers have had religious leaders in their pockets.  Do you honestly think that anyone related to religion is without guilt or desire for personal gain?  THAT'S why they want you to believe, without question, what is written therein.

ALL along the centuries, the clergy has edited, deleted, and added to the bible as they saw fit based on what was going on at the time.  They just make a lot of it up and put someone else's name on it.  Consider this:  My husband's father was a meat cutter so as a teen, he helped out.  The Jewish leaders would come in once a week to bless and stamp the kosher beef which was from cows raised on specific farms with specific feed so it could be classified Kosher.  MANY times, at least twice a month, the Rabbis (or whatever rank they were) would walk over to the non-kosher meat and find a side that looked better than the Kosher, and they'd have the meat company switch them before they blessed and certified it.  They didn't care that their congregants would then be consuming "unfit" beef.  They just made it up as they went along.

And that's how your bible came to be the work of historically inspired fiction that it is today.  Much of this is conjecture and speculation, but it is out there as much as religious folks claiming the bible is 100% accurate.  And both points of view are just as valid as the next.

And yes, 1,000,000 people CAN be wrong... majority may rule, but it's not always right.  That's why there is such a thing as "tyranny of the majority" which democracy attempts to avoid.

[rlrose328]

People forget that popularity does not denote correctness. Just because a billion people believe it doesn't make it any more true. Hell, have you seen how many people like American Idol? I rest my case.

And that is not what makes the Bible true.  Its true on its own merits.  Now apply your same philosophy to evolution.  Just because a million people believe its true, doesn't make it any more true.

Not an accurate comparison.  We don't HAVE to "believe" that evolution is true.  Life continues to evolve whether we believe it is true or not.  Did you even WATCH the videos that someone posted a few pages back?  If you do, you'll see one of them truly spells out why evolution is a valid theory.

The bible requires you believe it is true in order for it to mean anything.  Science, and its associated theories, doesn't work that way.  

Also, we have plenty of evidence... testable, verifiable, peer-reviewed scientific evidence that indicates evolution is accurate and ongoing.  That is not the case with the bible, no matter how much want it to be true.

We also don't use evolution to push our own personal concepts on other people in our community by making laws.  There is no law that states you have to believe that we share an ancestor with the apes (though we are both primates).  But there are plenty of laws generated by religious groups that we all must follow, no matter how wrong they are to our society as a whole.

[Kodanshi]

Not an accurate comparison.  We don't HAVE to "believe" that evolution is true.  Life continues to evolve whether we believe it is true or not.  Did you even WATCH the videos that someone posted a few pages back?  If you do, you'll see one of them truly spells out why evolution is a valid theory.

The bible requires you believe it is true in order for it to mean anything.  Science, and its associated theories, doesn't work that way.  

Also, we have plenty of evidence... testable, verifiable, peer-reviewed scientific evidence that indicates evolution is accurate and ongoing.  That is not the case with the bible, no matter how much want it to be true.

We also don't use evolution to push our own personal concepts on other people in our community by making laws.  There is no law that states you have to believe that we share an ancestor with the apes (though we are both primates).  But there are plenty of laws generated by religious groups that we all must follow, no matter how wrong they are to our society as a whole.

Beautiful, insightful, and extremely wellâ€"worded. Sharp and to the point .

[curiosityandthecat]

Beautiful, insightful, and extremely wellâ€"worded. Sharp and to the point :|