Contridictions in the Bible

[Tanker]

Which may be why Neanderthal dna has not been found in humans even though we were even more closely related to them (though there is some evidence of cross/offspring no dna today would mean they too were infertile).

This is a non sequitur, by no means all of the individuals that lived thirty years ago have surviving descendants. Because we don't see neanderthal DNA in the modern population merely reveals that no hybrids that achieved a successful genetic legacy existed. There is a reason that when you go back far enough we all share a common ancestor: the overwhelming majority of genetic legacies dry up.

No a non sequiter would be stateing something off topic. Oh yeah and I like pizza.

[curiosityandthecat]

Thanks for that link. I enjoyed it  Not a whole site.

Sorry, but I just don't have time to bash my head against this particular wall.

[PipeBox]

No a non sequiter would be stateing something off topic. Oh yeah and I like pizza.

Allow me.  Whether or not Neanderthals are alive today is irrelevant in a discussion on whether it is possible for humans and chimps to interbreed.  It may fall on the same topic, but as part of the argument extended up to that point, it was a non sequiter.  I can see how you got there, it just isn't relevant to the argument in any obvious way to me.  Neanderthals were clearly not sterile, were viable in their environment for a long time, and we not likely the result of mating between a chimp and human.

*EDIT*

Oh, and welcome to the forums, ManofGod.  I may have some questions for you later, we'll see.  Now I'm gonna go rack up another post in your intro thread.  

[Man-ofGod]

Thanks for that link. I enjoyed it  Not a whole site.

Sorry, but I just don't have time to bash my head against this particular wall.

Thats what I figured.

[rlrose328]

[youtube:x62wem1z]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWqgD7lGneU[/youtube:x62wem1z]

I could watch that clip over and over all day long and still have tears in my eyes.  I remember that episode vividly.

To stay on topic, I believe there are massive contradictions in the bible and that it was never intended to be taken to the literal extreme that contemporary Christians take it.  There is no possible way to explain the majority of the contradictions and errors truthfully, much less logically, without just making crap up and bending facts to fit forgone conclusions.

[curiosityandthecat]

Sorry, but I just don't have time to bash my head against this particular wall.

Thats what I figured.

Don't sound so smug; it's not a concession. I'm simply too busy to engage in a pointless argument with someone whose philosophy of science is so painfully unsound.

[rlrose328]

Ill just give the historical document the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise, so far it hasn't been wrong.

Given that logic, I have an historical document called "The Odyssey" about a Greek man's travels.  He meets gods who have extraordinary and supernature powers, women women who sing to distract sailors, and is given a bag filled with winds.  I'll give it the benefit of the doubt that these things are true because so far, it hasn't been proven wrong.

[McQ]

Sorry, but I just don't have time to bash my head against this particular wall.

Thats what I figured.

Don't sound so smug; it's not a concession. I'm simply too busy to engage in a pointless argument with someone whose philosophy of science is so painfully unsound.

I second this message from Curio. This is why I no longer engage in these debates. It is almost always pointless. You have no idea, manofgod, how many times we've been through this stuff. Once again, what we see here is a christian who assumes he knows 1) what an atheist is or means, 2) assumes that atheists haven't been part of a religion like christianity, 3) and who assumes that because he himself used to be a non-believer, thought that he knew it all, only to finally see the "truth".

Just because you once didn't have a firm belief in a god doesn't mean anything except that you consciously made a choice to embrace an irrational belief system over a rational one. Many people here were believers (please don't even think about going to the "No True Scotsman" fallacy). What made many of us question our beliefs was our substantial knowledge of scripture and how it does not jive with reality. I've said it before to so many people, especially YECs....you really don't have the slightest idea of what you're talking about when it comes to science. It's a tough thing to hear, but it's true. And I was in your shoes at one time.

So do yourself and us a favor, and at least try to be intellectually honest about this. Just your reference to the Grand Canyon and approaching it from the same "evidence" and coming to different conclusions is so startlingly wrong as to be laughable. It's like I don't even know where to start with this. This will be my only response in this thread, as like Curio, I just can't bother with or have the time to bash my head against this wall again.

Sorry to sound so obnoxious or curt. You are welcome to continue to debate with anyone who has the time and patience. I'm sure there will be other threads in which we have much in common and can have a congenial chat. But this won't be one of them.

[Tanker]

No a non sequiter would be stateing something off topic. Oh yeah and I like pizza.

Allow me.  Whether or not Neanderthals are alive today is irrelevant in a discussion on whether it is possible for humans and chimps to interbreed.  It may fall on the same topic, but as part of the argument extended up to that point, it was a non sequiter.  I can see how you got there, it just isn't relevant to the argument in any obvious way to me.  Neanderthals were clearly not sterile, were viable in their environment for a long time, and we not likely the result of mating between a chimp and human.

*EDIT*

Oh, and welcome to the forums, ManofGod.  I may have some questions for you later, we'll see.  Now I'm gonna go rack up another post in your intro thread.  

I was useing neaderthals as an example of an even more closely related species not haveing any viable offspring with humans. So I still see it as relevent and not a non sequiter.

I was also not stateing they themselves were sterile but that any hybrid offspring would have been, since there is no Neanderthal dna present in human dna. Considering that they were sentient, lived in the same areas as humans, were remakable human like, and coexisted with us for 10,000s of years, Sex between the species is almost a given (almost). The fact that there is no examples of neanderthal dna in modern humans leaves me to believe any offspring that might have existed, assumeing we were that geneticly compatable, were most likely sterile. Though it is possible that any family lines with said dna died off, it seems to me the more likely reason would be sterility.

[joeactor]

YEC?  Ok, sorry, but you lost me too.

I can't see this conversation getting anywhere.  I can see some of your points (and you've been quite polite, thank you), but for me the logic train has derailed...

The bible, tho it does contain some historical facts, is not an historical document per se.  Even so, there are many more reliable historical documents - ones that are corroborated and not self-contradictory.  You might as well be telling us that Harry Potter or Angels and Deamons are historical documents.

As for logic, I'll let humour speak for me:


Hope to talk to you on other topics,
JoeActor

[Hitsumei]

No a non sequiter would be stateing something off topic. Oh yeah and I like pizza.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)

You asserted that because no Neanderthal DNA exists in the modern population, that any hybrids that may have existed must have been sterile. This is a logical non sequitur, and I explained why. You are thinking of this kind of non sequitur, which is not the same as a logical non sequitur.

[Tanker]

No a non sequiter would be stateing something off topic. Oh yeah and I like pizza.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)

You asserted that because no Neanderthal DNA exists in the modern population, that any hybrids that may have existed must have been sterile. This is a logical non sequitur, and I explained why. You are thinking of this kind of non sequitur, which is not the same as a logical non sequitur.

perhaps you missed this, where I explained my reasoning?

No a non sequiter would be stateing something off topic. Oh yeah and I like pizza.

Allow me. Whether or not Neanderthals are alive today is irrelevant in a discussion on whether it is possible for humans and chimps to interbreed. It may fall on the same topic, but as part of the argument extended up to that point, it was a non sequiter. I can see how you got there, it just isn't relevant to the argument in any obvious way to me. Neanderthals were clearly not sterile, were viable in their environment for a long time, and we not likely the result of mating between a chimp and human.

*EDIT*

Oh, and welcome to the forums, ManofGod. I may have some questions for you later, we'll see. Now I'm gonna go rack up another post in your intro thread.

I was useing neaderthals as an example of an even more closely related species not haveing any viable offspring with humans. So I still see it as relevent and not a non sequiter.

I was also not stateing they themselves were sterile but that any hybrid offspring would have been, since there is no Neanderthal dna present in human dna. Considering that they were sentient, lived in the same areas as humans, were remakable human like, and coexisted with us for 10,000s of years, Sex between the species is almost a given (almost). The fact that there is no examples of neanderthal dna in modern humans leaves me to believe any offspring that might have existed, assumeing we were that geneticly compatable, were most likely sterile. Though it is possible that any family lines with said dna died off, it seems to me the more likely reason would be sterility.

[Hitsumei]

perhaps you missed this, where I explained my reasoning?

That is basically what you said to begin with, so, to reiterate: "This is a non sequitur, by no means all of the individuals that lived thirty thousand years ago have surviving descendants. Because we don't see neanderthal DNA in the modern population merely reveals that no hybrids that achieved a successful genetic legacy existed. There is a reason that when you go back far enough we all share a common ancestor: the overwhelming majority of genetic legacies dry up."

For this reason it in no way follows that because no Neanderthal DNA exists in the modern population that any hybrids must have been infertile. A larger percentage of all fertile homo sapiens living thirty thousand years ago do not have surviving descendants.

[Tanker]

perhaps you missed this, where I explained my reasoning?

That is basically what you said to begin with, so, to reiterate: "This is a non sequitur, by no means all of the individuals that lived thirty thousand years ago have surviving descendants. Because we don't see neanderthal DNA in the modern population merely reveals that no hybrids that achieved a successful genetic legacy existed. There is a reason that when you go back far enough we all share a common ancestor: the overwhelming majority of genetic legacies dry up."

For this reason it in no way follows that because no Neanderthal DNA exists in the modern population that any hybrids must have been infertile. A larger percentage of all fertile homo sapiens living thirty thousand years ago do not have surviving descendants.

I'm gonna need a link I'm feeling a bit dubious about this. While I don't think you are intentionally being misleading, I don't think your right. There were fewer people the farther back you go so yes we do have common ancetors but it seems to me that with fewer breeding partners available It would be more likly that if a viable match existed it's genes would be passed on.  ( I know I haven't posted any links myself, and I could try to find some if you wish, I just happen to get alot of my knoledge from printed matierial

[Man-ofGod]

Sorry, but I just don't have time to bash my head against this particular wall.

Thats what I figured.

Don't sound so smug; it's not a concession. I'm simply too busy to engage in a pointless argument with someone whose philosophy of science is so painfully unsound.

Fair enough, well the thread is open when your ready to engage.