Expelled No Intelligence Allowed

[trekiej]

Ben Stein's movie is a documentary on scientist being alienated from academia for mentioning intelligent design.
It has a Richard Dawkins interview at the back.

[bloodline]

"Intelligent Design" is Intelligent in name only.

It is a fundamentally flawed hypothesis, that can not be backed up either by experiment or evidence. It is not science, it is superstition.

-Edit- As a scientist I will back up my claim:

List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design 2) Kitzmiller v. Dover page 83. 3) The Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism petition begun in 2001 has been signed by "over 700 scientists" as of August 20, 2006. A four day A Scientific Support for Darwinism petition gained 7733 signatories from scientists opposing ID. The AAAS, the largest association of scientists in the U.S., has 120,000 members, and firmly rejects ID. More than 70,000 Australian scientists and educators condemn teaching of intelligent design in school science classesList of statements from scientific professional organizations on the status intelligent design and other forms of creationism. According to The New York Times "There is no credible scientific challenge to the theory of evolution as an explanation for the complexity and diversity of life on earth". Dean, Cordelia (September 27, 2007). "Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin", The New York Times. Retrieved on 28 September 2007. "Teachernet, Document bank". Creationism teaching guidance. UK Department for Children, Schools and Families (September 18, 2007). Retrieved on 2007-10-01. "The intelligent design movement claims there are aspects of the natural world that are so intricate and fit for purpose that they cannot have evolved but must have been created by an 'intelligent designer'. Furthermore they assert that this claim is scientifically testable and should therefore be taught in science lessons. Intelligent design lies wholly outside of science. Sometimes examples are quoted that are said to require an 'intelligent designer'. However, many of these have subsequently been shown to have a scientific explanation, for example, the immune system and blood clotting mechanisms.
Attempts to establish an idea of the 'specified complexity' needed for intelligent design are surrounded by complex mathematics. Despite this, the idea seems to be essentially a modern version of the old idea of the "God-of-the-gaps". Lack of a satisfactory scientific explanation of some phenomena (a 'gap' in scientific knowledge) is claimed to be evidence of an intelligent designer." Nature Methods Editorial (2007). "An intelligently designed response". Nat. Methods 4 (12): 983. doi:10.1038/nmeth1207-983. Mark Greener (2007). "Taking on creationism. Which arguments and evidence counter pseudoscience?". EMBO Reports 8 (12): 1107–1109. doi:10.1038/sj.embor.7401131

[Wilse]

It is not science, it is superstition.

Precisely.

[trekiej]

Interesting, did we come to that conclusion by using the scientific method? :-)

[trekiej]

I will be as bold as to say that intelligent mind implies intelligent design.
If evolution was true would we even be having this discussion?
I guess we could say the same about religion.

[bloodline]

trekiej wrote:
Interesting, did we come to that conclusion by using the scientific method? :-)

Yes, you put Intelligent Design to the test (we do the same with the theory of Evolution by natural selection). The end result is that the hypothesis of Intelligent design is shown to be false, but by contrast the hypothesis regarding Evolution by Natural selection has yet to fail any test.

Please note that I did offer examples in my original post. Every piece of evidence put forward to support Intelligent design has subsequently been shown to have a logical and verifiable scientific explanation.

This is not an argument for or against the existence of a god, but only that Intelligent Design is false, and the teaching of is is no more valid than teaching that the earth is flat and the sun orbits the earth.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

trekiej wrote:
If evolution was true would we even be having this discussion?
No.

So don't.

[bloodline]

trekiej wrote:
I will be as bold as to say that intelligent mind implies intelligent design.
If evolution was true would we even be having this discussion?
I guess we could say the same about religion.



Your statements don't make much sense. Firstly you can't make the assertion that an intelligent mind implies intelligent design, that's like saying; because my cat is blue, the cars in the street can't turn right...

As you can see with both statements one must assume a great deal to connect the initial statement with the sub clause...

The existence of an intelligent mind makes no implication at all regarding its design, just as the colour of my cat makes no implication as to the functioning of cars in the street.

Maybe you can reassert the question?

[trekiej]

Huh? I do not seed the connection of the cat and the car. To me those are not relevant and I know that is what you are implying. It would mean to me that intelligence had to come from some where.
edit:
Sure, some would say that cats and dogs are not intelligent and some would say that they are. I hope you would agree that Man is higher than animal. I feel that purpose would/could point to intelligent design. Yet, there are people who say they do not know what their purpose in life are. My view is that man was created to serve and worship God.
end edit:
Gen 1:26-27 (God created man in his own image)
Gen 2:7 (God made man a living soul)
Sorry, if the Bible does not make since, they are not my words and I can not apologize for them.
I understand what you mean by superstition and would have to think about what some would call Hillbillies. Mountaineers who say that if your hand itches you are going to get some money and if the other itches then someone is going to get married.
If religion is superstition and that means to me that so is witch craft, Hindu, etc is also.

With the Bible I would have to say that what would separate it from superstition,at least in parts, is the eye witness accounts contained there in.
I do not believe that it is superstition in its entirety.
I will try to get around to reading what you posted. I do want to know both side of the issue.
Cheers.

[bloodline]

trekiej wrote:
Huh? I do not seed the connection of the cat and the car. To me those are not relevant and I know that is what you are implying. It would mean to me that intelligence had to come from some where.


What is intelligence? We have electronic systems now that can outperform a human in their respective fields...


Gen 1:26-27 (God created man in his own image)
Gen 2:7 (God made man a living soul)
Sorry, if the Bible does not make since, they are not my words and I can not apologize for them.


If you hold them up as examples, but are unable to explain or verify them, then the words hold no more credibility than the words of a comic book.


I understand what you mean by superstition and would have to think about what some would call Hillbillies. Mountaineers who say that if your hand itches you are going to get some money and if the other itches then someone is going to get married.
If religion is superstition and that means to me that so is witch craft, Hindu, etc is also.


Indeed. I am a scientist. I only accept that which can be verified... I don't really care what people believe, as long as those views do not get in the way of science, progress and humanity.


With the Bible I would have to say that what would separate it from superstition,at least in parts, is the eye witness accounts contained there in.
I do not believe that it is superstition in its entirety.


The problem with the Bible is that, almost none of it can be crossed referenced with other writers, writing at the same time. Note that Jesus is supposed to be someone VERY important... yet, there is no mention of his existence outside of the bible, he clearly didn't make much of an impression.

All other historic writers can be cross referenced, the parts that match up we can accept as most likely to be accurate.


I will try to get around to reading what you posted. I do want to know both side of the issue.


I would suggest reading Richard Dawkins, he take considerable effort to ensure that all his books are well researched and beyond question.

The specific book that coverers Intelligent Design is "The God Delusion"... the first few chapters are awfully ranty, and can get tedious, but he does eventually get to the subject matter, and it is really good.

For a nice clear explanation please read "The Selfish Gene", which does demand quite a bit of the reader when it gets to "Game theory", but I still consider it one of the best books ever written, and should be on your reading list with "A brief history of time".

[Wilse]

trekiej wrote:
I will be as bold as to say that intelligent mind implies intelligent design.

I will be as bold as to say it implies nothing of the sort.

If evolution was true would we even be having this discussion?

If evolution was not true would we even be having this discussion?


I guess we could say the same about religion.


Indeed we could.

[Wilse]

I hope you would agree that Man is higher than animal.

Since we are all animals, absolutely not, no.

there are people who say they do not know what their purpose in life are.

I'm one of those. I don't have any need for a fabricated 'purpose'. I'm happy just to live my life, no 'purpose' needed.

My view is that man was created to serve and worship God.

In my view:
1. There almost certainly is no god;
2. Even if there were and this God created man to serve and worship it then that is one insecure, slave-driving arsehole of a god.

Sorry, if the Bible does not make since, they are not my words and I can not apologize for them.

But the difference is I recognise inconsistent horsefeathers when I see it.

Gen 1:26-27 (God created man in his own image)
Gen 2:7 (God made man a living soul)

Yay! Let's quote some scripture:

I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.--Dt.5:9

If the above was really uttered by your God then you're welcome to the vengeful {bleep}.

:roll:

[bloodline]

trekiej wrote:

edit:
Sure, some would say that cats and dogs are not intelligent and some would say that they are. I hope you would agree that Man is higher than animal. I feel that purpose would/could point to intelligent design. Yet, there are people who say they do not know what their purpose in life are. My view is that man was created to serve and worship God.
end edit:


Before I could comment on the intelligence of a cat or a dog, we would first need to define intelligence.

How is Man higher than animal? You share the same basic planform as a cat, and share identical organs... where the only differences are the respective specialisms of those organs. You have a bigger brain than a cat, but your teeth and claws are essentially useless compared to the cat... You need to wear clothes, the cat has a highly developed fur coat...

By higher I suppose you mean superior?

I would suggest you think about this:

You and a tiger in the jungle... who is the higher organism? (hint- my money is on the tiger).

[Oliver]

Regardless of whether the notion of intelligent design is believed, it has no relation to science. It has no place in a science curriculum. It is neither derived by, nor testable by scientific method. Furthermore, as a postulate, thought experiment, or axiom, it leaves much to be desired.

Scripture also does not represent self evident truth. These are words written by various people over a period of time, edited by very political closed committe, and subject to interpretation and translation. Again, nothing scientific here.

bloodline wrote:
The problem with the Bible is that, almost none of it can be crossed referenced with other writers, writing at the same time. Note that Jesus is supposed to be someone VERY important... yet, there is no mention of his existence outside of the bible, he clearly didn't make much of an impression.

Are you sure about this? I believe he and his supposed virgin mother at least get a mention in the Koran. I don't know what the source would be for the information though.

[Oliver]

trekiej wrote:
Huh? I do not seed the connection of the cat and the car. To me those are not relevant and I know that is what you are implying. It would mean to me that intelligence had to come from some where.
edit:
Sure, some would say that cats and dogs are not intelligent...

I'm pretty sure he wasn't really talking about cats and dogs or intelligence at all; he was talking about logic, and your use of a non sequitur argument. Logic is an interesting discipline in itself, and one which is very often neglected.

[bloodline]

Oliver wrote:
bloodline wrote:
The problem with the Bible is that, almost none of it can be crossed referenced with other writers, writing at the same time. Note that Jesus is supposed to be someone VERY important... yet, there is no mention of his existence outside of the bible, he clearly didn't make much of an impression.

Are you sure about this? I believe he and his supposed virgin mother at least get a mention in the Koran. I don't know what the source would be for the information though.


Very sure. The Koran, by the way, was written 700 years after the Bible... but I hold them in equal esteem...

[bloodline]

Oliver wrote:
trekiej wrote:
Huh? I do not seed the connection of the cat and the car. To me those are not relevant and I know that is what you are implying. It would mean to me that intelligence had to come from some where.
edit:
Sure, some would say that cats and dogs are not intelligent...

I'm pretty sure he wasn't really talking about cats and dogs or intelligence at all; he was talking about logic, and your use of a non sequitur argument. Logic is an interesting discipline in itself, and one which is very often neglected.

Yes Oliver has it right! :-)

[X-ray]

Bloodline says:

"...Before I could comment on the intelligence of a cat or a dog, we would first need to define intelligence.
How is Man higher than animal? You share the same basic planform as a cat, and share identical organs... where the only differences are the respective specialisms of those organs. You have a bigger brain than a cat, but your teeth and claws are essentially useless compared to the cat... You need to wear clothes, the cat has a highly developed fur coat...
By higher I suppose you mean superior?
I would suggest you think about this:
You and a tiger in the jungle... who is the higher organism? (hint- my money is on the tiger)..."
------------------------------------------------------------

Well then you lost your money, as is evident by the fact that tigers don't pick up their kids from school and take them to the zoo to see the humans that they captured in the jungle ;)

[bloodline]

X-ray wrote:
Bloodline says:

"...Before I could comment on the intelligence of a cat or a dog, we would first need to define intelligence.
How is Man higher than animal? You share the same basic planform as a cat, and share identical organs... where the only differences are the respective specialisms of those organs. You have a bigger brain than a cat, but your teeth and claws are essentially useless compared to the cat... You need to wear clothes, the cat has a highly developed fur coat...
By higher I suppose you mean superior?
I would suggest you think about this:
You and a tiger in the jungle... who is the higher organism? (hint- my money is on the tiger)..."
------------------------------------------------------------

Well then you lost your money, as is evident by the fact that tigers don't pick up their kids from school and take them to the zoo to see the humans that they captured in the jungle ;)

:lol:

[X-ray]

Mind you, judging by some politicians, there is a very sound argument that even the common barnacle attached to a whale's rear end is surely an intelligent creature!

[Speelgoedmannetje]

X-ray wrote:

Well then you lost your money, as is evident by the fact that tigers don't pick up their kids from school and take them to the zoo to see the humans that they captured in the jungle ;)I think bloodline meant something with omnomnomnom ;-)

[X-ray]

Ja I know.

[Oliver]

bloodline wrote:
The Koran, by the way, was written 700 years after the Bible...

Yeah, I know. That's why I mentioned I wasn't sure of the Koran's source of that information. Obviously, if the source was the Christian Bible, then that is not really any form of confirmation.

edit- This is not something I have really looked into. I had assumed that Jesus would have at least had a mention in some Roman or Jewish records. Although, if my understanding is correct, the following of Jesus wasn't really a factor for Rome until some years after his crucifiction. I had expected that Jesus would have been a disruptive influence amongst the local Jewish temples, at least.

[Oliver]

Wilse wrote:
Even if there were and this God created man to serve and worship it then that is one insecure, slave-driving arsehole of a god.

That's pretty close to my take, too. I don't believe in subservience. I really don't appreciate it being promoted, either. I think this is a bit of a hang over from the old testament, and one of the inconsistencies in the principles of modern Christianity. It does also remind me a little of some of the forms of Chinese filial piety.

[trekiej]

I understand that is good to have evidence to support ones theory. I do believe that there is a case for the New Testament, which points to the Old Testament being valid as well.

I believe that People are intelligent and that they are superior to animals. I do not believe that people are animals, but some people seem to destroy that case.
I understand that animals have a soul but not a spirit that would leave to eternal life in Heaven. I know that having evidence to support this is good for a scientist and other would love to have it too.

I know that God looks like he is an awful God and I do believe that there is a reason why he would allow for the world to go the way it has. I do also believe that it will not go on forever.(He will end it according to scripture)

I do feel that science and religion do not necessarily negate one another. I do feel that each can be applied to different areas of life. Science looks like matter and energy and Religion looks like spirit and beliefs.
A Psychologist listens to our words to analyze our situations that we face. I feel like there are things that cannot be analyzed with science or its instruments.
John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. It like saying to me that intelligent beings have intelligent offspring.

I feel purpose is an indicator of intelligent design. We all have a purpose or none of us have a purpose.
An intelligent mind would need to come from an intelligent source.

[trekiej]

I feel like people either want to know or do not want to know.
Those who want to know may be of two types. One goes by faith and the other by physical evidence.
I do the believe the bible says, " the just shall walk by faith and not by sight". To me that says, seeing is not always believing.

How many here would believe if the bible could be proven without a doubt?

Some hope it is not real or true.

[the_leander]

trekiej wrote:
I feel like people either want to know or do not want to know.
Those who want to know may be of two types. One goes by faith and the other by physical evidence.
I do the believe the bible says, " the just shall walk by faith and not by sight". To me that says, seeing is not always believing.

Blind faith is dangerous.


trekiej wrote:
How many here would believe if the bible could be proven without a doubt?

Some hope it is not real or true.


Given the inconsistancies within the bible, such as Judas dying in two different ways, for instance, the bible cannot be shown to be true.

And if the abrahamaic god as described in the the old testiment, new testiment and koran are accurate, you're damn right I'd not want to know the bugger - this fiend allegedly wiped out all of human kind on earth bar 1 family! This entity by any standard is guilty of genocide.

Not to mention his silent consent of every bloody action ever taken out in his name... Between the big three you're looking at a body count up there with smallpox. If I were an all powerful diety, I would not want my fanclub butchering my creation for sh!ts and giggles!

And the above is one of the reasons I could never become a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim, because to do so is to take that history as part of your own. I do not want to become part of an organisation that has butchered tens of millions over the centuries. (I know, comming from an ex sailor there is some irony in that, but I reserve the right to change my views as new information is thrown my way.)

[Wilse]

trekiej wrote:

I do the believe the bible says, " the just shall walk by faith and not by sight". To me that says, seeing is not always believing.

The bible also says, "All the earth shall be devoured with the fire of my jealousy.--Zeph.3:8"

How many here would believe if the bible could be proven without a doubt?


What is of far greater concern is that even though it has already been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that many parts of the bible are nonsense (and blindingly obvious nonsense at that) there some, you being one of them, who appear determined to believe it regardless.

So I suggest you turn that question around, apply it to yourself and tell us who is being irrational, ridiculous absurd and, well, plain silly.

[trekiej]

I have never heard of Judas dying two different ways.
What has been proven to be nonsense and untrue?
I do not think it is blind faith if it is of good conscience.

Romans 8:16 The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,...

God does not have to answer to us, God is a perfect judge.
A lot of what happened in the Old Testament is to teach us about God.

[bloodline]

trekiej wrote:
I have never heard of Judas dying two different ways.


One of many contradictions... If you bother to read the whole text, you will find it full of contradiction and inconsistency... If you really want I can prove a list... but to be honest it's bloody tedious, and I'm not going to bother if you aren't interested...


What has been proven to be nonsense and untrue?
I do not think it is blind faith if it is of good conscience.


You could use that argument to justify anything... There is one thing that never fails any test... Carefully reasoned logic.


Romans 8:16 The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,...


I'm not sure what that is supposed to prove...It makes little sense, and subject to interpretation... You may as well base your faith on the lyrics of a song...


God does not have to answer to us, God is a perfect judge.
A lot of what happened in the Old Testament is to teach us about God.


Then that is one nasty god... I have you even read the Bible?

[bloodline]

Ten interesting stories from the Bible...


10. A lesson for those who dare mock male pattern baldness

Found in: 4 Kings 2:23-24

One of the more inspirational passages in the Bible tells the story of Elijah, a wise man, yet one cursed with male pattern baldness. One day he was minding his own business, making the long walk to Bethel, when he is attacked by a roving band of children who tease him with names like “bald head.” But Elijah was having none of this, he turns round and curses them in the name of the Lord, and instantly two female bears emerge from a nearby wood and maul all 42 children to death.

The moral of this story? Don’t make fun of bald people. Frankly, why this story isn’t included along with the Ten Commandments is anybody’s guess, but I think it would serve as an excellent lesson for children who think baldness is something to be made fun of.





9. Eglon’s ignoble death

Found in: Judges 3:21-25

Ehud is the Bible’s sneakiest assassin (and also the only left-handed person mentioned in the Holy Book). He is on a mission to deliver a “message from God” to smarmy King Eglon. Ehud waltzes in to meet the gluttonous king, pulls out a sword and stabs Eglon in the stomach. At first he can’t get it in, but he pushes harder and eventually reaches his intestine. Eglon is so overweight, we learn, that his fat actually covers the hilt of the sword, pushing it further into his stomach until it’s not even visible. It’s at this point that Eglon loses control of his bowels and begins to defecate mercilessly all over his chamber. The King’s attendants eventually come back, but do not enter Eglon’s bed chamber, assuming he is relieving himself. After waiting “to the point of embarrassment”, his attendants burst in to find their king dead on the floor, covered in his own faecal matter. Meanwhile, Ehud had escaped to the town of Seriah.

The moral of this story? Who cares, but it’s damn cool.





8. Onan – cautious, yet foolish

Found in: Genesis 38:8-10

A story so eponymous, it gave way to its own neologism – onanism, an archaic term for masturbation. Basically, God kills Er. Why? We don’t really find out. However, in a stroke of good luck, Er’s father, Judah, has given you the right, nay the duty, to have sex with your dead brother’s wife. Onan is a bit apprehensive at first, but agrees to go through with this bizarre scheme to create a ‘true heir’ to Er. He begins to have sex with the girl, but at the last minute decides to pull out and spill “his seed upon the ground.” God is so irked he decides to kill Onan too, and thus nobody gets an heir. This story is the basis for the Christian condemnation of masturbation and birth control.

The moral of this story? In the words of Monty Python, “Every sperm is sacred…”






7. A very disturbing tale

Found in: Judges 19:22-30

Within the Bible, one occasionally finds stories so horrible, one can wonder what their purpose is. Not only is this story utterly bizarre, but it is also absolutely disgusting. A man and his concubine are wandering the streets when they decide to seek shelter for the night, and find a man kind enough to let them stay. That night however, a group of men turn up at the door and demand to see the guest so that they may have sex with him. The owner is unwilling to let his male lodger be raped and so offers up his virgin daughter instead. However, this is still not good enough for the men, so the owner offers them his guest’s concubine and the men accept. The men brutally rape the woman and leave her on the doorstep where she bleeds to death. If that is not enough, when she is found by her husband, he chops her up into twelve pieces which he sends to each of the twelve tribes of Israel.

The moral of this story? I would hope none.





6. A novel way to show your love

Found in: 1 Kings 18:25-27

Before Byron, before Casanova, there was David. Young and in love, David desperately wants to marry Saul’s daughter Michal and offers Saul anything he wants to let him marry her. What could Saul possibly want? Money? A vow of love? No. Saul wants foreskins. 100 to be exact. Why? Who cares. If you want my daughter, you’re going to have to find 100 foreskins by tomorrow. David finds this odd, but then again this girl is hot, so he goes out and kills 200 men, and collects their foreskins. It’s only then he remembers that he only needs 100 foreskins. Oops. Oh well, maybe if he hands over twice as many foreskins, Saul will be doubly as impressed. Indeed he is and duly hands over his daughter to David.

The moral of this story? Never be ashamed to do crazy things for love.





5. Like slicing salami

Found in: Exodus 4:24-26

Continuing the Bible’s fascination with all things foreskin, we get the bizarre story of God trying to kill Moses because his son isn’t circumcised. God is about to obliterate Moses when his wife Zipporah takes out a flint and quickly cuts the foreskin of his son (ouch), throwing the bloody skin fragment at Moses’ feet. “You are a bloody husband to me!” squeals Zipporah, flint in one hand, child in other. God, clearly freaked out by this woman, backs off and Moses is saved.

The moral of this story? Never turn down a woman for being a psycho. Someday she may save your life.






4. Jesus and the fig tree

Found in: Matthew 21:19; Mark 11:13-14

So, Jesus is walking from Bethany and he’s feeling a bit peckish. He encounters a fig tree, but unfortunately it is barren as it’s the off season for figs. Annoyed, Jesus demands the fig tree bear him fruit, however the fig tree doesn’t respond (it’s a tree), so Jesus, in an act of uncharacteristic rashness, curses the fig tree to death. This story is bizarre for many reasons, but mainly for how little it means to the Jesus story and how Jesus seems to react so harshly. OK, so he’s hungry, and we all get a little cranky when hungry, but come on, the fig tree had done nothing wrong. This just seems like abuse of powers to me.

The moral of this story? I honestly can’t think of one. This story seems so unimportant and purposeless yet both Mark and Matthew mention it so it must have some importance. The best I can think of is: don’t disobey Jesus, even if you’re an inanimate tree.







3. Even God is proud of his backside

Found in: Exodus 33:23

It’s a big day for Moses. He’s finally going to meet God face to face and is giddy with anticipation. Soon the time comes and Moses positions himself on a rock ready to see the divine creator himself. But God backs out at the last minute claiming that no man can see his face and live. However, he has a solution. He will let Moses have a peek at his backside, “And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.” Moses must be heartbroken. He was hoping to see God’s face not his bottom! Imagine explaining that to the wife: “Oh honey, did you see God’s face?” “Umm not quite…I got a great look at his ass though!” Moses most likely slept alone that night.

The moral of this story? God works in mysterious (and slightly gay) ways.





2. Balaam and his talking donkey

Found in: Numbers 22:28-30

Balaam is just minding his own business, spanking his ass (donkey) when suddenly he hears a voice. It’s his donkey who is asking him why he is spanking him. Balaam doesn’t seem the least bit miffed that his donkey has starting talking in the same language as him and says, “Because thou hast mocked me.” The donkey then gets philosophical and explains the nature of their relationship and how his feelings have been hurt. Eventually they make peace. Oh yeah did I mention it was TALKING DONKEY?

The moral of this story? Don’t beat animals. If they could talk then they would probably tell you how upset they were.







1. Jacob and the case of the magical genetics

Found in: Genesis 30:37-39

And the most bizarre tale in the Bible goes too…this head-scratcher from Genesis, with its utterly bemusing explanation of the genetic code. Basically, Laban is taking all of Jacob’s beloved striped and spotted cattle. Jacob is left with boring old, plain-coloured cattle, which he doesn’t seem to like at all. So Jacob concocts a cunning plan: he gets some sticks and begins painting stripes on them. He then plants them next to his cattle. What Jacob thinks is that if he gets his cattle to look at the striped sticks while copulating, then they will give birth to striped young. Now, we’d all expect this idiotic plan to fail and Jacob to learn a lesson about something or other, but no it actually works. The cattle give birth to striped young, and Jacob is happy. What on earth is going on here? Anyone with the most basic understanding of genetics knows that this is bunk. The odd thing is that this story seems to have no purpose and moral – it’s just there. And I can’t help wondering how many scientists with painted sticks had attempted to repeat this process before Mendel came along and said, “I’m pretty sure that’s not how it’s supposed to happen fellas, why don’t we try this instead?”

The moral of this story? Your guess is as good as mine.

[the_leander]

trekiej wrote:
I have never heard of Judas dying two different ways.

Matthew 27:3-8 Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that. And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood. And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.

Acts 1:18-19 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.


trekiej wrote:
I do not think it is blind faith if it is of good conscience.

The problem with blind faith, is that God very quickly from that point gets used as the justification of very immoral acts.


trekiej wrote:
God does not have to answer to us

Yet he should.


trekiej wrote:
, God is a perfect judge.


I would say not. Anyone who is aparently all powerful, loving and omnipresent, who would allow the likes of Mugabe to live to do the terrible things he has, is by no means perfect.


trekiej wrote:
A lot of what happened in the Old Testament is to teach us about God.



The problem is, that on the face of it, God is one vindictive SOB. As a father, I do my best to set a good example. Were I to follow the example the god as found in the old testiment set, it would be perfectly justifiable to wipe out whome ever displeased me, on a whim.

The OT god was not a nice entity to be around. Were it a description of a man, he would be judged a tyrant for doing far less.

[Wilse]

trekiej wrote:
What has been proven to be nonsense and untrue?

Oh, please. The same book that tells us one minute Jesus was born of a virgin also claims that he is descended from Joseph. One of these must be untrue.

There's plenty more than that and I'd be happy to tear it apart piece by piece if you weren't so obviously beyond reason.

I do not think it is blind faith if it is of good conscience.

The difference being?

Romans 8:16 The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,...

You see, anyone quoting scripture repeatedly eventually compels me to *yet again* quote this:
Why Can't I Own a Canadian?

October 2002

Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a east coast resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative:

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted fan,
Jim

I'm afraid the book you keep using to back up your nonsense is full of absurdity.
If the above doesn't demonstrate this, nothing will.

God does not have to answer to us,

God *cannot* answer us, since he doesn't exist.


[/quote]

[Oliver]

Anyway, getting back to the topic, none of this belief, or the notion of intelligent design, relates to science in any way. It is theological, and doesn't belong in a science curriculum.

[the_leander]

Agreed.

Tbh I had hoped that this rubbish would have finally been put to bed after the Dover case some years back.

[countzero]

Oliver wrote:

Are you sure about this? I believe he and his supposed virgin mother at least get a mention in the Koran. I don't know what the source would be for the information though.


Mohammad was from a merchant family. He used to travel to Syria with his uncle for trade, where he was exposed to christianity. I think he studied bible for some time and fabricated his own religion on top of it during his meditation hours.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad#Childhood_and_early_life

[Wain]

There is nothing I can say as aptly as Thunderfoot in his (now 26 part) youtube series. This link is the particular part that takes Ben Stein to task for his film.

YouTube linky... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiNGK3y5Ypg&feature=PlayList&p=AC3481305829426D&index=21)

[the_leander]

countzero wrote:

Oliver wrote:

Are you sure about this? I believe he and his supposed virgin mother at least get a mention in the Koran. I don't know what the source would be for the information though.


Mohammad was from a merchant family. He used to travel to Syria with his uncle for trade, where he was exposed to christianity. I think he studied bible for some time and fabricated his own religion on top of it during his meditation hours.

You do know that there are a fair few muslims on this site, right?

/walks away damn carefully from this one...

[the_leander]

Wain wrote:
There is nothing I can say as aptly as Thunderfoot in his (now 26 part) youtube series. This link is the particular part that takes Ben Stein to task for his film.

YouTube linky... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiNGK3y5Ypg&feature=PlayList&p=AC3481305829426D&index=21)

Nice find!

Oh and long time no see Wain! Hope you're ok :-)

[Wain]

the_leander wrote:


Nice find!

Oh and long time no see Wain! Hope you're ok :-)

Thanks Leander! I've been lurking, but I've been so busy with work and life that I'm not very forum active anywhere online anymore.

Things are good, and it's nice to see you too!

BTW, that entire series from Thunderf00t is excellent, although the first few are a bit repetitive...really interesting and informative stuff.
:idea: :idea: :-D

[the_leander]

Wain wrote:

Thanks Leander! I've been lurking, but I've been so busy with work and life that I'm not very forum active anywhere online anymore.

A damn shame if I may say so!


Wain wrote:
Things are good, and it's nice to see you too!

BTW, that entire series from Thunderf00t is excellent, although the first few are a bit repetitive...really interesting and informative stuff.
:idea: :idea: :-D

I'm going through them at the moment and am enjoying them a lot.

It was interesting to see the dover case being brought up and seeing the reactions by the discovery institute. I remember reading the 140 page judges findings on that one and it made for a great read.

[trekiej]

I believe that the Bible is true. So what are the inconsistencies?
I do believe people do not understand it and that is where the problems come into view.

[the_leander]

trekiej wrote:
I believe that the Bible is true. So what are the inconsistencies?

One of us isn't keeping up with this thread, I'll give you three guesses as to who, the first two don't count.


Matthew 27:3-8 Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that. And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood. And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.

Acts 1:18-19 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

Now, clearly one of these descriptions of Judas's death is in error. Given his critical role within the biblical story, you would think that this sort of error would be impossible.

The only possible explanation is that one or both of these accounts was heard as rumour or hearsay or maybe even just plain made up.

Both, by definition cannot be correct. Ergo, an inconsistancy.


trekiej wrote:
I do believe people do not understand it and that is where the problems come into view.


No the problem here is that I not only understand the bible, but I know it's origins and honestly, of all the many things it could be described as, both good and bad, the word of god isn't one of them. It's gone through some of the most severe editing processes ever thought up by man over the course of a couple of hundred years, hell half of the material concerning Jesus's works and life don't even feature in it.

Whatever it started out as, the end product is so far from the original source that it could almost be a different thing altogether.

You want to believe, and that's great, if you can gain some insight and purpose into your life that you might otherwise not have, fantastic. Seriously and with no word of sarcasm or anything else, I hope that is the case. More power to you.

But understand that the bible is the work of man and nothing more. Same holds for the Qu'ran (yes, listing all the chapters in size order so as to make it impossible to understand by common man was a brilliant move) and I suspect the same could be said of the old testiment.

I make no bones about my own belief's history, it's a re-working of pre christian beliefs, with a little eastern philosophy thrown in to paper over the gaps that were lost when christians first hit these shores. It has few if any direct links to those older pagan beliefs.

But I'm ok with that, because like you (one hopes), I gain a little comfort out of it.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

trekiej wrote:
I believe that the Bible is true. So what are the inconsistencies?
I do believe people do not understand it and that is where the problems come into view.
Something says me that you read the bible as thoroughly as this thread :roll:

[cecilia]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:

trekiej wrote:
I believe that the Bible is true. So what are the inconsistencies?
I do believe people do not understand it and that is where the problems come into view.
Something says me that you read the bible as thoroughly as this thread :roll:Your English is getting so good now!

I love your sarcasm! :lol:

[Wilse]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:

trekiej wrote:
I believe that the Bible is true. So what are the inconsistencies?
I do believe people do not understand it and that is where the problems come into view.
Something says me that you read the bible as thoroughly as this thread :roll:

That's exactly what I was thinking. :-D

[Speelgoedmannetje]

cecilia wrote:

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:

trekiej wrote:
I believe that the Bible is true. So what are the inconsistencies?
I do believe people do not understand it and that is where the problems come into view.
Something says me that you read the bible as thoroughly as this thread :roll:Your English is getting so good now!

Ta. :-) Though the English wasn't good. Instead of 'says', it should have been 'tells' IIRC.

I love your sarcasm! :lol: :-)
It's more like cynism, really..
One thing that I thoroughly do, is hating people who are shouting that you have to come up with proof, and then, as if it wasn't lousy enough they didn't look things up themselves, do not even bother to read the carefully composed posts of those who actually bothered to do some research.
I mean, how f***ing rude and retarded can one be? :pissed:
If I was mod, I would've kicked him for a couple of days after this post.
But then again, the best way to be cynical is to be sarcastic. Then, at least, you get the fun :-D

[cecilia]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:

cecilia wrote:
[quote]

I love your sarcasm! :lol: :-)
It's more like cynism, really..
One thing that I thoroughly do, is hating people who are shouting that you have to come up with proof, and then, as if it wasn't lousy enough they didn't look things up themselves, do not even bother to read the carefully composed posts of those who actually bothered to do some research.
I mean, how f***ing rude and retarded can one be? :pissed:
If I was mod, I would've kicked him for a couple of days after this post.
But then again, the best way to be cynical is to be sarcastic. Then, at least, you get the fun :-D It's always good to laugh at the intellectually deficient (even if it IS mean) :lol:

How can anyone take seriously a person who thinks the bible (a fairy story) is the ultimate source of all TRUTH?

the stories in the bible are allegory. which is fine. I've always enjoyed a good story. I just understand the difference between fantasy and reality.

Frankly I prefer a more scholarly approach. Like Joseph Campbell, who studied all cultures and their Stories. He understood that Myths are useful and Powerful...but delved more deeply than the simple bible-thumpers notion that it's Their Way or the Highway.

[bloodline]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:

cecilia wrote:

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:

trekiej wrote:
I believe that the Bible is true. So what are the inconsistencies?
I do believe people do not understand it and that is where the problems come into view.
Something says me that you read the bible as thoroughly as this thread :roll:Your English is getting so good now!

Ta. :-) Though the English wasn't good. Instead of 'says', it should have been 'tells' IIRC.


You could have said: "says to me" in place of "tells me", that's perfectly reasonable... In fact, I assumed you had just missed the "to" :-)



I love your sarcasm! :lol: :-)
It's more like cynism, really..
One thing that I thoroughly do, is hating people who are shouting that you have to come up with proof, and then, as if it wasn't lousy enough they didn't look things up themselves, do not even bother to read the carefully composed posts of those who actually bothered to do some research.
I mean, how f***ing rude and retarded can one be? :pissed:
If I was mod, I would've kicked him for a couple of days after this post.


If you had done that, then you would have lost the debate... Debating with someone totally unable and/or unwilling tochange their mind is the most fun for me.

With Religion, if you are going to follow it, then why not take the best bits of all the various different religions (all the Abrahamic ones count as ONE in my book ;-) ) and have some fun!

[Speelgoedmannetje]

bloodline wrote:
If you had done that, then you would have lost the debate... Debating with someone totally unable and/or unwilling tochange their mind is the most fun for me.
It's not about the debate, but about the way of debating. I mean, the reason I stated was the show complete disrespect towards others by such posts.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

bloodline wrote:
With Religion, if you are going to follow it, then why not take the best bits of all the various different religions (all the Abrahamic ones count as ONE in my book ;-) ) and have some fun!I think it's time for a new hippie movement. Peace, flowers 'n love ftw.

[cecilia]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:

bloodline wrote:
If you had done that, then you would have lost the debate... Debating with someone totally unable and/or unwilling tochange their mind is the most fun for me.
It's not about the debate, but about the way of debating. I mean, the reason I stated was the show complete disrespect towards others by such posts. "The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those who have not got it." -- GB Shaw

"The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress." --- Joseph Joubert

[trekiej]

Hello. I want to say that I have read the Bible and do need to re-read to be current. I will admit that.
I have yet to find anything that shows me that God does not exist.
One of the reasons that I have been behind on this forum is that a friend of the family had died. She basically drank her self to death. Her name was Angela Williams. I went to Houston a couple of times to get her son with my brother. It was two 8 hour trips and I was away from the computer. I had stayed with my brother during that time.

As for the Bible debate, I will keep studying. I hope to add some science study to see what you are talking about concerning evolution. Something from nothing for no reason is a thing I will have to deal with in my own time.
As for Wikipedia, If a source has errors then it appears that the whole thing is wrong according to this thread.

I am not intellectually deficient,but I do need to study up.

Cheers.

[Oliver]

trekiej wrote:
Hello. I want to say that I have read the Bible and do need to re-read to be current. I will admit that.

Well, it is a big book, and certainly there is much study one could do to put the Bible in a historical and theological context. Actually, I think a further reaching study of religious history is really worthwhile if you would like to think about the Bible and religion in a serious way. Another aspect that can be studied, is the plethora of interpretations, and adaptations of the Bible and Christianity, as they have been exported throughout the world, and aged over the past two millenia. I have always found the propagation of religion politically interesting.

I have yet to find anything that shows me that God does not exist.

OK, something else you should know about logic here; it is a logical impossibility to prove a negative. One can disprove a negative by counter example, but one can not prove the non-existance of anything. It is impossible.

The illdefined God model is entirely untestable, unverifiable, and completely unexplained as to how it is all supposed to work. As a basis for explaining phenomena, personally I find it to be a cop out to just say, 'well it is all too hard, so God did it'. How? What is God meant to be, anyway? Intelligent design advocates often balk at scientific models, voicing objections that the models do not sufficiently explain how thing happen, or provide conclusive evidence, but what of the God model? There is absolutely no explaination of what is involved, and the model is conveniently unverifiable, so no evidence. In effect, the model provides a very large too hard basket in which to place phenomena. This behaviour has no place in a science curriculum

One of the reasons that I have been behind on this forum is that a friend of the family had died. She basically drank her self to death. Her name was Angela Williams. I went to Houston a couple of times to get her son with my brother. It was two 8 hour trips and I was away from the computer. I had stayed with my brother during that time.

I am sure we are all sorry to hear of your hard times. Deaths in a family are always so heart rending. I sincerely hope your spiritual belief helps you through.

Something from nothing for no reason is a thing I will have to deal with in my own time.

There are various ways of approaching the notion you are touching on here, some of which do require an affinity with some concepts which can seem quite esoteric.

As for Wikipedia, If a source has errors then it appears that the whole thing is wrong according to this thread.

Point taken. Levels of error and inconsistancy are excusable, and most of my scientific texts, however valid, feature some errors and inconsistencies. This particular inconsistancy, on the face of it, does seem to point to two quite different stories of happenings though. It is not like spelling errors in the begats.

Your point also raises the issue of potential dissonance in the nature of interpretation of the Bible, and other religious texts. This is a concern which I have with religion in general, though not just related to the original topic of this thread. The Bible is claimed to be the word of God, revealed through revelation and other means, recorded by men, and edited and translated, and presently interpreted approximately two millenia after the collation of the records. However, the Bible is still frequently taken and represented as the absolute truth, and its words taken completely literally. Meh, I can't even be bothered to write any more about this point.

I am not intellectually deficient,but I do need to study up.

I'm not sure that the comment you are responding to was intended to apply to you. I guess Cecillia intended that comment to apply in a more general context.

Please accept my commiserations for your family's grieving.

Cheers,

Oli

[the_leander]

trekiej wrote:
Hello. I want to say that I have read the Bible and do need to re-read to be current. I will admit that.

"The day a person stops learning is the day he dies, and even then that's open for debate" - My dad.


trekiej wrote:
I have yet to find anything that shows me that God does not exist.


You didn't ask me to disprove the existance of God, which, as Oliver pointed out, would be an impossibility.

You asked me to show you inconsistancies within the bible.

I gave you a whopper.


trekiej wrote:
One of the reasons that I have been behind on this forum is that a friend of the family had died. She basically drank her self to death. Her name was Angela Williams. I went to Houston a couple of times to get her son with my brother. It was two 8 hour trips and I was away from the computer. I had stayed with my brother during that time.

My sincere condolances.


trekiej wrote:
As for the Bible debate, I will keep studying. I hope to add some science study to see what you are talking about concerning evolution. Something from nothing for no reason is a thing I will have to deal with in my own time.

But evolution does not disprove god. Think about it for a second. Your god goes out of his way to set up all the rules by which the universe operates, physics, time, space, the whole shebang. Why is it so unbelievable that this same creator would not set up life to operate by a set of rules?

But even from a strictly Athiest point of view, the world need not look so bad...

(bonus points if you can tell me where I got the basis for the following from originally)

You do not need a god to believe in miracles, consider the millions of variations that could occur when your fathers sperm and your mother's egg joined, that of all the possible outcomes, you were the result. Now consider the chances that your mother and father survived to breeding age and their parents and so on and so on. The probabilities are infinitesimal that you would be here, so yes, there are miracles and you are living proof of it.



trekiej wrote:
As for Wikipedia, If a source has errors then it appears that the whole thing is wrong according to this thread.

Oliver made a good stab at this one but I'd like to add to what he's said.

The bible is said to be the word of god as recieved by man. It is claimed by many to be absolutely without peer in terms of scientific and social explanation. It is the definiative book on life, the universe and everything.

Yet within the central theme of the book - the life and times of Jesus, there are glaring inconsistancies, such as Judas's death. Clearly, one is in error (for what ever reason).

The problem with the bible (from my perspective) is that it was put together by committee. You have to understand that the bible itself is a relatively new thing from christianities perspective. Prior to the bible, much of Jesus's life was passed on from generation to generation by word of mouth alone.

What the bible represents is what happens when you pick up thousands of stories from halfway around the world, that have had hundreds of years to drift from the original, write them down and then get together as part of a comittee to work out what goes into the final product - in this case the bible itself.

The bible is a tiny fraction of the story, a sort of "best of compendium" of the life and times of Jesus. It's said that the Catholic church, as well as many of the first generation orthadox churches have masses of stories supposedly about what happened as he grew up, for instance.

[Oliver]

the_leander wrote:
But evolution does not disprove god.

Yes, I have always thought so too. The concept of evolution is not in conflict with the basic notion of creationism, though it would require some variation from the standard old world dogma for creationism to adopt the idea. such variation from old norms, however, has much precedent; pretty much wherever there is definitive, incontrovertible evidence in contrary to out dated ideas.

[trekiej]

It is okay to me that Science is science and Religion is religion.
I have heard some one say and paraphrasing, the only way to know if God/god does not exist is to become god. God can always hide himself.
A giant what if, It would not bother me if God used evolutionary techniques to bring about this world. When the book of Genesis say that God breathed in Adam the breath of life, in my view that would separate man from animal. This may be a bit of a pointer to the existence of God. It is interesting that many humans claim to be God and are drawn to the concept. If animal means food, heat, oxygen, pro-creation then that is fine to me. It is spirituality that seems to separate the two.

To prove the non-existence of something seems to remind me of the math word contra-positive.
I believe the example is, "This statement is false".

It would not suprise me if some one says that Allah ,not El, is the God of evolution. My opinion. I do not care for a theocracy but I do not like barbarism either. Politics seems to ruin things that are sacred in more ways than one.

The inconsistencies that get me the most is Matt.27 and Acts 1. the rest seem to be a rant. As for Ezra, I believe saying Gods jealousy will consume the Earth is prophecy. I feel the one thing about prophecy is, if it has not happened yet it appears to be a dead end. My opinion.
Well all make fun of the "by comittee" phrase and I understand it in my own way.
As for the "Why can't I buy a Canandian" post, it is rubish. That may be what the poster meant. The reason why I post scripture is to show what I belive and why I believe.
I do not believe the present Bible what written in the Old Testament days.
In the New Testament Jesus talks about the Law and the Prophets and makes mention to the Old Testament. Would it be cool if we could have a video tape of our whole life so you could fast forward it to find out the mistakes we make?
The Sanhedrin would have love to have a copy of Christ life.
Prophetically speaking I believe it be possible.

How do scientists deal with the Heisenberg uncertanty principle? I feel that when scientists do an experiment they are injecting a form of intelligence into it.
This may be a bit metaphoric.

Cheers.

[trekiej]

Concerning editing and translation of the Bible, that is why some cling to the King James version.
So far I feel that people here are not saying that God does not exist,some have though, and that Jesus did not walk the face of the earth and that the Bible is simply not true, but that the Bible has errors or could contain errors.edit: It comes off a printing press and is handled by man.
It would not suprise me if Atheists come to believing in God by the time the Anti-christ shows up.

Jim does not know what he is taking about!
:madashell:

[the_leander]

trekiej wrote:
A giant what if, It would not bother me if God used evolutionary techniques to bring about this world. When the book of Genesis say that God breathed in Adam the breath of life, in my view that would separate man from animal.

A close personal friend of mine explained genesis in terms of it being the basis from which to explain man's inherent weaknesses, rather then a literal explanation of where we came from.


trekiej wrote:
To prove the non-existence of something seems to remind me of the math word contra-positive.
I believe the example is, "This statement is false".

Oliver covered this in detail.


trekiej wrote:
The inconsistencies that get me the most is Matt.27 and Acts 1. the rest seem to be a rant.

Then you missed the point entirely.



trekiej wrote:
Well all make fun of the "by comittee" phrase and I understand it in my own way.

And again you missed the point. The point being that the bible is the creation of a comittee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea) that drew upon stories that had by that time been passed down for generations and as such, issues such as Matt and Acts creep in.

I am in no way making fun of this.


trekiej wrote:
I do not believe the present Bible what written in the Old Testament days.

It wasn't, indeed the first condensed bible didn't even get finalised (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Trent) until hundreds of years after Jesus had died. Prior to this point, there was no universally accepted bible, mearly ever decreasing numbers of (relatively) localised editions.

An interesting fact, it was an earlier comittee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Constantinople) that judged Jesus to be divine, prior to that point, he was considered only to be a messenger, in the same manner as Mossis...


trekiej wrote:
How do scientists deal with the Heisenberg uncertanty principle?

To quote a scientist: "carefully" :lol: ;-)

RE the King James edition of the bible, I think the best explanation of why you shouldn't use it is this phrase that I have often read from scholars of the bible: "It is a great work of English fiction". On account of it being so off the mark in terms of translations.

[Wilse]

As for the "Why can't I buy a Canandian" post, it is rubish.

It is obviously meant as a joke but is nonetheless based upon scripture.
Which parts of it are rubbish and why?

That may be what the poster meant. The reason why I post scripture is to show what I belive and why I believe.

Are you saying you only believe certain scripture and not the rest?
e.g. Would you say the opening pages of the New Testament which state that Jesus is descended from Joseph are believable or not?
If they are accurate then there clearly was no virgin birth.
If they are inaccurate how can you trust the rest of the book?

[trekiej]

What Bible scholars have called the Bible fiction?

I wonder how many different translations/editions there are of the bible, out side of the ones we know?

It sounds like to me you are saying, since Matt. and Acts has an error then the rest is in error and can not be trusted.
If a magazine or a news paper has an error do we throw the whole thing out? I know a text book was mentioned earlier.

Where can I find your friends full explanation of Genesis?

Carefully. You have to have a better explanation for Heisenberg than that. :-D

[trekiej]

@Wilse:
I am not going to say that I understand the whole Bible. I do believe the Bible.
Some of the things in the post relate to the priest hood.
Going before the altar was something a priest could only do. It appears he needed good vision if he did something wrong he could die. You may hear the term or phrase," without blemish". The lamb was to be without blemish.

The priest would wear bells on their garments. When the bells stopped ringing they would pull him out by a rope.
If the priest did something wrong before God, not doing what he was suppose to do he died by the Spirit of God.
This is what I have been taught.

I appologize, it has been a long time since I have really read the Bible. I do read it often but maybe not as much as I should.
Jesus was born of a virgin to be a perfect sacrifice. I believe that sin was passed by Adam. If Jesus was Joseph son he would have sin. I believe God told David that there would be an eternal heir to the throne. Jesus being first born made him an heir. Even the people of the time marveled and said,"is this not the son of Joseph and Mary",paraphasing.

God has to exist before he can be mean. :-D
Unfortunately, I can not reach into a box and pull out a couple of pounds of god and say here he is. I guess I could say that about the Bible.

[trekiej]

Concerning the bonus points, you got me.
:-)

[Trev]

Joining the fun.

@trekiej


When the book of Genesis say that God breathed in Adam the breath of life, in my view that would separate man from animal.


And the Bible was written by man, so it makes sense that man would elevate himself above all else. Given the opportunity, he would elevate himself above his god as well.


Carefully. You have to have a better explanation for Heisenberg than that.


Gross generalization: it's about complimentary properties. The more you know about one property, the less you can know about the other. e.g. position and velocity: the more you know about a particle's position, the less you know about its velocity. If you knew absolutey where a particle was located, you would know nothing about its velocity because the particle would appear stationary to you. (And depending on how you intend to use the particle or the values of its properties, I suppose it could be said to actually be stationary under those circumstances. Someone with more background in relativity and quantum mechanics will have to elaborate, although the pairing of the two is still the holy grail of theoretical physics.)

EDIT:

The nice thing about science is that it doesn't have to be perfect--it just needs to hold true under the conditions for which it was devised. Firearms work just as well under Newtonian physics as they do under special relativity, and my offspring will borrow traits from both me and my wife despite the opposition's views on evolution.

[Wain]

trekiej wrote:
The priest would wear bells on their garments. When the bells stopped ringing they would pull him out by a rope.
If the priest did something wrong before God, not doing what he was suppose to do he died by the Spirit of God.
This is what I have been taught.


Anyone else think "if she drowns then she was OBVIOUSLY a witch because God didn't save her!" when they read this?
:roll: :roll:

[Wain]

trekiej wrote:
How do scientists deal with the Heisenberg uncertanty principle? I feel that when scientists do an experiment they are injecting a form of intelligence into it.
This may be a bit metaphoric.


What exactly are you asking here?

We need you to decrypt this question and your following observation about your feelings before it can be answered coherently. It reads like you may be implying all sorts of things, or just as well may not be.

[the_leander]

trekiej wrote:
What Bible scholars have called the Bible fiction?


Not the bible, the King James translation. And it's true, compare the KJV against, well, just about any other edition and you'll see stark differences.


trekiej wrote:
I wonder how many different translations/editions there are of the bible, out side of the ones we know?

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?


trekiej wrote:
It sounds like to me you are saying, since Matt. and Acts has an error then the rest is in error and can not be trusted.

Trust, as I have pointed out in other threads, is something to be earned. By having such an omission in a key part of the story as relating to the rest of Jesus's life, one has to question how much of the rest of the story was in fact gathered from second hand evidence or has been corrupted due to drift prior to the bible's completion.


trekiej wrote:
If a magazine or a news paper has an error do we throw the whole thing out? I know a text book was mentioned earlier.

Depends on how big the error was and how that error relates to the rest of the work.

If the magazine or paper was built up entirely on the basis of that error, then yes, bin it.


trekiej wrote:
Where can I find your friends full explanation of Genesis?


By asking him? He made mention of it some years back. He used to be found on Arcnet as Kingmunk.


trekiej wrote:
Carefully. You have to have a better explanation for Heisenberg than that. :-D

I don't do high level physics. I leave that to more interested minds. :-D

[the_leander]

trekiej wrote:
Concerning the bonus points, you got me.
:-)

It is based closely on a small speech made by a character from Gene Rodenberry's Andromeda.

Very obscure, but also very interesting, imho.

[trekiej]

I liked Andromeda. It seemed like every time I watched it it was a rerun or it did not come one at all.
Maybe it had low ratings.

Seems like mystery and miracle hold hands.
To be religious, I feel like one way God is going to reveal the truth to us is through our spirit. I guess that confounds us. I understand the need to have concrete evidence. The new Testament talks of seeing God in nature. I talked about conscience earlier, I guess I spelled that right,I believe Paul talked about it. It appears that some people are harder to reach because theirs are hardened against him. I know I am not perfect and do not want to judge anyone. It can be difficult to avoid.
I do feel that seeing is not always believing and that is the reason I draw a conclusion toward God talking to our spirits.
I need to organise my writing.
:-D
Peace.

[trekiej]

I want say that I am not a Catholic christian. I am protestant, if that helps any. I do not agree with the Roman Catholic church on varios subjects. I guess I will not go into it. I care about and love them too in Christ. I even care for Pagans and Atheists.

To Wain: I did not mean it proves God existence, if that what you meant.

It is my opinion that the word evolution has been abused by society.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

trekiej wrote:
I even care for Pagans and Atheists.
Oh dear! Now don't be too generous!

[cecilia]

trekiej wrote:
I want say that I am not a Catholic christian. I am protestant, if that helps any. I do not agree with the Roman Catholic church on varios subjects. I guess I will not go into it. I care about and love them too in Christ. I even care for Pagans and Atheists.

To Wain: I did not mean it proves God existence, if that what you meant. you CAN'T prove a "god" exists. you either have "faith" or you don't care (like me).

I just choose to live my life based on reality and logic because that makes me happy. if faith makes you happy, go for it...just don't expect people to buy it for themselves.

It is my opinion that the word evolution has been abused by society.

in my opinion the word "god" has been abused by society

scientists know the meaning of "evolution"

[Trev]

My grandmother, a Baptist, thinks Catholics are idolaters and devil worshipers, among other things. Being neither Baptist nor Catholic myself, I see both sects as Christian, despite their superficial differences. I've never had a Catholic ask me if I've accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as my savior, however, so score one for the Pope.

I don't support unsubstantiated conjectures, scientific or otherwise. The idea of an emergent consciousness--spirit, soul, whatever--is romantic but absurd. We will someday, I am sure, have a rigorous understanding of both the qualitative and quantitative properties of consciousness.

[the_leander]

cecilia wrote:

trekiej wrote:

[quote]It is my opinion that the word evolution has been abused by society.

in my opinion the word "god" has been abused by society

scientists know the meaning of "evolution"

I would suggest you're both right.

[Wilse]

a Baptist, thinks Catholics are idolaters and devil worshipers, among other things.

The squabbling between the different sects of misguided lunacy is one of the most absurdly silly things humankind has ever produced.

Ever see that episode of Red Dwarf where the cat people fight over what colour of hat Cloister/Lister(God) wore?

That's how I see different Abrahamic sects.

[Trev]

Ah, Cloister the Stupid. I loved the little drawings documenting the exodus of the cats from the ship. (But not as much as I loved the reveal of the biohazard sign in "Quarantine.")

[trekiej]

I guess I will bid this post farewell.

It seems that a dislike for God and the need to prove his existence is the two things that get to people when it comes to Christianity.

According to this post one can not prove or disprove Gods existence. I have nothing to loose following Christ.
The existence of humans is proof of Gods existence.

I wonder how many people that are Atheists worship Satan?

[Trev]

I wonder how many people that are Atheists worship Satan?

That doesn't make a lick of sense. ;-) I agree with you that you have nothing to lose following Christ, or rather, the teachings of Christ. Many Christians, however, sort of overlook that part. (I know televangelists aren't exactly the gold standard when it comes to true Christianity, but I do recall a humorous segement of the 700 Club staged as a news broadcast tracking the advancement of "Christ's soldiers" in Iraq. Shouldn't they have been praying for peace? Pat Robertson is one bloodthirsty son of a you know what.)

What I find disconcerting is the believer's inability to view themselves and the world around them objectively. "I believe, therefore I am" is not a sound progression.

Trev, Atheist

[Wilse]

I wonder how many people that are Atheists worship Satan?

My name is Robert and....
:madashell: :angel: :bow: :devildance: :devildance: :devildance: :devildance: :devildance: :devildance: :bow: :angel: :madashell:
I am a Satan worshipping Atheist.

[Wain]

trekiej wrote:

The existence of humans is proof of Gods existence.


The existence of humans isn't proof of anything except that humans exist.

You may consider it to be potentially corollary evidence of God's existence, but it is only at best potentially so as there is no more evidence that humans exist due to God than there is evidence that humans exist due to a gigantic blob of yogurt made from elephant dung that once floated in the sky and eventually dried out and died from too much sun exposure.

I have nothing to loose following Christ.
Unless the Kali-ma worshippers, Jews, Zoroastrianists, atheists, Hindus, Scientologists, or anybody else who isn't Christian is right. Then you've all sorts of things to lose, from things as simple as time spent reading your bible, worshipping, or arguing pointless threads like this one, to your very "immortal" soul, eternal happiness, salvation, or rebirth as a higher life-form. Jahweh isn't the only jealous god.

You don't have to be Christian to be a good person, but don't pretend there aren't necessary investments involved in being one in order to try to Charles Babbage us.

EDIT - Darnit! I meant Pascal, not Babbage...lol!

[Speelgoedmannetje]

trekiej wrote:
I wonder how many people that are Atheists worship Satan?
Booh!

[bloodline]

trekiej wrote:

The existence of humans is proof of Gods existence.


That statement defies logic!!!

What you have said is the same as saying: The existence of cats proves the existence of Cheese... Any questions you have regarding my statement of relationship between cats and cheese apply equally to your statement regarding the relationship between gods and humans.


I wonder how many people that are Atheists worship Satan?


That is like asking how many Christians don't believe in Jesus... The question doesn't make any sense!

[cecilia]

trekiej wrote:
I guess I will bid this post farewell.

It seems that a dislike for God and the need to prove his existence is the two things that get to people when it comes to Christianity. how can a rational person "dislike" a 'god' that doesn't exist??

According to this post one can not prove or disprove Gods existence. I have nothing to loose following Christ.
The existence of humans is proof of Gods existence.

I wonder how many people that are Atheists worship Satan?
none. Atheists don't 'worship' anything.

[Oliver]

trekiej wrote:
I wonder how many people that are Atheists worship Satan?

I had really hoped this thread wouldn't degenerate into this. One of the things I find most frustrating about religion, is the difficulty in discussing the topic, without personal affront, and overreaction.

[Trev]

I had really hoped this thread wouldn't degenerate into this. One of the things I find most frustrating about religion, is the difficulty in discussing the topic, without personal affront, and overreaction.

Faith itself is irrational, so irrational behavior could be expected from the faithful; however, as thinking, free-willed beings--if we assume for the moment that thought is somehow more than the sum of its quantum parts, as the faithful believe--you'd think the discourse would rise above the dogma.

Rather than "I believe, therefore I am," I guess it should be "I believe, therefore He is." That represents a very real divide, particularly with the memorize-and-regurgitate youth here in the United States: does reality shape perception or does perception shape reality?

EDIT:

For posterity, my position as an Atheist: While I don't believe as fact the earthly mythos of God in Heaven, I don't deny the possibility that somewhere in this universe, a being, assemblage of beings, or something heretofore inconceivable exists with abilities or technology that for all intents and purposes would be labeled Godlike. My lack of belief doesn't mean I deny the past existance of Jesus, Muhammad, or any other person with revolutionary ideas about how to treat people.

[Lorraine]

/

[cecilia]

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n34/holyfather_2006/n26704392_36898669_5814.jpg

[Trev]

Evangelical Christianity is fine, but if I don't get up early enough on Sunday, the three megachurches in my area (one of them is actually a chain/franchise--no {bleep}--and larger than most of the area high schools) have cleared all local Starbucks of their overpriced and unhealthy but delicious pastries, and my wife has to drink Pike Place because they ran out of whatever the good coffee was that morning.