The Museum of Hoaxes
Another biblical theory…
Posted By:
Mark-N-Isa
in Midwest USA
Apr 29, 2005
 http://www.theindychannel.com/weather/4429774/detail.html

Entertaining theory, but this guy offers NO proof or even hypothetical means... he just states it and seems to think that the bible should be considered "justification."

It will be interesting to see if he ever tries to prove this theory in some way...
Category: Religion; Replies: 303

Comments
Page 1 of 6 pages  1 2 3 >  Last ›
Mark-N-Isa
in Midwest USA
 Member
Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2005 | 05:03 PM
I wonder if he thinks that this flood created all the limestone in the short amount of time that the flood waters covered the Earth? (according to the bible)

I should e-mail and ask him since he put his addy in the article...
Jared
Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2005 | 05:03 PM
actually this theory has been around for a while and there is considerable evidence that supports it. i am no scientist and do not have access to the first hand journal articles that argue this. however you need to keep in mind that this is a general interest source and so the amount of evidence that is presented is limited and often spun so that the validity of the report is either undisputed or dubious. also keep in mind that evolution and plate tectonics and so on and so forth are also still theory. none of this has ever been observed, measured or repeated and so it has never been proven to occur.
Mark-N-Isa
in Midwest USA
 Member
Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2005 | 05:12 PM
Jared,

Nice points but some are inaccurate.

Plate tectonics have been observed and measured. Earthquakes are a component of this theory. Do you doubt their existence? I doubt it. So do you think earthquakes are the result of divine origin? If not, then what might they be the result of, if not plate tectonics?

Evolution has also been observed and in some ways measured as well. Acquired immunities to pesticides / herbicides / anti-biotics are viewed by some as part of evolution. (Adapting and overcoming) Vestigial organs are also an observation of evolution in process. Back leg bones on whales, your appendix, etc., etc.

Like I said, it's an interesting theory. I didn't say there was NO proof for it either, just that he didn't seem to present any. If there was a working hypothesis for how this worked / works I would be very interested in reading it. So just in case you ever remember the name of any of those journals, please remember to communicate them here.

Thanks...
Mark-N-Isa
in Midwest USA
 Member
Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2005 | 05:16 PM
PS - They have also accurately, and repeatedly, measured how fast North America is moving Westward away from Europe and Africa... another aspect of plate tectonics that has been observed, measured, and gotten repeatable results.
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
 Member
Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2005 | 06:55 PM
Psh, OBVIOUSLY THE FLOOD HAPPENED, OR WHY WOULD I BE ABLE TO FIND FOSSILIZED SHELLS IN THE DESSERT?!?!?!
Smerk
in to mischief
 Member
Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2005 | 08:16 PM
They were put there by the creator as joke to frustrate archaelologists!
Razela
in Chicago, IL
 Member
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 | 01:47 AM
According to the article, "DeYoung believes the whole world was once tropical, lacking seasons and having an ideal climate. He points to Alaska and the Middle East -- places with very different climates today. Both places, he says, contain fossil fuels formed from tropical vegetation."

That would work, except for the fact that seasons are created due to the tilt of the Earth. Even in San Diego, which is a very temperate place, there are still some seasons. The only way for there to of not been seasons in the past is if the Earth was not tilted.

In addition, he wants to explain how fossil fuels from tropical vegetation formed in Alaska and the Mid-East. Well, I actually know very little about the formation of fossil fuels, but with weather changes over extensive time periods, and also plate tectonics moving "Alaska" and the "mid-east" to different areas of the Earth, I don't see why there wouldn't have once been tropical weather on these places at one time. However, that does not prove by any means that there was once tropical weather all over the whole planet with no seasons.

He keeps saying he feels science and religion go hand in hand, but then he ignores all the scientific facts.
Razela
in Chicago, IL
 Member
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 | 01:49 AM
And Smerk, in honor of today's release of the Hitchiker's Guide movie, I have a comment. You say, "They [fossils] were put there by the creator as joke to frustrate archaelologists!" You're right! And that creator is Slartibartfast.
Rod
in the land of smarties.
 Member
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 | 02:07 AM
I have the five hour reading of THGTTG in wma format. It's aboot 45 megs, and well worth the listen, whether or not you are a fan.
Sharruma
in capable of finishing a coherent
 Member
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 | 02:38 AM
I any one is interested
the BBC is begining broadcast of the fourth series of HHGTTG on BBC radio 4
First Episode May 3rd
Each consecutive episode at weekly intervals.

Once played they will be available at this site for one week until the next part comes out.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/hitchhikers/newseries.shtml

This feels off topic, but I put it here for fear it might get lost in that other thread.
Nick
in Merrie Olde Englande
 Member
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 | 03:05 AM
Jared: if you remain in any doubt about plate tectocnics and evolution, read Bill Bryson's 'Brief History of Nearly Everything', and all will become clear.
Nick
in Merrie Olde Englande
 Member
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 | 07:30 AM
apologies: i mean 'A Short History of Nearly Everything'. was getting confused with Stephen Hawking's 'Brief History of Time', which is far less accessible to the average brain!
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
 Member
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 | 08:35 AM
About five years ago I saw fossils of ancient sea creatures near Lake Louise, Alberta at an elevation of more than 5,000 feet. Does that mean the earth was once covered in water to at least that depth? Some might think so. But I think that spot was once at a much lower elevation and two tectonic plates pushed together to form what is now the Rocky Mountains. But that's just me.
yossie
Member
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 | 11:05 AM
In all seriousness, the 'scientific' basis for this DeYoung character's arguments is meager at best.

He doesn't seem to understand that seasons result for the tilt of the Earth, as mentioned by Razela. This fact alone is so elementary. How could he not know that?
Eric The Lumberjack
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 | 01:48 PM
Mark-N-Jen:
I would like to point out that there is a very large difference between your point of Vestigial Organs like legs on whales and the appendix (Microevolution) and the entire theory of evolution itself (Which includes both micro and macroevolution). I am a Christian myself, and I do not believe in any way, shape or form that macroevolution could be possible. This part of the evolutionary THEORY is just that, theory. Ask any scientist. However, I not only believe that Microevolution is possible, but it is quite likely. In my beliefs, this world is not millions of years old, only thousands. But either way, the climate is naturally going to change, species are going to die out (Dodo, dinosaurs, etc.), plants are going to die, the temperature and weather patterns will change. Wheres earlier humans (Regardless of whether you believe the first humans were Adam and Ever or ape-like beings) might have had a use for the appendix and wisdom teeth, or whales may have had to adapt to living in the water and over time lost the legs but not the bones for them, nowadays we do not. But even though my thought on this makes sense to me, it might not to some people. For all we know, the existance of God could be proven scientifically tomorrow, or disproved. Complete evolution could be proven, or could be finally put to rest, just as Darwin himself debunked his own theory on his very deathbed (trust me, this happened), claiming that there is no way that by random chance that the eye, which must be created and maintained a certain way in order to work properly, could exist and function as it does.
But of course, these are only my beliefs. You can choose to believe them or not.
Sharruma
in capable of finishing a coherent
 Member
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 | 02:40 PM
The biggest problem I have with religions is that those who follow them refuse to consider things which are actually known as fact. It doesn't fit in with their beliefs, therefore fact is at fault.

Eric the lumberjack correctly points out that Darwin's evolution theory is still only a theory and has yet to be proved.
He also states that Darwin debunked his own theory on his deathbed. This I have heard before and it might well be so. Darwin was a devout christian, he didn't want to publish his findings and didn't for twenty years after returning on the Beagle. His only reason for publishing at all was because someone else was on the verge of publishing and Darwin wanted to get in first.

Eric also claims the world is only a few thousand years old 4004 BC I suppose. But then he goes on to mention dinosaurs who we KNOW died out 65 million years ago...

Finally I've never understood this problem between creationists and Darwinists. Why can't they both be right? Why doesn't God, if you beleive in him, use Evolution as a tool to create what he desires.
If god is as powerful as he's supposed to be, he would have no trouble steering such a tool the way he wants it.

I like to keep an open mind, I'm willing to believe in god, but I want his phone number and immutable proof that he is god.
Why should he supply such proof you might ask
Well, he doesn't have too. But until such time that he does I reserve the right to be skeptical
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
 Member
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 | 02:49 PM
Eric The Lumberjack,
So you say the earth is only thousands of years old? And that whales may have lost their legs through evolution in that amount of time? If that's not macroevolution, what is? (When did whales walk on land?)

And you would have us believe that dinosaurs were are around only thousands of years ago and that they died out and became fossilized in that short time span?

Just what exactly do you base these beliefs on? Surely not just faith. I'm sure you must have some fantastic evidence to back this up. Can't wait to hear it.

"What good is half an eye?"
"Better than no eye at all!"
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
 Member
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 | 04:38 PM
You know, there was an interesting article about the evolution of the early eye in science news. I should find it and read it. Remember, the early eye was simply a light-sensitive organ, that could at best help telling up from down. Even lowly clams have thousands of these simple organs.

And captain al, the <a href="http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp">Big Daddy</a> chick tract uses "scientific evidence" against the theory of evolution.

I personally can't refute its claims, but I have enough confidence in the logic of natural selection, the intelligence of the scientists who support it, and the idiocy of those that don't that I feel I don't have to.
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
 Member
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 | 04:44 PM
I don't know if Darwin really rejected his theory as he went on. I've heard he became more agnostic over time. Remember, Darwin's theories were pretty remarkable for his time, since even the principles of heredity hadn't yet been established.
Sharruma
in capable of finishing a coherent
 Member
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 | 04:52 PM
It could be a simple case of Darwin on his death bed

He knows he's going to die, people of his era beleive in last minute salvation...

He has nothing to lose.

If god is there he'll be saved
If there's no god, he's lost nothing by trying.
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
 Member
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 | 04:57 PM
Integrity, perhaps.
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
 Member
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 | 05:00 PM
And you know, the notion that the Earth orbits the sun is also "just a theory."

The two meanings of theory are often confused:

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

and

2. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

The Theory of Natural Selection and Evolution falls into the second category.
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
 Member
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 | 05:35 PM
"A theory is any body of ideas in science. It does not mean a guess or hypothesis. If you believe a 'theory' is unproven, don't drive across any bridges. The engineers used Stress Theory to design the bridge."
-Steven Dutch, Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Wisconsin - Green Bay
Rochelle
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 | 05:47 PM
I read somewhere, unfortunately I can't remember where, that Darwin never debunked his theory. Rather, the only person at his deathbed was an extremely religious relative who was rather horrified by his theory. She made up his deathbed conversion to save her family's image. Of course, as I'm writing this, it occurs to me that if she really was the only one at his bedside, how do we know she was lying? Darn. I wish I could find whatever it was I read this in.
Mark-N-Isa
in Midwest USA
 Member
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 | 09:03 PM
Eric,

So the world is only thousands of years old?

And species die out, as YOU mentioned, like dinosaurs?

So dinosaurs have been around as recently as thousands of years ago?

So how's come there's no pictures in the bible? Of course there's some reason for that too right? You just have to have faith... in the biggest "fairy tale" ever told.

How people can be so intelligent and so ignorant at the same time is the biggest puzzle in cosmos in my opinion!

:roll:
Mark-N-Isa
in Midwest USA
 Member
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 | 09:14 PM
Sure he dubunked his own theory...

How surprised am I that this "startling revalation" is being communciated by a member of the religious point-of-view?

NONE AT ALL!

There is NO WAY in the world of EVER knowing if it's fact, or just something a person with faith and beliefs "made-up" because they (his family)were ashamed, scared, or fanatical? Or perhaps just because this controversial theory just straight up pissed them off?

So for you Mr. Lumberjack to say that it certainly happened only takes away from and credibility you might have.
Mark-N-Isa
in Midwest USA
 Member
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 | 09:16 PM
revelation...

only takes away from "any" credibility...


OOPS.

:shut:
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
 Member
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 | 09:24 PM
Citizen Premier,
Someone posted a link to that Big Daddy cartoon here a few months ago. For some reason they seem to think it proves something. It was obviously written by a Creationist for lazy thinkers.
It's easy to 'show up' the critics of your belief when you invent and control the words of the characters on both sides. In this case they created a character (the professor) who did not know how to defend his position. How convenient. Then they used questionable evidence and treated it as undeniable fact. That's easy to do when you have omniscient control of your story.
The outcome would be a lot different if in real life that Jesus-freak student went up against a biologist, a paleontologist, a geologist, an anthropologist and an archaeologist.
Bigblant
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 | 09:25 PM
There is a lot of evidence to support his claims, check out <a href="www.answersingenesis.com">answers in genesis</a> for futher support for his theorys
Mark-N-Isa
in Midwest USA
 Member
Posted: Sun May 01, 2005 | 12:27 AM
Bigblant,

Was actually looking forward to the read but got "Invalid URL"

Can you check or fix the link?
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
 Member
Posted: Sun May 01, 2005 | 01:27 AM
That someone was me. Sorry, I take any opportunity to make fun of the hard-core creationists.

If I used emoticons, it'd be the blushing one right now.
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
 Member
Posted: Sun May 01, 2005 | 06:18 AM
...This theory is not new. It's been taught along with Creation since before his book was published.

According to God, there was no rain before The Flood. There was water above, and below the firmament.

Also, you can't base the entire theory on this one article. The journalist may have chopped it up, and only included bits that seemed significant to the writer, but weren't actually as significant in the context of the interview.
Nick
in Merrie Olde Englande
 Member
Posted: Sun May 01, 2005 | 01:03 PM
since i have taken dear Charles as my avatar, i feel i should try and defend him a bit.

i) if dinosaurs walked the earth before the flood, why arent they in the bible? how would one know whether or not it was ok to eat them?

ii) if there is no evolution, why are we all so different? did god not create man in his image? that is a nonsensical statement if he has multiple images- surely there was only one Adam and one Eve?

iii) speaking of Adam and Eve, where the heck did their son Cain's wife come from?


iv) we observe evolution at a microscopic level. why is not hence clear that it also happens at a macroscopic level? the conditions and requirements are all the same

i eagerly await an angry response
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
 Member
Posted: Sun May 01, 2005 | 05:13 PM
I've posted this before too. I find Christian pseudoscience to be fun.
<a href="http://www.k4t.com/Questions/question12.htm">Where did Cain get his wife?</a>

Ultimately, though, you can't really defend evolution by attacking a religion; there are always plenty more. The only way is to demonstrate how it works. Evolution is certainly hard to understand for someone who's used to thinking of Earth as seven thousand years old, give the billions of years over which it has occured.

He's a few drops of evidence for <a href="http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/index.shtml">evolution</a>.
I'd like to defend it more, but I have a bad case of homework.
DFSTuckey
Posted: Tue May 03, 2005 | 03:59 AM
Actually, Darwin was only the latest of thinkers to have come up with an evoltuionary theory; Earlier philosophers explained diversity of species by biological change previously.

Only difference was, they didn't go as far as Darwin in his linking of disparate groups, such as all the mammals.

Thaose people were Saint Augustine and Saint Thoams Aquinas, BTW.
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
 Member
Posted: Tue May 03, 2005 | 05:31 AM
<a href="http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/dinos.shtml">Dinos in the Bible</a>
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
 Member
Posted: Tue May 03, 2005 | 05:46 AM
I took this from <a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/cains_wife.asp">Answering Genesis</a>, b/c the article itself is long, and a little boring.

"Many people immediately reject the conclusion that Adam and Eve
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
 Member
Posted: Tue May 03, 2005 | 05:48 AM
...I only read a little bit of Citizen's link...I wasn't familiar with the site & didn't want to quote something I really hadn't thoroughly read.
Eric the Lumberjack
Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 | 04:23 PM
I think I might have said something a bit confusing...
Macroevolution would be more akin to amoebas turning into humans. No longer amoebas, now it's something much much more complex.
Micro would be more similar to a cow developing thumbs. It's still a cow, only with thumbs.

Either way, I'm not asking you to believe anything. I certainly do not know for sure that the earth is mot millions of years old, but only thousands, however the evidence I am shown gives me that theory.
The first bit is the inherent fact that carbon dating is inaccurate. I don't know the exact error ratio, but it is large. And this error ratio increases depending on how large the object tested is. Yes, the earth has been carbon dated, thats where scientists get the earth's "age"
Second, because I believe the Bible to be true, it states in Genesis that the earth was created in six days, and on the seventh day was rest. Many could argue that a day for God could be thousands or millions of years, but since on one of the days He designated that one cycle of Dark and Light would be called one day. You can interpret this either way, I choose the second theory. I am not here to prove the validity of my faith, just that most of evolution is bunk. If you would LIKE me to prove my faith, then by all means email me. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

My point was is that I don't see any logical way for an amoeba to become a human no matter HOW long of a timeframe there is. If you can prove to me how this is possible, then I will denounce my God on the spot. That's a BIG sacrifice for me, considering how much evidence I have seen to His existance. Heck, I'll even give you $100. I DO, however, see existing creatures adapting to changing environments. And I don't even call it evolution, I just call it adapting.

And maybe bringing dinosaurs into it was a little confusing as well. My Bible also descibes the existance of "Titans" before the time of man. My theory is that they existed outside of Eden before Adam and Eve were thrown out. I don't know for certain about this.
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
 Member
Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 | 09:37 PM
Eric,
It's obvious you haven't bothered to check any facts for yourself. Do you know the accuracy of radio carbon dating or its usefulness for dating the earth? You say the Bible is true so therefore Genesis is true. How do you know the Bible is true? What proof do you have? Doesn't it make sense to find out for sure before you use its contents as evidence? The Bible was written by ignorant peasants who knew nothing about the origin of the earth. How could one insignificant book of uncertain origin, translated dozens of times and altered each time to suit different agendas, be the last word for geological history?

Carbon dating is only one method scientists use to date artifacts. It can only be used on organic material such as wood or cloth so that even if you wanted to, you could not "date the earth" with it. Its range of use is for ages from a few hundred to 50,000 years. It is possible to accurately calibrate the process by testing objects whose ages have been verified by historical records (eg. artifacts from Egyptian tombs).

Fortunately there are other methods that can be used, such as the radioactive decay and transformation of uranium. The rate of conversion, discovered through testing and observation, follows a rule known as "first-order reaction" that tells us the rate of decay is extremely constant over time. If we have a rock that contains uranium-238, we can use this proven fact to determine the amount of time that has elapsed since that particular rock was formed. U-238 atoms, in the process of decaying, will gradually change to lead over a period of time. By examining rocks containing U-238 and measuring the amount compared to that of lead, scientists have determined the age of the earth to be about 4.5 billion years. What does the Bible say about the half-life of U-238?

And since when did anyone say that amoeba became man? The amoeba is on a totally different evolutionary branch of life. It is certain all life started out from the simplest micro-organisms, but if you want to see what the most likely chain of events were, get some good biology texts. You will notice they don't claim to know the exact truth. They can only postulate based on observation and study, unlike the Bible which is just wishful thinking.
Eric The Lumberjack
Posted: Sat May 07, 2005 | 11:00 AM
Now you're putting words into my mouth. If you are so convinced that what I say is not true, then why don't YOU research it? Lets see now, it's my experience that the moment someone says they're a Christian on these forums, ANYTHING they say, regardless of how true it may be, instantly becomes false. If you are so convinced that my Bible is a "fairy tale" or "wishful thinking", then why don't you read it and decide that for yourself? Seriously, go for it. Do research on something, for once.
It seems that I am the only one willing to research EVERYTHING before I go attacking your beliefs. You attack mine with false pretenses. From what you describe my faith as, you apparently know nothing about it. Research it before you make claims on it that are so extreme.

And with the amoeba, that's a basic concept of evolution. We all come from a big primordial soup of some sort, I believe? We were all originally simpler organisms sich as the amoeba that eventually evolved into things more complex? If that's your argument, then looks like no one's getting that $100, because you just disproved it yourself. I was serious about that. Prove to me without ANY shadow of a doubt that Christianity is bunk, and you get a hundred bucks. If more people manage to convince me, then you all get a hundred bucks.

QUOTE: "You will notice they don't claim to know the exact truth. They can only postulate based on observation and study, unlike the Bible which is just wishful thinking."

Okay, well if that's your argument, then you are also mistaken. As I said, research it. Even if the Bible were false, it's still more historically accurate than any textbook you are going to find anywhere. It has many other books that are not part of the Bible itself that give a historical record of the events listed in the Bible, proving that everything happened. The miracles, the flood, everything. As I said, maybe if you'd researched this first, you'd have some claim to validity over mine. But you didn't.

So, anyone care to try for that $100?
Eric The Lumberjack
Posted: Sat May 07, 2005 | 11:23 AM
Oh yeah, and I forgot to address some of your other claims:

Carbon dating is commonly used to date artifacts, you are correct in that. That's just a common use. Anything that has carbon can be dated. This includes the earth.

Biology texts teach evolution because it is the only principle they are allowed to in america. Seperation of Church and State. If that were not in effect, you can be certain you'd be learning about God as well as evolution so you can decide for yourself, instead of being force fed evolution.

If the bible was written by ignorant peasants, as you claim, who know nothing of the history of the world, then why does it claim to be written by God? Yes, each book has a human author, but all scripture is inspired by God, as it claims. Interesting fact, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all wrote about the same thing, but they had not collaborated on their writings at all. They wrote it all based on observation, so either all of them are crazy with the exact same affliction, or it happened. Many of the writers did not even see any of the other parts of the Bible, mainly because there was not a version for common people at the time (it was not until Martin Luther that we would see a Bible in the vernacular). So, since there are no contradictions ANYWHERE within it (yes, I am claiming that. And before you go and tell me i'm stupid to believe that, research it yourself), how can it not be true? If it's just a random 66 books that were thrown together by people who don't know anything, then its almost impossible for them to have no contradictions with any other book that claims to be scripture. The quran contains contradtictions. All holy texts contain contradictions, except for two. The bible, and the Torah (which is the same as the Bible's old testament). The only reason Jews are wrong is because they misinterpret the whole thing. If that pisses someone off, I don't care. Heck, I'll even assault catholics. They added books to the bible after the council of laodaceia was held to determine what would be considered scripture. The original bible claims that you cannot add anyting to God's word. This same argument can be used to debunk mormons, jehovah's witnesses, and anyone else that claims to be part of a Christian sect that adds their own scripture. I'm not saying all catholics are bad, but the entire faith (except for the Pope, who usually is a really good guy, just with no power, and most of the followers) is corrupt and its practices are not backed by scripture.

Yes, many translations. Funny, though, how every one of those translations does not change the basic message and maintains the same number of contradictions, which is zero.

Again, I ask. Anyone want $100? Disprove my faith without any shadow of a doubt, and it's yours.
Myst
Member
Posted: Sat May 07, 2005 | 03:35 PM
Eric The Lumberjack,

Having been raised a "Christian" and having attended church services for a good portion of the "denominations" (each of which claim to be the only true church) I made up my mind about the bible a long time ago.

I will tell you this, and I have heard from many "men of the cloth", not all the books of the bible were left in the finished product. Many books were left out, on purpose. Who made that choice? Men did that is who.

You have the right to your faith, if it helps you that is great. For me I have found that the same message you find in the bible is present in just about every religion out there. Try researching other religions and I think you will be surprised by what you find.

As for evolution being bunk, I don't think it is. All things evolve (change) over time. The bible doesn't disprove evolution, evolution doesn't disprove the bible either.

If you think Christianity should be taught in school right alongside evolution then why not other religious beliefs? Why just the one you believe in? If you truly want people to be able to make an educated decision you should include all faiths, all teachings, not just one.
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
 Member
Posted: Sat May 07, 2005 | 11:29 PM
mmmm... you make this too easy Eric.

You still have not offered any proof except to claim the Bible is true and you simply have no way of knowing that. I have read parts of the Bible; just enough to get a good laugh. You have to be absolutely scientifically illiterate to believe anything written in it so you might as well wipe your ass with the pages. No contradictions in the Bible you say? Let's start on page 1.

Genesis 1:25-27 God creates man after animals.
Genesis 2:18-19 God creates man before animals.

Genesis 1:27 God creates man and woman at the same time.
Genesis 2:18-22 God creates man then animals then woman.
and the list goes on and on...

You say the Council of Laodicea met to decide what would be considered scripture. Since when did men get to decide that? Is that not God's decision? And isn't it strange that decision seem to be missing from their original documents, leading some scholars to believe it was added later (with whose permission?).

Unfortunately for you, the Bible was written by ordinary men and those men were ignorant of the way the world works. They knew nothing outside their own tiny corner of the earth. They did not know about the millions of species of animals, most on other continents, that would have had to be on the ark. They did not know about Mt. Everest and that it would also have to be flooded ("Hurry! Get more water!"). They did not know about fossil evidence. They did not know about the laws of thermodynamics. They did not know about dating by uranium-lead decay rates that would conclusively disprove their story. If they had known all these things, which they should have since they supposedly were advised by God, I'm sure they would have concocted a better story. Now Creationists are left with this big mess and their arguments are nothing but a desperate attempt to make it fit in with what we now know to be fact. Face it pal, you've been had. Sucker!

I'm really getting tired of this thread. It's no use trying to talk sense to delusional people. I'll leave you to fight it out with the millions of Catholics, Jews, Mormans and JW's that you just claimed are inferior to you.
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
 Member
Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 | 01:39 AM
I asked Jesus to come into my heart. I pleaded with Jesus to lighten my soul if he did indeed exist. I begged him to come into my life. I asked, and I did not recieve. The Bible is bull.
Mark-N-Isa
in Midwest USA
 Member
Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 | 02:40 AM
Eric says...

"It has many other books that are not part of the Bible itself that give a historical record of the events listed in the Bible, proving that everything happened."

The bible says so that proves...

That will never cease to make me laugh...
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
 Member
Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 | 07:12 AM
Captain Al, I didn't read a lot of these posts, just sort of skimmed...

But the passages you refer to, I once questioned, and came to the realization that the first chapter is the "condensed" version of what happened, and then goes on to explain specifically what was done, in the following chapters.
Zach
Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 | 10:25 AM
I find it profoundly disturbing that debates continue to rage regarding the validity of evolution in the face of creationism. I've skimmed this thread, and have found repeated mentions of the fact that 'evolution is only a theory.' I would also draw your attention the fact that the atom is a theory. Dalton's Atomic Theory. Does that make it somehow invalid? No, there is simply no higher scientific assertion than a theory. A law is a restatement of a mathematically observable phenomenon, and may well be included into a theory, but a theory will almost never become a true law. Evolution is one of the single best supported scientific theories currently in existence, and such lines of evidence can be drawn primarily from developmental, molecular, and morphological studies. I find it to be a much greater stretch of faith to say that God created a perfectly succesive, linear chain of metazoans, with important control genes added with generations than to attribute that to evolution. I could go into piles of evidence, from the developmental similarities of urochordate classes to the characteristic mitochondrial DNA inversion seen among stellaroid echinoderms, but that would do little to change many minds I fear. The continued reliance on creationism in America, and most frighteningly in American public education, is reflective of a profoundly weak science awareness in this country, and doesn't appear to be going anywhere soon, unfortunately.
Eric The Lumberjack
Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 | 01:16 PM
Citizen Premier: It does not work that way. If you were serious, it would work. If you are just testing God, then there is no reason why he should reveal himself to you.

Captain Al: Enough to get a good laugh? Then maybe you didn't read it. If you just feel like you can skim over things looking for something to entertain you, then maybe you should read some of Dave Barry's books. If you are just looking over random parts of it trying to find something that doesn't make sense, you're going to find it. Just because something doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it isn't true. It confuses some people how George W. Bush was elected for a second term, but that doesn't take away from the fact that he's still our president.

Myst: Very correct. Books were left out. If I was alive back then and I drafted up a submission to the Bible that had no basis in anything except my own imagination, it would be left out. This is what happened with books such as Enoch and the rest of the Apocrypha/Pseudographica. They were left out simply because they contain contradictions within themselves, contain false pretenses (such as Enoch, which was NOT written by Enoch, though it claims to be), or does not claim to be the Word of God. It's not that they were left out or removed, it's that they were never considered scripture in the first place.
Also, look in schools. Other religions are not only taught, but they are celebrated. I've been to many schools that ENDORSE Halloween, and allow students to dress up in costumes and such. Mine is the only one that is left out. They don't even call it Christmas Break anymore, simply winter break. The only reason I get a day off for Easter is that it falls on Sunday every year.
I HAVE researched other religions, and was very surprised at what I found. Mainly, how can anyone in their right mind believe such things as truth? And to think that all religions will get you to the same place... bull. Complete bull. For that to be true, then all holy texts of every faith would have to agree with that, and they do not. Since almost no religion agrees with that theory, that means that all of them cannot be true.

Mark-N-Jen: Nice try. You just twisted and reversed what I said. Either you did that on purpose hoping I wouldn't notice, or you just can't read. I said that there are other books that are NOT a part of the Bible that give historical accounts of every event that occured IN the Bible.

Since no one seems to even be trying, I'm going to up the prize. $300 to anyone who proves without a shadow of a doubt that Christianity is false, and an extra $200 to whoever does that AND proves without a shadow of a doubt that whatever THEY believe is true. Total of $500. Any takers?
Sharruma
in capable of finishing a coherent
 Member
Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 | 04:41 PM
Since almost no religion agrees with that theory, that means that all of them cannot be true.

1. Perhaps none of them are true.

2. Perhaps one of the others is true and yours is false

3. Perhaps they are all true on some level that only god (if he exists) can understand.

4. Perhaps parts of all of them are true but they have been diluted through the years by many. translations and additions.


Oh and Eric stop offering people money you don't intend to pay.
Try to understand that it is the nature of a certain type of believer to ignore evidence that doesn't fit in with thier beliefs. Even if it was proved to you and to everyone elses satifaction, being the type of person you are it wouldn't be satifactory to you because it would contradict what you already believe.
Zach
Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 | 05:01 PM
Eric, the burden of proof is on you, not atheists like myself. If you proclaim the existence of God, you are under the obligation to prove that, not vice versa. I would also like to hear a rebuttle to my original arguments regarding morphological and genetic evidence for evolution, of which their is an incredible number. I am an invertebrate zoologist, and would welcome any challenge you are willing to provide regarding the validity of evolution.
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
 Member
Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 | 05:09 PM
Eric, why doesn't it work that way? If God had revealed himself, I would have given myself to him. Why wouldn't God do housecalls? Why wouldn't he jump at a chance to guide my life?
If God exists, I am certain he is able to change my imperfect character into a perfect one, when I ask.

But anyways, how do I ask so that he takes me seriously?
Eric The Lumberjack
Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 | 06:11 PM
1. How do you know I do not intend to pay? I am simply not expecting to. If by some rare chance one of you succeeds, I will pay in full. I make enough money to cover 10 of you proving that my faith is wrong AND buy about five plasma screen TVs.

2. I do not claim to be an expert in evolution. If I wanted to be, I'd study it. I honestly know almost nothing about it, and am in no position to provide any sort of a rebuttal to it based on the information presented in this forum. What do I know about it? I know that its a theory, not proven fact. I know that the one who came up with the theory only did it out of anger towards God and on his deathbed, after seeing that it could not be possible, refuted it himself. I know that there is no possible way for something as complex as a human to "evolve" over time from something as simple as a single celled organism. That would imply that the genetic codes for everything that makes up the creatures in this world today had to have existed within these simpler organisms (if I'm wrong about that, please correct me, but do it in a civilized manner). So if you'd care to enlighten me, please do so. The only way I can prove my faith is through religious based works. Yes, I admit that. In the same fashion, the only way you can prove your beliefs is through science and logic. Since neither of us are apparently going to take the other seriously because of the methods we must use, then so be it. I could go on for hours, but that doesn't mean any of you are going to take me seriously. Just as you could probably go on for hours, and I probably wouldn't take you very seriously, either.

3. Look at it this way, CP. If you were testing anyone in such a fashion, they'd more than likely find it offensive. If you were serious because you believe, then it works. If all you want is proof, why should he? God saves based on faith, not because you want proof that He exists. He's already given you all the proof you need. You just havent found it yet.
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
 Member
Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 | 06:33 PM
Eric, the DNA for human beings was not present in those early organisms. It was random mutation that brought them into existence. Yes, a lot of mutation is harmful, and most is simply harmless, but a small percent- probably less than .01%- helps a cell live better. This improved gene has a higher chance of surviving-and over millions of years, this gene may become present in all members of the species.

And Eric, why would God not answer me? Does the Bible not say, "ask, and ye shall receive?" Doesn't God love me enough to show his presence in the lightening of my spirit? You say I would be troubled by being questioned, yes, but surely God isn't troubled by being asked to do something-if he is indeed omnipotent.
Zach
Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 | 07:12 PM
Eric,

I did not mean to come across harshly; if I did, I apologize. As for the assertion that it would be impossible for a human to have evolved from a single celled organism, I will readily admit that it seems, superficially, to be a very significant stretch of logic. However, when one chronicles the emergence of organisms throughout the history of life, the issue becomes signifiantly less imposing. We can easily follow the emergence of sponges, cnidarians, flatworms, annelids, arthropods, and finally chordates. It fits very nicely. As for the other assertion, that the genome of all simpler organisms would have to include the relevant genetic information to code for proteins in higher metazoans, this concept falls apart when one considers a series of genes called Hox genes. We can follow an increasing amount of genetic material, that occurs through duplication and subsequent mutation, from acoel flatworms (very basal animasls) up through such derived organisms as chordates. Respectfully, I think people should understand evolution before they brush it off as little more than scientific gibberish.
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
 Member
Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 | 07:18 PM
In fact, Eric, I'm confident that even you belive human beings come from a single cell, and that it's not actually so outragous.
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
 Member
Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 | 07:23 PM
I meant outrageous, of course. I'm getting a bit lazy with spellcheck.
Razela
in Chicago, IL
 Member
Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 | 10:03 PM
I especially love this quote, "So if you'd care to enlighten me, please do so. The only way I can prove my faith is through religious based works. Yes, I admit that. In the same fashion, the only way you can prove your beliefs is through science and logic."

Yah, because basing your beliefs on a book that anyone could have written anything in is the same as basing them off "science and logic".

and this quote:
"And to think that all religions will get you to the same place... bull...Since almost no religion agrees with that theory, that means that all of them cannot be true."

Umm...can you say judaism?? Judaism believes that you should think for yourself and question things you are told. Hence why there are so many jewish atheists. It also believes that you should form your own "beliefs", and that God, if there is one would love everyone equally, regardless of race, religion, etc. It also has no concept of heaven or hell, so in the end we all go to the same place.

I can't say I even believe in God, but what I can say is that if your God only loves and cares for people who believe in him or have been educated about him, though he gives so much evidence for the contrary, then he's not a God I want to believe in or who deserves praise. If God is so "good" then he would base his love off a persons character and actions, not off their beliefs. If your God only cares for those who have faith in him, then sign me up for Hell, he's not worth my time.
Sharruma
in capable of finishing a coherent
 Member
Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 | 10:12 PM
Well said Razela
That's exactly how I feel
Mark-N-Isa
in Midwest USA
 Member
Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 | 11:47 PM
Eric the "Bible-thumping" lumberjack,

How exactly did I twist and reverse what you said? It's a copy and paste function. There was no twisting or reversing because it was EXACTLY what you wrote... verbatim!

Here are your words again, EXACTLY the way you wrote them..."It has many other books that are not part of the Bible itself that give a historical record of the events listed in the Bible, proving that everything happened."

The ridiculous part of that statement is basically... because someone else said (The bible, any omitted books, or ANY statement made by anyone EVER in time) says so, that proves something, anything! Content aside... someone's word does not make it fact or prove anything! Nor does the lack of contradictions within a body of work. You are gullible and easy controlled, a sheep of the "flock" all in the name of the ultimate reward... immortality. No one can blame you for desiring a reward like that, but we can blame you for blind ignorance. But in the end it isn't going to happen (immortality - spiritual or otherwise) so don't bother knocking on my door, EVER!

Your level of "fanaticism" is becoming glaringly obvious! You are willing to debate nothing, and wouldn't admit anything even in the face of actual proof, which I suspect is a word that you have NO idea of the definition. YOU so STRONGLY asserted that there were NO contradictions within the entire bible... Al pointed out two in the first book! Yet you chose not to address this at all, instead you choose to try and be witty with a Dave Barry reference and appear intelligent by referencing GW. What a crock, address the debate! You said some drivel about the bible and someone "PROVED" you wrong! Are you not man enough to admit you might be wrong about something? Even just a statement you made? Like this one you made?

"So, since there are no contradictions ANYWHERE within it (yes, I am claiming that. And before you go and tell me i'm stupid to believe that, research it yourself), how can it not be true?"

Again, your words exactly... so address the points made by Al if you're so confident in your "theories." You base your arguments for religion saying that this and that are just theories... BUT SO IS RELIGION!!! Hell, religion doesn't even make a good theory because there is NO supporting evidence... much less the heaping mounds of evidence that support evolution.
Page 1 of 6 pages  1 2 3 >  Last ›

 Note: This thread is located in the Old Forum of the Museum of Hoaxes.