Sunday, November 19, 2006 | Reason : Backlash | print version

The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

by Christadelphian.org

Steve sends us in this great little bit:

"Hi,

Just thought I should send this in. I have attached a flyer that was posted
through my letter box. It is from an odd Christian group,
Christadelphians, that take the good book literally. Sad to see these groups
actually exist, good to see they are on the defensive.

I really hope it is not from my next door neighbour! Perhaps I need to move."

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Sunday, November 19, 2006 | Permalink

Comments 401 - 450 of 1742 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

401. Comment #16076 by J.C. Samuelson on January 4, 2007 at 1:08 pm

@ gimlibengloin # 553,

I stand corrected on the "forgery" charge. However, with regard to the remainder of your post I hope you'll pardon my exasperation; why do some Christians insist on having everything spelled out for them?

"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared." [Emphasis added]

The bold portions are those that are accepted as interpolations by nearly all biblical scholars. In other words, Josephus never confirms the resurrection or any other miracles. Even consulting the Arabic version we see that Josephus remains neutral:

"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to themafter his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."

You'll note that Josephus states that "[The disciples] reported" his alleged post-mortem appearance and in their judgment he may have been the expected Messiah. In other words, Josephus remains merely a neutral witness to those who believed in an actual, living Jesus, not to Jesus himself. Thus, it does not say what you've been led to believe it says.

A similar argument could be made for just about every extra-biblical source ever found & quoted.

Other Comments by J.C. Samuelson

402. Comment #16082 by Mark Taunton on January 4, 2007 at 1:49 pm

Going back a bit now, but I really need to address the following:

472. Comment #13932 by down_under on December 20, 2006 at 6:27 am
Mark

"Sorry if this seems "loony", but the impression I've received is that the perpetrators of 9/11 claimed Allah as their God and the Quran as their holy book, rather than Yahweh and the Bible...?"

Yesthat is ofcourse true, however it is interesting to note that Christians,Jews and Muslims all worship the SAME God!

Sorry but that just isn't right. To illustrate:

The God of the Bible (both Old and New Testaments) begot a son:

"I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee" (Psalm 2:7, also quoted twice in the letter to the Hebrews in the New Testament).

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

According to the Koran, Allah has never begotten a son (Sura 17:111), and to assert that he has is a "monstrous blasphemy" (Sura 18:5).

These two descriptions of God, one from the Bible and one from the Koran, are explicitly contrary to each other - the Koran denies the Bible's description. So, Yahweh the God of the Bible, and Allah the God of Muslims, cannot be the same God (any more than the red hatchback and the blue estate I can see when I look out of my front door are the same car).

The only difference is in the interpretations and messages and meanings etc etc (perhaps because they're so innacurate??? perhaps because they were ritten by people not an almighty being??)

The basic messages of the Koran and the Bible are incompatible with each other - only one of them can be true. My example above is just one of many that I could have used, but one is quite enough. And it's straightforward to avoid varying interpretations and messages in regard to the Bible: just get a Bible yourself and read it. It is clear that you have a lot of ideas about what the Bible says, based on many opinions. But I recommend trying (so far as you are able) to just read it for itself and assess it on its own terms. You may be surprised.

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

403. Comment #16084 by Mark Taunton on January 4, 2007 at 2:23 pm

To Billy: (506,525)
I just realised that your main objection to the chapter being about Babylon (their language) is refuted by the bible "He was to teach them [jewish captives] the language and literature of the Babylonians."
The language was clearly different enough that they had to learn it

Sorry, I forgot to say, this is Daniel 1:4:
"He was to teach them [jewish captives] the language and literature of the Babylonians."

It just makes so much more sense that this was written some time after Babylon.

Clearly there were differences in culture between the Jewish captives and the Babylonians. But I suggest no greater in significance than might be experienced by a native of the Shetland Islands being suddenly set down in the middle of Manhattan Island. The language is spoken in a different way, with different specialised words and pronunciations and spellings - it would take time to learn the new features and usages, but you would not be starting from scratch. The Babylonians' language - Aramaic, also called Akkadian - is very close to Hebrew, and the Assyrians, who spoke it too, could equally speak Hebrew to the inhabitants of Jerusalem (Isa36:13), directly invalidating any attempt to apply Deuteronomy 28:49 to them.

I was also taken aback that you chose a passage from Daniel in an attempt to disprove my point: for those who are not aware, about half of the book of Daniel - a book written initially for Hebrew readers - is actually written in Aramaic!

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

404. Comment #16085 by Mark Taunton on January 4, 2007 at 2:44 pm

To Billy again: (505)

Deut 28 is probably more a set of threats to propogate the continuation of jewish monotheism and probably referrs to no future events

As I said in answer to JohnC, Deut 30:1 shows that Deut 28 is a prophecy. Moses says those events certainly would happen. And they have happened, exactly as Moses said, as have a whole lot more, prophesied by later prophets. The history of the Jews over the past 2000 years, and the reality of Israel being once more a nation in their own land, in the midst of Arab enemies, is direct testimony to the truth of the Bible. The fact of so much fulfilled detailed prophecy is one of my reasons for believing the Bible to be exactly what it claims to be - a direct communication from the true and living God.

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

405. Comment #16087 by down_under on January 4, 2007 at 3:00 pm

Mark:

"The basic messages of the Koran and the Bible are incompatible with each other - only one of them can be true"

What a classic statement! ofcourse as a christian you are CERTAIN that it is the bible, mostof the middle east are CERTAIN it is te Koran......depends where you are born my friend.......I present to you the 3rd option that NONE of them are true!

And how dare you assume I havnt read the bible!!!
I used to be a beliving Christian, Catholic infact, I come from an Irish family, my dad is devout catholic!! I went to a catholic school and attened sunday school after church every week!!!!!
It is all this knowledge and christian raising that made me realise how ridiculous it all is!!
And when I asked the preist of my parish (despite his idiocy he is a lovley human being) the impossible questions, he (like many theists on this thread) babbled on, quoted the bible and told me God loves me, without ever answering the question!!

It is my up-bringing as a Catholic that made me realise the sheer stupidity of religion and blind faith and made me atheist
I also took a great interest in science and realised that the things in the bible just could not be so.....
I remember specifically the moment i became atheist

I had been questioning my faith already for at least 3 years (i had grown up a bit and it all just seemed a bit childish and silly to me) i was 15
i was in RE lesson learning about Genesis and, although i was already aware of the many contradictions in the bible, i realised there was one on the 1st page!!!!
that God created Man first, and last!!
then in science class we were learning about the universe and i just though a universe so large, so ancient, so complex, so mysterious......there is no way a God can possibly exist

Then after years of searching and studying all it did was make me more and more atheist and eventually even find theists a little bit dumb!

So yes i have read the bible and yes i am suprised!! suprised anyone can still belive that garbage!! its the 21st century man!!!!!!!

as much as your god wants us to be......we are not children and its time mankind grew up!

And I can say that YES! JEWS MUSLIMS AND CHRISTIANS ALL WORSHIP THE SAME GOD!! many people of all these faiths accept this!!

All your ramblings did was proove my point that it is the messages and interpretations that differ (hence why they are incompatibale) and more proove that they are all false

*sigh* theists *sigh*

Other Comments by down_under

406. Comment #16088 by down_under on January 4, 2007 at 3:04 pm

gimlibengloin:

"Seriously though I don't think your following the thread closely. We were not referring to a religious story but the testimony of the 2nd Temple period Jewish historian Josephus who's writings are regarded by scholars and historians as valid. Billy Sands kindly provided a quote from his prior to mine which you should look at."

Despite all that, you said that because the text is there and cant be dis-prooven it must be accepted.....that is what I was getting at, its a rather half brained way to think

plus i notice you did nothing to disproove any of the texts i put forth (though i found your sarcastic "OH NO Frodo isnt real" comment ammusing....nice to see a theist with a sense of humour (trust me it is rare)

Other Comments by down_under

407. Comment #16090 by down_under on January 4, 2007 at 3:15 pm

where is theo? is he going to answer my questions?
or has he (like all other theists) given up

nfact i challenge all theists to scroll back through all the questions i have asked and to answer them.....i dont like to be ignored and the fact you all ignore them must mean deep down....you know im right

Other Comments by down_under

408. Comment #16093 by Tuiliq on January 4, 2007 at 3:21 pm

If a Powershot A85 digital camera is designed by Canon, how can your eye not be designed, which works of the same principles and yet possesses far more advanced "technology"???

This shows very poor knowledge of both eyes and cameras. Contrary to common opinion, the human eye is sort of an engineering mess. Given the same set of parts, a first-year university engineering student could make all kinds of improvements: lenses immune to carnosine deficiency, a pressure-relief valve to prevent glaucoma, putting the light receptors on the "first surface" (like Canon does) to improve sensitivity and resolution (instead of behind all manner of gunk, as it is in the eye), re-routing of the optic nerve to prevent the blind spot, a filtration system to get rid of "floaters", a compensating mechanism to allow lens-adjustment for close work as the materials age, a re-focus mechanism to prevent myopia (sort of like Hubble), a regenerative routine to eliminate astigmatism ... and on and on and on.

Read up before you comment.

Other Comments by Tuiliq

409. Comment #16095 by Mark Taunton on January 4, 2007 at 3:23 pm

down_under: I unreservedly apologise for my implication that you have not read the Bible. Can I confirm from your response that you have read it in its entirety?

My comment was intended (but evidently failed) to get to the point that we can individually avoid being caught up in other people's interpretations of the Bible by reading it for ourselves. In your experience, the priest of course would present his views about the Bible to you, in connection (presumably) with your own reading. Reading it completely for oneself is best.

I stand by the straightforward logical point that Yahweh and Allah are not the same God.

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

410. Comment #16096 by down_under on January 4, 2007 at 3:25 pm

I wonder what excuse christians will come up with when life is discovered on other worlds?
even if ts nothing more than bacteria on mars

Other Comments by down_under

411. Comment #16097 by down_under on January 4, 2007 at 3:28 pm

Mark:

I have read much of the bible...especially during the days when i was still catholic but questioning my faith

however i will admit i have not read it in its entirety and i did not mean to make it sound like i had.....i did once read it all as a young child but obviously im not going to remember it all.(or even understand it all!)

I understood your point, but all it seemed to do was strengthen my point that the only difference in the Jewish, Muslim and Christian Gods was the interpretations

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one

Other Comments by down_under

412. Comment #16098 by Mark Taunton on January 4, 2007 at 3:33 pm

down_under:

nfact i challenge all theists to scroll back through all the questions i have asked and to answer them.....i dont like to be ignored and the fact you all ignore them must mean deep down....you know im right

I'm sorry but you produce far more comments than I could possibly attempt to answer. Please suggest ONE point that you would wish me to answer? In return, please consider my primary argument in this thread (as summarised in my post 558 above). I assert that clear Bible prophecy, fulfilled in every detail, provably after it was written, provides strong evidence that the God of the Bible is real. Since obviously you would dispute that, please show me in what respect I am mistaken.

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

413. Comment #16099 by down_under on January 4, 2007 at 3:38 pm

Mark:

"I assert that clear Bible prophecy, fulfilled in every detail, provably after it was written, provides strong evidence that the God of the Bible is real"

I have answered this before, and i do apoligise.....I do post an awful lot, truth be told i quite enjoy this!

The bible has no "clear" prophecies, no clearer than Nostradaumus and the predictions in the bible were quite obvious at the time and anyone can make an accurate prediction in the way the bible has

"I predict Australia will suffer serious drought within the next 10 years"

Thats much clearer than any bible prophecies and im sure it will come true

however my favorite answer to this question is

"Jules Verne"

This man more accuratly, more recently and less cripticly predicted the futre.....maybe he should be our God and his comlete works our bible?

Other Comments by down_under

414. Comment #16101 by down_under on January 4, 2007 at 3:41 pm

Mark, here are some of my previous questions that are constantly ignored

NLHB comments on the filth, and downright evilness that is in the bible and is waiting for an explanation as to how any loving person can possibly accept this book as a guidline for life

Me and Billy commented on all the ancient man-gods

Horus
Osiris
Mithras
Deoysinis
Baal
etc etc

and how their stories are almost identical to Jesus but actually predate jesus (some by several thousand years)
and ask how you can rule out these ancient Gods as mythology yet so openly belive jesus is real

Furthermore

Not only is the bible incredibally evil and simply recycled from other ancient stories
but it is also simply ridiculous!!

Theo, as a sane person can you honestly tell me that.

You belive Angels crossbred with humans to make giants??

Gen 6:4

That UNICORNS actually existed??

Job 39:9

that animals could talk???

Gen 3
Which would also make your all loving god a liar! and rather stupid for
a) putting that tree there in the 1st place
b) putting that snake there

that the entire universe was created in 6 DAYS!!! and that your almighty powerful omnipitant god
GOT TIRED AND NEEDED A REST???

That dinosaurs roamed side by side with biblical people(and giants apparantly) despite all fossil evidence stating otherwise!!!

That the ENTIRE PLANET was flooded despite no other civilisations aronud at the time recording any such flood
surley the egyptian pharoes would have noticed a few submerged pyramids but apparantly not!

That 2 of EVERY ANIMAL!! (now trust me thats ALOT!! there are several species of Wallaby alone!) all fit on 1 boat then somehow managed to redistribute themselves to their respective habitats!!!
Koalas going back to Australia, Polar bears to the arctic, etc etc

That ALL languages originated from the Tower of Babel rather than evolving through time which has been prooved

(Why does the Bible have NO mention of Aboriginies,who have existed for 60,000 years, older than the biblical earth!! and NO mention of native amercans??)

Ca you tell me as a sane human being yu belive all of that??
If not twen how can you be sure the rest of the bible is true??

Also some people are so sure that the great flood killed the dinosaurs (despite noah being told toget 2 of EVERY animal) but if so

then what killed all the flying and swimming dinosaurs???

please please please please answer these questions because noone else seems to want to

another question all thesists(tho not yourself theo........yet) have ignored is this

You say the univese could not have come from nothing so it must be god
yet to belive the universe came from nothing all you have to do is accept that a few tiny atoms came into existance.....we dont know how.....but just because we dont know doesnt mean it was an almighty being!

but answer this

where does your creator come from??
an intelligent almighty being would be FAR more complex than a few atoms forming the big bang, so by your own logic he couldnt come from nothing?
so what created the creator? then what created that?

and why does god love beards and forbid you to shave them? (Lev 19:27)

apologies for the "theo" bits in there mark, i just copied and pasted im tired and being lazy hehe

Other Comments by down_under

415. Comment #16102 by down_under on January 4, 2007 at 3:46 pm

I had many more questions (and have more i have yet too post) bt il leave you with them for now

and just to let you know

you can quote all the loving, friendly and even historically accurate bibe quotes you like

it wont erase the evil, sexist, racist, stupid, ridiculous and historically innacurate ones

Other Comments by down_under

416. Comment #16103 by down_under on January 4, 2007 at 3:47 pm

You must feel pretty lucky to be born into a Christian country aye mark!
just imagine if your family followed a different religion or if you had been born in Syria, you'd all be wrong!
might even burn in hell!

Other Comments by down_under

417. Comment #16105 by Mark Taunton on January 4, 2007 at 3:50 pm

down_under:
I'll try to respond to your post 567 soon (but not today - life is too busy).
In respect of 568, please pick ONE point and I'll try to deal with it. Thanks.

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

418. Comment #16112 by Theo on January 4, 2007 at 4:24 pm

D_U,

I said that I was answering from comment #15232 COME DOWN.(I am actually fighting the temptation to answer the most recent, but if I do, accusations of me ignoring statements wont stop).

Comment # 15533

Gen 6: 1-4, the sons of God refers to the linage of Seth, not angels (angels do not have the ability to form a martial bond Mt 22:30)

Unicorns are only found in the king james version, other versions translate it as wild ox. It is described in scripture as having two horns (Deut 33:17) and was a common beast of burden (Job 39:11)

God used animals to talk. An omnipotent God can do that right?

God placed the tree and serpent there so that man can be tested. NB: man CHOSE to disobey God

God rested on the seventh day not because he was tired. The Hebrew word used (shabat) means to cease. In other words, God rested or ceased from creating on the seventh day.

Other Comments by Theo

419. Comment #16113 by Theo on January 4, 2007 at 4:33 pm

D_U,

Comment # 15533
"That dinosaurs roamed side by side with biblical people(and giants apparantly) despite all fossil evidence stating otherwise!!!"

First things first, we must understand that fossils are extremely rare. Evolutionary scientist James Powell stated that normally, living things decay and rot away. In order for fossils to form, certain abnormal conditions apply such as:

1. rapid burial
2. this rapid burial should be in mud or fine sediment to block out oxygen

In this protected environment fossilization MAY occur. He also wrote:
[I]n the winter after the great Yellowstone fires of 1988, thousands of elk perished from extreme cold coupled with lack of food. Late the following spring, their carcasses were strewn everywhere. Yet only a few years later, bones from the great elk kill are scarce. The odds that a single one will be preserved so that it can be found 65 million years from now approach zero. At best we can expect to find fossil evidence of only a tiny fraction of the animals that once lived. The earth's normal processes destroy or hide most of the clues (1998, p. xv).

Kurt Wise from Harvard University stated that in terms of numbers of fossils, 95% of the fossil record consists of shallow marine invertebrates (such as corals and shellfish) [see Snelling, 1991, p. 30]. "Within the remaining 5%, 95% are all the algae and plant/tree fossils...and all the other invertebrate fossils, including the insects. Thus, the vertebrates (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) together make up very little of the fossil record -in fact, 5% of 5%, which is a mere 0.25% of the entire fossil record" (Snelling, p. 30). Even though so much is made of vertebrate fossils (like dinosaurs and humans), comparatively speaking, they make up a minute part of the overall fossil record.
I once thought that we had a lot of dinosaur fossils, imagine my surprise to find that we only possess 2100 individual fossil bones (we all know that the dinosaur skeletons in museums are based on a small percentage of their actual remains). For example, the 120-foot-long Argentinosaurus replica housed in the Fernbank Museum of Natural History is based on only 10 percent of its remains (a dozen backbone vertebrae, a few limb bones and part of the hips) [Meyer, 2002].
All the hominid fossils that we have can probably fit into two coffins. In a conversation in 1996 with James Powell, president and director of the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History, the renowned evolutionary paleoanthropologist Meave Leakey gave some insight into her frustrations in search for hominid or human fossils as she described her "nearly futile hunt for human bone in a new field area as FOUR YEARS of hard work producing only THREE NONDESCRIPT SCRAPS" (Powell, 1998, p. xv, emphasis added). Most recently, David Begun concluded an article in Science magazine titled "The Earliest Hominins-Is Less More?," by saying: "[T]he level of uncertainty in the available direct evidence at this time renders irreconcilable differences of opinion inevitable. The solution is in the mantra of all paleontologists: WE NEED MORE FOSSILS!" (2004, 303:1479-1480, emp. added). Although hominid and human fossils are the most sought-after fossils in the world, scientists readily admit that few human fossils have been found.

So lets see, fossils are extremely rare, of the fossils we do have 95% are invertebrates, a large part of the remaining 5% goes to plant matter which leaves vertebrates with 0.25% mammals get a smaller percentage and hominids well you get the picture.

That is why we know that recently extinct Pyrenean Ibex and Dodo bird co-existed with us, BUT WE CANNOT PROVE IT FROM THE FOSSIL RECORD. Our knowledge of the fossil record is still in its infancy and should be treated as such.

This is the same explanation given by evolutionary scientist as to the reasons why we have no transitional species resulting in chasms on the fossil record. Understanding this, I guess it's a race to find convincing evidence of human co-existence with dinosaurs or convincing transitional forms for evolution.

Other Comments by Theo

420. Comment #16116 by Theo on January 4, 2007 at 4:39 pm

D_U,

"That the ENTIRE PLANET was flooded despite no other civilizations around at the time recording any such flood..."

The account of the Genesis Flood hardly stands alone in human history. Researchers have described over 100 flood traditions from Europe, Asia, Australia, the East Indies, the Americas, East Africa, and many other places.

Notable Scholar Rehwinkel wrote:

Traditions similar to this record are found among nearly all the nations and tribes of the human race. And this is as one would expect it to be. If that awful world catastrophe, as described in the Bible, actually happened, the existence of the Flood traditions among the widely separated and primitive people is just what is to be expected. It is only natural that the memory of such an event was rehearsed in the ears of the children of the survivors again and again and possibly made the basis of some religious observances (1951,
pp. 127-128).

Although Genesis is silent on it, there are many theories on the redistribution of the animals. From temporary land bridges, slow redistribution over a period of time, and the fact that if God brought the animals to the ark by supernatural intervention He could redistribute them by it too. The fact is Genesis is silent, and these are "somehow's" and "maybe's" which don't cut it as explanations (except when applied to evolution) thus these are questions in which the answers we may not know for sure.

As for the evolution of language being proven, I do not have any knowledge of information that "proves" the evolution of language. Can you direct me to the appropriate resources?

"Also some people are so sure that the great flood killed the dinosaurs (despite noah being told toget 2 of EVERY animal) but if so

then what killed all the flying and swimming dinosaurs???"

We all know of species becoming extinct without catastrophes occurring. It is plausible that the remaining dinosaurs could have become extinct in the same way.

D_U,
Comment #15537

"You say the univese could not have come from nothing so it must be god
yet to belive the universe came from nothing all you have to do is accept that a few tiny atoms came into existance.....we dont know how.....but just because we dont know doesnt mean it was an almighty being!

where does your creator come from??
an intelligent almighty being would be FAR more complex than a few atoms forming the big bang, so by your own logic he couldnt come from nothing?
so what created the creator? then what created that?"

There is a fundamental flaw in this question, you ask, "where does my creator COME from?" well first of all, He never CAME. He always existed as an eternal being with no beginning and no end. Its not farfetched considering that scientist attribute this eternal characteristic to matter and energy. Its either the singularity always existed or it was God. In the words of NLHB, I leave a TINY room in my thinking to allow for the possibility that it was the singularity.

Other Comments by Theo

421. Comment #16119 by Theo on January 4, 2007 at 4:46 pm

BillySands,

Comment# 15686

"I think you miss the point here, the bible is the christians evidence of there god. Show it to be false, you show their god is false. Why would you hold a deist position? Why not jump to islam, or better still atheism? You obviously think there must be some god. Why?"

No Billy, the bible wasn't my evidence for believing in God, it was reason. (as an atheist I would not have given the bible a second glance). So what made me abandon my atheist ways?

The main objection to special creation is the fact that it is not falsifiable i.e. not testable. The other theories on the origins of life are falsifiable and thus more applicable to science. The theories that address the origins of life are:

1. The Steady State Theory- States that life on earth always existed
2. Special Creation- that life originated from a Creator
3. Cosmic Panspermia- that life on earth originated elsewhere in the universe
4. Spontaneous Generation- that a self replicating cell emerged from non-living material

NB: Cosmic Panspermia does not properly address the origin of life; it just shifts the problem to another place in the universe. As a result it will be ignored in this discussion.

Scientists have indeed tested the testable and these are the results.
For theory number:
1. Falsified
2. Unknown
3. N/A
4. Falsified
It must be noted that theory #4 has been tested on numerous occasions each returning the same verdict: Falsified, Falsified, etc.

So from the above results, we know for a fact that neither life nor the earth always existed, WE DEFINITELY KNOW FOR A FACT that life did not originate spontaneously. In other words, when the dust settles we are left with spontaneous generation and Special Creation. USING THE METHOD OF ELIMINATION we are left with S.C.

The atheist would say that they don't know how life began, but if its not Spontaneous Generation then isn't it Special Creation? Unless there is some other theory to fall back on? Question for atheists: if life did NOT originate by spontaneous generation NOR special creation, DOES LOGIC FACILITATE ANOTHER EXPLANATION? WHAT OTHER EXPLANATION CAN THERE POSSIBLY BE?!
PLEASE PLEASE answer this, my logic and reason is at a strain as to understand what possible ALTERNATIVE can facilitate the rejection of special creation!

To further illustrate my frustration, its like stumbling upon a penknife, you know it has a maker but your open mindedness allows you to make room for another explanation provided by another individual- it was assembled via natural causes. When tested, this explanation was proven false. You then say, "Ok, I guess this penknife has a maker" only to here the other person say," you are deluded, it would be more appropriate to say you don't know how the penknife originated." Shocked and amazed, I struggle to create other explanations as to the penknife's origin.

At the end of thinking upon the issue, it seems that the atheist is saying, "we don't know how life began, but its definitely not a creator."

Guys, I will concede, if science produces a living self replicating cell, I WILL REVERT BACK TO ATHEISM, but until such evidence manifests itself I have no choice, REASON CONSTRAINS ME, to remain a theist.

Other Comments by Theo

422. Comment #16142 by Mark Taunton on January 4, 2007 at 11:54 pm

down_under:

Mark:

"I assert that clear Bible prophecy, fulfilled in every detail, provably after it was written, provides strong evidence that the God of the Bible is real"

The bible has no "clear" prophecies, no clearer than Nostradaumus

That's simply not true. Two examples:

Example A: the treatment of Israel by Rome.

Deuteronomy 28:49-57. Moses is speaking to the people of Israel, as they are about to enter the promised land, he tells them that if they disobey God repeatedly, …

49 The LORD[=Yahweh] shall bring a nation against you from far, from the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flies, a nation whose tongue you shall not understand; 50 A nation of fierce countenance, which shall not regard the person of the old, nor show favour to the young: 51 And he shall eat the fruit of your cattle, and the fruit of your land, until you are destroyed: which also shall not leave you either corn, wine, or oil, or the increase of your cattle, or flocks of your sheep, until he has destroyed you. 52 And he shall besiege you in all your gates, until your high and fenced walls come down, wherein you trusted, throughout all your land: and he shall besiege you in all your gates throughout all your land, which Yahweh your God has given you. 53 And you shall eat the fruit of your own body, the flesh of your sons and of your daughters, which Yahweh your God has given you, in the siege, and in the distress, wherewith your enemy shall distress you.

The same message is picked up by the prophet Jeremiah, towards the end of the 7th Century BC.

Jeremiah 5:15 Lo, I will bring a nation upon you from far, O house of Israel, says Yahweh: it is a mighty nation, it is an ancient nation, a nation whose language you know not, nor do you understand what they say. 16 Their quiver is as an open sepulchre, they are all mighty men. 17 And they shall eat up your harvest, and your bread, which your sons and your daughters should eat: they shall eat up your flocks and your herds: they shall eat up your vines and your fig trees: they shall impoverish your fenced cities, wherein you trusted, with the sword.

What is not clear about those prophecies? It's plain to whom they are addressed. The details of what was predicted to happen are also quite plain. And these words were fulfilled, in all their terrible details, by the Romans in the land of Israel, beginning in the late 2nd Century BC and for about the next 250 years.

Yet Jeremiah goes on to say:
18 Nevertheless in those days, says Yahweh, I will not make a full end of you. 19 And it shall come to pass, when you shall say, Why is Yahweh our God doing all these things unto us? then shall you answer them, Like as you have forsaken me, and served strange gods in your land, so shall you serve strangers in a land that is not yours.

Verse 19 links back to Deuteronomy 28:64. Let's see the context of that:

63 And it shall come to pass, that as Yahweh rejoiced over you to do you good, and to multiply you; so Yahweh will rejoice over you to destroy you, and to bring you to nought; and you shall be plucked from off the land whither you go to possess it. 64 And Yahweh shall scatter you among all people, from the one end of the earth even unto the other; and there you shall serve other gods, which neither you nor your fathers have known, even wood and stone. 65 And among these nations shall you find no ease, neither shall the sole of your foot have rest: but Yahweh shall give you there a trembling heart, and failing of eyes, and sorrow of mind: 66 And your life shall hang in doubt before you; and you shall fear day and night, and shall have no assurance of your life: 67 In the morning you shall say, "Would God it were evening!", and in the evening you shall say, "Would God it were morning!" for the fear of your heart wherewith you shall fear, and for the sight of your eyes which you shall see.

I ask again: what about that is not clear? Israel were predicted to be removed from their land and scattered among all peoples, throughout the earth, experiencing trouble and distress, with no stability, only fear and sorrow.

And the prophecy was fulfilled, starting from about AD67, down through the past 2000 years. The Romans removed the Jews from their land, and they have been kicked about from one country to another, and terribly treated, ever since.

But God said in Jeremiah 5:18 "I will not make a full end of you". Likewise in Jeremiah 30:10-11:

10 Therefore fear not, O my servant Jacob, says Yahweh; neither be dismayed, O Israel: for, lo, I will save you from afar, and your seed from the land of their captivity; and Jacob shall return, and shall be in rest, and be quiet, and none shall make him afraid. 11 For I am with you, says Yahweh, to save you: though I make a full end of all nations whither I have scattered you, yet will I not make a full end of you: but I will correct you in measure, and will not leave you altogether unpunished.

So the Jews still exist, they are distinct, still a unique people, in part because they were so widely scattered that no one enemy could kill them all. God would not allow them to be completely destroyed but has preserved a remnant of them, even through the horrendous events of the 1930s and 40s when Jews in Europe were almost wiped out. Again, the prophecy has been fulfilled.

What would happen after that?

Example B: the return of the Jews to the land Israel to form a nation there again.

Many Biblical prophets tell us very plainly; look for just one example at Ezekiel 36:

1 Also, you son of man, prophesy unto the mountains of Israel, and say, You mountains of Israel, hear the word of Yahweh: 2 Thus says the lord Yahweh; Because the enemy has said against you, Aha, even the ancient high places are ours in possession: 3 Therefore prophesy and say, Thus says the lord Yahweh; Because they have made you desolate, and swallowed you up on every side, that you might be a possession unto the residue of the nations, and you are taken up in the lips of talkers, and are an infamy of the people: 4 Therefore, you mountains of Israel, hear the word of the lord Yahweh; Thus says the lord Yahweh to the mountains, and to the hills, to the rivers, and to the valleys, to the desolate wastes, and to the cities that are forsaken, which became a prey and derision to the residue of the nations that are round about; 5 Therefore thus says the lord Yahweh; Surely in the fire of my jealousy have I spoken against the residue of the nations, and against all Edom, which have appointed my land into their possession with the joy of all their heart, with despiteful minds, to cast it out for a prey. 6 Prophesy therefore concerning the land of Israel, and say unto the mountains, and to the hills, to the rivers, and to the valleys, Thus says the lord Yahweh; Behold, I have spoken in my jealousy and in my fury, because you have borne the shame of the nations: 7 Therefore thus says the lord Yahweh; I have lifted up mine hand, Surely the nations that are about you, they shall bear their shame. 8 But you, O mountains of Israel, you shall shoot forth your branches, and yield your fruit to my people of Israel; for they are at hand to come. 9 For, behold, I am for you, and I will turn unto you, and you shall be tilled and sown: 10 And I will multiply men upon you, all the house of Israel, even all of it: and the cities shall be inhabited, and the wastes shall be built: 11 And I will multiply upon you man and beast; and they shall increase and bring fruit: and I will settle you after your old estates, and will do better unto you than at your beginnings: and you shall know that I am Yahweh. 12 Yes, I will cause men to walk upon you, even my people Israel; and they shall possess you, and you shall be their inheritance, and you shall no more henceforth bereave them of men. 13 Thus says the lord Yahweh; Because they say unto you, You, land, devour men, and have bereaved your nations; 14 Therefore you shall devour men no more, neither bereave your nations any more, says the lord Yahweh.15 Neither will I cause men to hear in you the shame of the nations any more, neither shall you bear the reproach of the people any more, neither shall you cause your nations to fall any more, says the lord Yahweh. 16 Moreover the word of Yahweh came unto me, saying, 17 Son of man, when the house of Israel dwelt in their own land, they defiled it by their own way and by their doings: their way was before me as the uncleanness of a removed woman. 18 Wherefore I poured my fury upon them for the blood that they had shed upon the land, and for their idols wherewith they had polluted it: 19 And I scattered them among the nations, and they were dispersed through the countries: according to their way and according to their doings I judged them. 20 And when they entered unto the nations, whither they went, they profaned my holy name, when they said to them, These are the people of Yahweh, and are gone forth out of his land. 21 But I had pity for my holy name, which the house of Israel had profaned among the nations, whither they went. 22 Therefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus says the lord Yahweh; I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy name's sake, which you have profaned among the nations, whither you went. 23 And I will sanctify my great name, which was profaned among the nations, which you have profaned in the midst of them; and the nations shall know that I am Yahweh, says the lord Yahweh, when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes. 24 For I will take you from among the nations, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land.

(I know that was a long quotation, but it's all very relevant.)
Here, in words addressed as if to the land of Israel itself, God predicts through his prophet that despite the desolate state of that land, he will eventually bring back his people from all the nations where they have been dispersed to (in fulfilment of Deuteronomy 28:63-64) and they will once again live in that land, despite Arab enemies who claim the land for themselves (verse 5: Edom = Esau, Jacob's brother, the father of some of the Arab peoples). By contrast with its apparent barrenness in their absence, it will be fruitful for them. In their scattered and dispersed state God would be punishing them because they did not honour him, because they profaned his holy name Yahweh, in their continued disobedience. Yet he would bring them back, not for their own sakes (i.e. not because they stopped being disobedient and started instead to honour and glorify his name), but for his own name's sake. In the fulfilment of these words, Yahweh will be demonstrating his power and glorifying his own name.

And he has done so! This Bible prophecy also has been fulfilled, exactly as Ezekiel said. As from 1948, after more than 1800 years of exile and wandering and trouble, while their land was barren and brought no good to any nation that took power over it, the Jews have formed once again a nation of Israel, reconstituted in their own historic land, which is now fruitful, exactly as Ezekiel predicted 2600 years ago. They have rebuilt the cities, they live in them, the land supports them as it did in the past.

What could be plainer? Not only are these ancient predictions very clear, but they have been fulfilled in the most obvious and clear way. Nostradamus has nothing of that nature.

the predictions in the bible were quite obvious at the time and anyone can make an accurate prediction in the way the bible has

"I predict Australia will suffer serious drought within the next 10 years"

Thats much clearer than any bible prophecies and im sure it will come true

But you say that because it's already happening. It takes no great knowledge or insight to make such a prediction. And what timescale do you make it over? 10 years. The Bible has made clear predictions that have been fulfilled only after many hundreds, indeed over thousands of years, far beyond any practical human expectation or ability to predict. Its prophecies go against all human expectations, not just following them. The predictions about Israel were far from obvious, even much closer in time to the events than when the prophets made them. Let me quote from a professor of modern history at Oxford University:

A century ago geopoliticians could have foreseen the continued colonisation by Russia and the United States of the empty lands to the East and to the West; but who could have foreseen that far more astounding colonisation in the Eastern Mediterranean, the creation of the State of Israel…The Islamic revolution of our day, like the development of the State of Israel, is a phenomenon which could have been predicted – and soon, no doubt, the textbooks will be making it seem the most obvious thing in the world. But it never was predicted by those scientific historians who looked too confidently forward into the future because they have looked, with insufficient imagination, on the past. (Hugh Trevor-Roper, speaking in 1980).

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

423. Comment #16155 by gimlibengloin on January 5, 2007 at 3:56 am

J C Samuelson (555)
OK, both of the examples you cite - the arabic and the one with the alleged interpolations refer to the following: Jesus being a wise man, his crucifixion under Pilate, his alleged resurrection. One refers to his feats as "surprising" the other "good conduct". This is no more than I claimed for Josephus' text. I agree that Josephus doesn't provide support for the miraculous in the gospels and I actually said he refers to his "alleged resurrection".
Please also note that my original arguemnt was over the legitimacy of the charge of christian forgery when scholars are actually divided over the texts legitimacy.

down_under (560)
Josephus writings are regarded as essentially historically accurate. The account concerning Jesus occurs within his writings. the account fits the context and his style. Therefore, unless there exists a reason to reject it as genuine we should accept it as genuine. Thats surely perfectly reasonable?

Other Comments by gimlibengloin

424. Comment #16158 by gimlibengloin on January 5, 2007 at 4:40 am

down_under (560)

"nice to see a theist with a sense of humour (trust me it is rare)"

Some of you atheists must have had a freak experience of christians or something because most of the christians I know are humerous and some are are outright hilarious. Intelligent too. In my church of say 250 persons we have solicitors, teachers, accountants, mathematicians, hospital consultants, physicists, rocket scientists..yep you heard me right two of em.
sometimes I think you atheists are looking for the negatives. I read an interview in the paper the other day with the writer Tobias Jones whos been travelling Britain and Italy and staying in communes. He was asked "Is charity and community too tangled up with religion?" and he replied "If someones doing something to convince someone, its not charity its zealotry. But, at the same time, I found that at each community doing extraordinary charity work there was always a religious believer behind it...the people putting forward the most challeging and functional ways of living seemed to me to be people who believed in God"

Other Comments by gimlibengloin

425. Comment #16171 by BillySands on January 5, 2007 at 7:55 am

Lot of comments here, so sorry if I miss any.
I think josephus has been dealt with and I am still waiting for proof that Brahmin does not exist. Again I point you to the fact that the paragraph after the jesus one talks of another disaster. Does that mean that the comming of the christ was a disaster then? or if we take out the jesus passage, we see the previous disaster was the one referred to in the paragraph before the testimonium flavium.
Mark
The jews still did not know the language if they had to learn it. You are going to have to provide better evidence than that. whether the verse claims to be prophetic or not (not a point made by me) is irrelevant, it is still a warning. I didn't know Daniel was written in aramaic. that is interesting, and provides even more evidence that it was written well after it claims to have been.
Theo
comment 537 The fossil record is actually very good considering the difficulties involved, and many many transitional forms do exist. You need to get more informed (see some of the early discussion here with jack (btw is gimlibengloin Jack/Dylan in disguise?:))

575
"No Billy, the bible wasn't my evidence for believing in God, it was reason. (as an atheist I would not have given the bible a second glance). So what made me abandon my atheist ways?"

I WASN'T SAYING WHY YOU BELIEVE. MY POINT IS THAT MANY CHRISTIANS HOLD IT UP AS THEIR EVIDENCE (PARTICULARLY YECs) The bible even makes that claim about itself (jn 20:31). I find reason a good i reason not to believe. Feel free to provide some evidence.

"1. The Steady State Theory- States that life on earth always existed
2. Special Creation- that life originated from a Creator
3. Cosmic Panspermia- that life on earth originated elsewhere in the universe
4. Spontaneous Generation- that a self replicating cell emerged from non-living material

NB: Cosmic Panspermia does not properly address the origin of life; it just shifts the problem to another place in the universe. As a result it will be ignored in this discussion.

Scientists have indeed tested the testable and these are the results.
For theory number:
1. Falsified
2. Unknown
3. N/A
4. Falsified
It must be noted that theory #4 has been tested on numerous occasions each returning the same verdict: Falsified, Falsified, etc."

Really, that is news to the scientific community, perhaps you would care to elaborate. creationist evidence to be honest is pathetic and very easily refuted - feel free to supply some.

Other Comments by BillySands

426. Comment #16175 by BillySands on January 5, 2007 at 8:09 am

Mark, you are going to have to prove that prophecies were written before the event, and deuteronomy 29 just sounds so much like a verse about Babylon.
the bible contains many failed prophecies too (eg Jer. 25:11-12: "This entire land shall become a desolate wasteland. Israel and her neighboring lands shall serve the king of Babylon for seventy years. Then, when seventy years of captivity are over, I will punish the king of Babylon and his people for their sins, says the Lord. I will make the country of the Babylonians an everlasting wasteland." Jeremiah was wrong about the length of the exile. The Babylonians took Jerusalem in 587/586 BC (rewriting the bible p154) and Cyrus the Great (not the mysterious Darius the Mede of Dan. 9:1) conquered Babylon in 538 BC (rtb p156). He also proclaimed that the Jews could return home in the first year of his reign (Ezr. 1:1-4). This is at most 49 years, and even if we are generous and take the start of the prophecy as 597 BC, when the Babylonians first laid siege to Jerusalem (the bible unearthed p293), that still only totals 59 years. During that time, neither Israel nor Jerusalem lay desolate (tbu pp 305-308), and Babylon was not destroyed by Cyrus. In fact, Alexander the Great (356-321 BC) may have considered using the city as his capital (The Babylonians An Introduction p67).
here is a link to some more http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/prophecy.html
Theo
concerning the designer always existing, are you really saying that reason allows you to make that unverifiable dodge? As far as I am aware, it is not the common belief that scientists claim that matter always existed. Even if that wereo, how can that be used to justify your claim that god always existed? that is faith, not reason

Other Comments by BillySands

427. Comment #16176 by BillySands on January 5, 2007 at 8:16 am

gimlibengloin 578
It is true many people have had bad experiences of christians (I certainly am one - at least it started me questioning), but your comment is really doing what you say you dont like in atheists. There are also plenty of humanist charity workers too. All of which is irrelevant to the point of the arguements here. I do however think that the behaviour of some christians can be best explained in terms of there being no god.
Tell us your best joke and see if we laugh:-)

Other Comments by BillySands

428. Comment #16177 by J.C. Samuelson on January 5, 2007 at 8:30 am

Pardon my jumping in...

@ Mark Taunton # 556, # 563, # 576

"The basic messages of the Koran and the Bible are incompatible with each other - only one of them can be true."

Then again, both of them could be false. Perhaps they each get some parts right and others wrong, making them complimentary at some points. Maybe the Hindu vedas get it right, or partly right. Of course, the intellectually honest theist must admit that, as a human, he cannot know with 100% certainty that any of them are anything more than historical fiction (defined as a fictional story set in an actual historical time period).

"...avoid being caught up in other people's interpretations of the Bible by reading it for ourselves."

If I may, this is unavoidable. One of the reasons there are so many versions of the Bible is that there are so many possible interpretations. The product you have on your shelf is not necessarily the right one. Furthermore, the extant documents we have (from which all versions are derived) often show signs of alteration, which means that in order to approach a pure reading one would need to have the originals - which we don't. What we do have is several different "best guesses" of modern biblical translators, and there is no single manuscript tradition. Yet, even were we to have the originals there would still possibly be some diversity, because none of the languages used in the Bible translates directly into English (i.e., there is plenty of room for nuance - and error). Not only that, but in order to understand the Bible in its proper context, you need additional information; language resources for literary and linguistic context, history resources for cultural context, and so on.

To put all that another way, if your study of the Bible occurs more or less in an intellectual vacuum (self-interpretation) you are almost certainly going to reach the wrong conclusion several times. This is just simple common sense.

"That's simply not true. Two examples:

Example A: the treatment of Israel by Rome...Example B: the return of the Jews to the land Israel to form a nation there again."

I would be impressed by these so-called prophecies if they actually identified the antagonists and predicted the dates they would occur. Otherwise, it may be a case of retroactive interpretation - seeing what you want to see - or perhaps some degree of political insight on the part of the writers in very general terms. After all, the Jews had more than their fair share of troubles with other nations besides Rome prior to the completion of the OT (Assyria and Babylonia come to mind as examples).

My mother said that when she was a child she always knew she would have three children. That she eventually did doesn't mean she is or was a prophetess. If she had described our physical features and had given names and dates of birth in her diary when she was young, then that would be impressive and arguably qualify for the label of "prophecy."

@ Theo # 572, # 573, # 574, # 575

"God used animals to talk. An omnipotent God can do that right?"

Could you be any less critical? Sure, an omnipotent God can do anything he wants. It's just that throughout history not one incident of an animal capable of speech has ever been recorded - outside fictional and religious texts, that is. Ask yourself if it is at least possible that the very human authors responsible for those passages were exercising a bit of creative license. If you can admit that, you begin to understand why skeptics prefer evidence. The second part of your statement amounts to nothing more than special pleading.

"God placed the tree and serpent there so that man can be tested. NB: man CHOSE to disobey God."

Though this omniscient God knew in advance which choice they would make. Thus, they had only the illusion of choice. Indeed, for God's plan - which was preordained - to reach fruition, Adam & Eve had to eat of the tree. Thus, the serpent and the two innocents were unwitting tools working to accomplish God's preordained plan of salvation rather than free agents. To assert they made a free choice is to assert that man has the power to alter God's plan, or perhaps even surprise him. It must allow that they could've chosen otherwise. Where would God's plan be if not for Adam, Eve, and the serpent? ;)

"This is the same explanation given by evolutionary scientist as to the reasons why we have no transitional species resulting in chasms on the fossil record...I guess it's a race to find convincing evidence of human co-existence with dinosaurs or convincing transitional forms for evolution."

Your understanding of the fossil record is flawed, as is your understanding of punctuated gradualism and probably dating techniques (though I won't address those just now). Read Taxonomy, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record by Keith Miller. The latter resource is from the American Scientific Affiliation, a Christian association of scientists. For a partial list of transitional forms, see Transitional Forms. There is no "race" to find dinosaur fossils alongside homonid fossils, because none are expected by anyone except creationists (granting about 5% of the scientific community). This would be an anachronism nearly equal to Haldane's "fossil rabbits in the precambrian."

"Researchers have described over 100 flood traditions from Europe, Asia, Australia, the East Indies, the Americas, East Africa, and many other places."

Among the many things that seem to escape those who use this argument in favor of the flood myth is that in order for these other cultures to have these stories, there must be survivors. According to the biblical account, Noah and his family are the only ones to do so. With the age of these other myths and the diversity in the details - including the god or gods responsible (if any) - it is obvious that these myths weren't recorded by Noah's decendants. Thus, the other flood myths do not favor the biblical account at all. In fact, they stand in opposition to it because they imply that someone other than Noah & Co. did survive, including animals in other locations. Of course, there are other reasons too but it isn't necessary yet to discuss them.

"From temporary land bridges, slow redistribution over a period of time, and the fact that if God brought the animals to the ark by supernatural intervention..."

Land bridges & slow redistribution only answers post-flood geographic diversity, not the pre-flood gathering. For that, the theist is forced to resort to special pleading (supernatural intervention). That you state this as fact says a lot about your credulity. Not only that, but it stands in stark contrast to your previous assertion that other cultures also have flood myths, for the reasons I explained above.

"There is a fundamental flaw in this question, you ask, "where does my creator COME from?" well first of all, He never CAME. He always existed as an eternal being with no beginning and no end."

If it is possible for something to always exist, why does that something have to be your god?

"1. The Steady State Theory- States that life on earth always existed
2. Special Creation- that life originated from a Creator
3. Cosmic Panspermia- that life on earth originated elsewhere in the universe
4. Spontaneous Generation- that a self replicating cell emerged from non-living material

NB: Cosmic Panspermia does not properly address the origin of life; it just shifts the problem to another place in the universe. As a result it will be ignored in this discussion."

and

"For theory number:
1. Falsified
2. Unknown
3. N/A
4. Falsified"

and

"...USING THE METHOD OF ELIMINATION we are left with S.C."

Ironically, it seems that part of your insistence on Special Creation includes a failure of imagination. That is, your personal incredulity is informed by a failure to imagine alternatives. Also, here you've betrayed a skewed understanding of the basic theories that pertain to abiogenesis, of science, and even reason.

First off, even accepting each of your listed theories as pertinent as well as falsified, reason does not dictate that the default wins. In fact, the default answer (for you, special creation) actively discourages the search for more detail. Not only that, but there's a lack of positive evidence in favor of your pet theory. Indeed, the only source for information in favor of special creation is found in ancient religious books. These books are also the only source of information regarding an alleged creator/designer. Are you willing to concede that these books contain a 1st century or earlier understanding of science? If not, why not? If so, why are you opposed to alternative theories if not because you prefer a 1st century answer (i.e., you are biased in favor of a theological answer)?

Now, as to your theory list. The steady state theory does not apply, nor has it ever applied, to biology. It is a cosmological theory that has no business in your list. It perhaps has been falsified by the Big Bang theory, but its falsification does nothing to aid Special Creation, regardless of what you've been told. That the universe might have had a beginning does not mean that it began as recorded in the Bible. Nor does this mean that biological life sprang up due to special creation. Such sweeping conclusions are the mark of creationist dogma, not good science.

Special creation's status may be conceded as unknown to the extent that we cannot directly know that any agent(s) were or were not involved in putting the basic elements of life together in such a way as to eventually produce the diversity we find today. However, a gap in our knowledge here does not favor the creationist. For example, ID proponents are fond of claiming that they include any sufficiently advanced alien life form in their hypothesis. Were such an alien life form to be found, one capable of forming planets and creating life, we would have found our creator. Ironically, the creationist would be forced into the same camp as his skeptical counterparts - asking who created the creator?

As for cosmic panspermia, you may be right that it shifts the problem to another location. However, that does not automatically rule out a naturalistic answer.

With regard to spontaneous generation, it may be true that scientists have been unable to create a self-replicating cell from scratch elements in the lab. However, that may reveal a failure to understand all the necessities for protein bonding and cell assembly rather than a complete falsification of the hypothesis. Most hypotheses undergo a great deal of revision and transitionary phases before arriving at a testable and truly falsifiable level.

The point is that personal incredulity is not a scientific answer. It is an arbitrary exercise to dismiss any possible alternative in favor of a preferred hypothesis, regardless of future evidence. At present, it is enough to conclude that since evolution suggests a natural progression from simple cells to present complexity, life can have a naturalistic origin. The most we can do is remain technical abiogenetic agnostics pending further study. It almost goes without saying that so long as there is no evidence for special creation, it does not rise to the level of a scientific theory.

Other Comments by J.C. Samuelson

429. Comment #16185 by gimlibengloin on January 5, 2007 at 10:38 am

Billy Sands
"I am still waiting for proofthat Brahmin does not exist"

Thats absurd. We were discussing Josephus' writings which are acknowledged as historical at least when referring to the Second Temple period. The testimony concerning Jesus occurs within that. Therefore, unless we have good reason to take it as a inserted forgery we should accept it like the rest of Josephus.

"is gimlibengloin Jack/Dylan in disguise?"

Do you have a translator for this question?

Other Comments by gimlibengloin

430. Comment #16187 by BillySands on January 5, 2007 at 11:54 am

gimlibengloin
"I am still waiting for proofthat Brahmin does not exist"

Thats absurd. We were discussing Josephus' writings which are acknowledged as historical at least when referring to the Second Temple period. The testimony concerning Jesus occurs within that. Therefore, unless we have good reason to take it as a inserted forgery we should accept it like the rest of Josephus."

No it isn't. My point is - as has been discussed here by several people, there is that there is a lot of good reasons to believe that josephus never wrote that verse. And that you seem to be one of those theists that demand absolute proof of anything that does not suit you, but you require very little reason to believe what you believe. Therefore, to show how pointless your demand for such proof is, I challenge you to show that Brahmin does not exist. The point is that absolute proof is hard for anything, so we have to go with what is reasonable, and if you can not counter the problems with the authenticity of the testimonium flavium, then we will just have to agree to differ. I think It is very naive of you to say that because it is there we should accept it, especially since so many learned christian scholars dispute its authenticity. Like I say, it breaks up the sandwiching paragraph. that's pretty damn good evidence of an interpolation, then there are the textual problems. Why dont you accept the koran is the word of god?

"is gimlibengloin Jack/Dylan in disguise?"

Do you have a translator for this question?"

You just sound like some one else

all the best Billy

Other Comments by BillySands

431. Comment #16191 by gimlibengloin on January 5, 2007 at 12:13 pm

Billy Sands (584)

I accept that there are questions that can be raised about the Testimonium and as I've said I wouldn't use it as evidence for the gospels though if it is genuine it certainly supports some elements.
However, since their exists scholarly debate over its genuineness or otherwise and since even someone of the stature of geza Vermes accepts it I think the accussation of 'Christian forgery' is a little premature. I accept that one can't base ones belief on Vermes but neither can one summarily discount him (or others).

I can't 'prove' that a Brahmin does not exist but then their seems to be no reason to suppose that he does. Even Hindus give up on any pretence to historical validity in their scriptures. This is not so with the New Testament where historians have used it with success in historical reconstruction and research.

Other Comments by gimlibengloin

432. Comment #16192 by BillySands on January 5, 2007 at 12:14 pm

Theo, read this on the flood
http://www.google.com/custom?q=flood&sa=Search&sitesearch=www.talkorigins.org

"I can't 'prove' that a Brahmin does not exist but then their seems to be no reason to suppose that he does. Even Hindus give up on any pretence to historical validity in their scriptures. This is not so with the New Testament where historians have used it with success in historical reconstruction and research."

Josphus is generally acurate,afterall, he places the census of quirinius 8 years after the death of herod
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html

Other Comments by BillySands

433. Comment #16194 by gimlibengloin on January 5, 2007 at 12:26 pm

"You just sound like someone else"

I presume your referring to "Jack Sparrow" who I did post under until the website changed its rules of admission. One has to learn from others mistakes as well as one's own and a pseudonym is certainly an effective way of distancing oneself from any insults and makes posting less stressful. I suspect this is why atheists also post under pseudonyms eg Phlogiston, goddogit, satanhimself etc.

Other Comments by gimlibengloin

434. Comment #16197 by BillySands on January 5, 2007 at 12:37 pm

"I presume your referring to "Jack Sparrow" who I did post under until the website changed its rules of admission. One has to learn from others mistakes as well as one's own and a pseudonym is certainly an effective way of distancing oneself from any insults and makes posting less stressful. I suspect this is why atheists also post under pseudonyms eg Phlogiston, goddogit, satanhimself etc."

Hallellujah, god did actually give me the gift of prophecy after all, now all I need is the gift of healing that I asked for :-)

Seriously what's your real name?

Other Comments by BillySands

435. Comment #16199 by gimlibengloin on January 5, 2007 at 12:53 pm

"seriously whats your real name"

Nothing would persuade me to give it mate but please don't take that personally.

I had a look at the article on 'infidels' and its huge. There seems to be some response to it on www.tektonics.org/af/censuscheck.html but I'm not going to pretend that I know how good a response it is to an article that I havn't read yet. It will take a while to consider it along with the Josephus' refs and scripture refs.

Other Comments by gimlibengloin

436. Comment #16201 by J.C. Samuelson on January 5, 2007 at 1:04 pm

@ gimlibengloin # 589

Oh dear. Not J.P. Holding (tektonics.org)!

I used to use him as a resource while I was still a Christian. Made up his own logical fallacy, even (argument from outrage - dealing with objections to brutal passages in the Bible).

Make up your own mind about him, but you'll really want to make sure he's actually arguing something of substance. He has a tendency to digress quite often into ad hominem and forgets to actually make a point. If I may suggest using his materials as a springboard to other, more intellectually satisfying authors. Be sure to check for refutations of his materials (which abound, by the way).

Other Comments by J.C. Samuelson

437. Comment #16204 by gimlibengloin on January 5, 2007 at 2:03 pm

Billy Sands (579)
"The fossil record is actually very good considering the difficulties involved.."

I have to confess that I havn't read your responses yet to my last post as "Jack Sparrow" before the website changed its posting rules.

However, the evolutionist Steven M Stanley wrote, "in the absence of a fossil record...we might wonder whether the doctrine of evolution would qualify as anything more than an outrageous hypothesis" [p2].
So Stanley asserts that only fossil evidence makes the theory anything worth considering. Yet on page 39 he admits, "The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphological transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid" (Macroevolution:Pattern and Progress)

A recent National Geographic claims, "The fossil record is like a film of evolution where 999 out of 1000 frames are missing"
www.ft.com/cms/s/3e4f832c-59c3-11db-8f160000779e2340.html

Comments?????

Other Comments by gimlibengloin

438. Comment #16243 by Theo on January 5, 2007 at 5:11 pm

BillySands (579)
Evolutionist's have gone as far to say ALL fossils are transitionals thus evolution is true. No evolutionist would dispute the fact that there are gaps in the fossil record that still need to be filled.

"Really, that is news to the scientific community, perhaps you would care to elaborate. creationist evidence to be honest is pathetic and very easily refuted - feel free to supply some."

Oh! really! so science HAS produced a living self-replicating cell from raw chemicals? So life really originated by spontaneous generation...wow.
can you give me evidence of this?...please?

"concerning the designer always existing, are you really saying that reason allows you to make that unverifiable dodge? As far as I am aware, it is not the common belief that scientists claim that matter always existed. Even if that wereo, how can that be used to justify your claim that god always existed? that is faith, not reason"

Even if that were so, it would not justify my claim but would make it on par with what some scientists claim. Although nonsensical, I could ask a reverse of of the question as is there any evidence that verifies that that matter always existed.

Law of Conservation of Matter/Energy - Scientifically Matter/Energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

If this law as changed recently please let me know

Other Comments by Theo

439. Comment #16246 by Theo on January 5, 2007 at 5:22 pm

J.C. Samuelson,

"Could you be any less critical? Sure, an omnipotent God can do anything he wants. It's just that throughout history not one incident of an animal capable of speech has ever been recorded - outside fictional and religious texts, that is. Ask yourself if it is at least possible that the very human authors responsible for those passages were exercising a bit of creative license. If you can admit that, you begin to understand why skeptics prefer evidence. The second part of your statement amounts to nothing more than special pleading."

I believe that you should have read the latter part of comment 507:
This discussion over the reliability of the bible is fruitless because the premise advanced by some is:
1. the bible contains miracles
2. miracles do not exist
3. therefore the bible is false

Thus if God does not exist to a person, the bible, whether it is reliable or not, would not really matter. If by some stretch of the imagination the bible is proven false, then it does not mean that God does not exist, it means he did not write it. Then I would hold the Deist position.

As a result the issue of the possibility of Gods existence must be cleared up with the atheist before speaking on the miracles of the bible. I honestly feel that more ground can be covered with deists rather than atheists. Its not that I wont answer a question concerning it, its just that when answering, I know that I am performing an exercise in futility.

"Though this omniscient God knew in advance which choice they would make. Thus, they had only the illusion of choice. Indeed, for God's plan - which was preordained - to reach fruition, Adam & Eve had to eat of the tree. Thus, the serpent and the two innocents were unwitting tools working to accomplish God's preordained plan of salvation rather than free agents. To assert they made a free choice is to assert that man has the power to alter God's plan, or perhaps even surprise him. It must allow that they could've chosen otherwise. Where would God's plan be if not for Adam, Eve, and the serpent? ;)"

The logic of this argument is flawed. When one knows what the future would bring, it does not mean that he causes it to happen. God knew the end result of the situation and thus made the relevant provisions before hand. Whether Adam and Eve partook of the fruit or not, God would have known the result of free choice anyway. The ability to choose in no way alters Gods plan but will always fall in line with it, not because God causes it but because he will always know the end result no matter what choice is made.

Concerning the fossil record, thanks for the info. I will get back to you when I am finished examining the material.

"Land bridges & slow redistribution only answers post-flood geographic diversity, not the pre-flood gathering. For that, the theist is forced to resort to special pleading (supernatural intervention). That you state this as fact says a lot about your credulity. Not only that, but it stands in stark contrast to your previous assertion that other cultures also have flood myths, for the reasons I explained above."

I have observed with dismay that you, with amazing precision, carefully ignored the latter part of my statement that," The fact is Genesis is silent, and these are "somehow's" and "maybe's" which don't cut it as explanations (except when applied to evolution) thus these are questions in which the answers we may not know for sure."

There is nothing that I stated as fact except Genesis' silence on the topic. I merely pointed out the theories circulating concerning the issue which I believe is a far cry from establishing fact. I clearly stated that these are not explanations. The fact that you chose the last theory instead of my conclusion to undermine my credulity really says a lot about yours.

"Ironically, it seems that part of your insistence on Special Creation includes a failure of imagination. That is, your personal incredulity is informed by a failure to imagine alternatives. Also, here you've betrayed a skewed understanding of the basic theories that pertain to abiogenesis, of science, and even reason."

If it is that my insistence of special creation comes with a failure to "imagine alternatives" I guess you can do a better job, any suggestions? Golly I've been trying to do a lot of imagining lately and all I got was a headache. Thank you in advance for your suggestions, I look forward to them.

Can you show me where I have "betrayed a skewed understanding" of the theories?

"Indeed, the only source for information in favor of special creation is found in ancient religious books. These books are also the only source of information regarding an alleged creator/designer."

And to think that this was a reply to show BillySands that the bible was not the source of my belief!

"If so, why are you opposed to alternative theories if not because you prefer a 1st century answer (i.e., you are biased in favor of a theological answer)?"

Again I beg, what are the alternative theories?

"Now, as to your theory list. The steady state theory does not apply, nor has it ever applied, to biology. It is a cosmological theory that has no business in your list."

Mr. Samuelson, those theories were found in a biology text book and any fool would know that the steady state theory is nonsensical. But I listed it there to point out that it was one of the theories advance to deal with the origin of life.

You ignored my question in comment 575," if life did NOT originate by spontaneous generation NOR special creation, DOES LOGIC FACILITATE ANOTHER EXPLANATION?"

I do hope that these questions would be answered, thank you.

Other Comments by Theo

440. Comment #16297 by Mark Taunton on January 6, 2007 at 1:50 am

Billy (579):

Mark
The jews still did not know the language if they had to learn it. You are going to have to provide better evidence than that.

I have referred to this point already, but let me spell it out...

Isaiah 36:11 (paralleled in 1Kings 18:26):
Then said Eliakim and Shebna and Joah unto Rabshakeh, Speak, I pray thee, unto thy servants in the Syrian language[=Aramaic]; for we understand it: and speak not to us in the Jews' language, in the ears of the people that are on the wall.

In this context the first three men are Jews in Jerusalem, representatives of King Hezekiah, speaking to Rabshakeh the representative of the king of Assyria, who had come to besiege the city. They ask that he speak to them in "the Syrian language", that is, Aramaic. The later Babylonians spoke the same language ("Syriack tongue" Daniel 2:4).

The logic and evidence for my position is very direct. Addressing the representative of the invading nation beseiging their city, they ask Rabshakeh to speak in Aramaic "for we understand it". The word for "understand" in Isa 36:11 is the same word as in Deuteronomy 28:49, speaking about a nation that would invade the land and besiege their cities:

... a nation whose language you will not understand ...

This proves that neither Assyria nor Babylon can satisfy Deuteronomy 28:49-57.

Also (580):

Mark, you are going to have to prove that prophecies were written before the event, and deuteronomy 29 just sounds so much like a verse about Babylon.

Firstly, let me repeat what I said to JohnC: it's nine verses (28:49-57), not just "a verse". Taken out of context, some parts of that description could be assumed to apply to Babylon. But the combination of all the details listed there cannot. It applies only to Rome, and therefore, clearly, was written before the event.

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

441. Comment #16310 by Mark Taunton on January 6, 2007 at 3:24 am

Hi again Billy. Two further points out of (579):

whether the verse claims to be prophetic or not (not a point made by me) is irrelevant, it is still a warning.

The whole of Deuteronomy 28 is certainly a warning. (The whole of it is also a prophecy, as ch.30:1 makes clear.) That fact is completely compatible with my position, yet you suggest it somehow goes against it - why?

I didn't know Daniel was written in aramaic.

Actually I said about half of Daniel is: the Aramaic portion is from after the word "Syriack"[=Aramaic] in 2:4 through to "the end of the matter" in 7:28. The rest is written in Hebrew.

that is interesting, and provides even more evidence that it was written well after it claims to have been.

Aramaic was spoken by the Assyrians before the time of Daniel (1 Kings 28:26; also known from archaelogical evidence). Aramaic was also spoken by the Babylonians in Daniel's time (Daniel 2:4 and archaeology).

That Daniel is written partly in Aramaic is completely consistent with these facts. Daniel, as a Jew, writes partly in his own language, and partly in the language of the place of his exile. For Daniel to write partly in Aramaic fits nicely with the description you yourself pointed out, that the Babylonians taught him and his companions their language and culture (1:4).

In what possible way can the Aramaic of Daniel provide "evidence that it was written well after it claims to have been"? Instead it actually provides evidence for my position, that it was indeed written exactly when it claims to have been! How could (as sceptics allege) a Jew in approx 160 BC, living in the land of Israel, speaking either Hebrew or possibly Greek, know Babylonian Aramaic language and culture so well?

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

442. Comment #16343 by Theo on January 6, 2007 at 7:08 am

gimlibengloin,

where on Gods(oops!) green earth did u get that name from?:)

Other Comments by Theo

443. Comment #16524 by down_under on January 7, 2007 at 5:45 am

Theo:

"Gen 6: 1-4, the sons of God refers to the linage of Seth, not angels (angels do not have the ability to form a martial bond Mt 22:30)"

That is disputed.....but regardless of wether it was Angels or Demons are you telling me you honestly belive they crossbred with humans to make giants???

"Unicorns are only found in the king james version"

regardless........their are still unicorns in the bible

"God used animals to talk. An omnipotent God can do that right?"

In a make belive fairyland yes i suppose you are right
but please tell me in what way did God use the snake??? as far as i can see the snake spoke of his own accord......without your omnipitant God even knowing about it!!!!!
and do

The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

by Christadelphian.org

Comments 401 - 450 of 1742 | function changeLocation(menuObj) { var i = menuObj.selectedIndex; if(i > 0) { window.location = menuObj.options[i].value; } } Sort Comments By: Chronological Newest Comments Highest Rank

Comments 401 - 450 of 1742 |