Discontinued debunked and dismissed creationist arguments

elephanticity · Apr 30, 2002

If one person uses this pattern:
A, B... D, E
And another person uses this pattern:
A, B, C... E
How can you say that one or both of them are incorrect?

I didn't say that either or both are incorrect. But they can't both be completely correct.
If people keep telling me that the book is the word of god and infallible, then it should at least hold up to the editorial standards of a junior high newsletter. If a guy, writing in a scroll, makes an assertion that another guy, writing elsewhere, contradicts, shouldn't someone in the chain of copyist monks have noticed?

A simple contradiction doesn't make the whole thing wrong...but:
If part is wrong, then the whole thing can't be infallible.

If part is demonstrably wrong, then the defense "it's right because it is the work of God" can't be applied to any other part.

If someone builds an INDESTRUCTABLE structure, and the first guy to walk in falls through a collapsing floor, then it isn't completely indestructable. And if parts may hold your weight, but parts won't, you won't know which is safe and which is deceptive until just a second too late. Now if you wanna carefully walk around the building, willfully ignoring the rust, dust and sinkholes of the structure, singing the indestructable song, more power to you. But self-deception is just as bad as being deceived by Satan or God....

rage · Apr 30, 2002

I never said that a couple of people messing up names disproves the bible.

I think that something like that specificlly are just used for people who are staunch non-errancy believers. I.E. - even passed down, it is perfect, and is the work of god. I don't believe that geneaologies can disprove the bible, but I believe that there is a wealth of contradictory information in the bible that is either: 1.) inconsistent with historical fact, 2.) inconsistent with scientific fact, or 3.) contradictory of itself, and not on small issues, but large issues.

Caedmon · May 1, 2002

Originally posted by rage
I never said that a couple of people messing up names disproves the bible.

I think that something like that specificlly are just used for people who are staunch non-errancy believers. I.E. - even passed down, it is perfect, and is the work of god. I don't believe that geneaologies can disprove the bible, but I believe that there is a wealth of contradictory information in the bible that is either: 1.) inconsistent with historical fact, 2.) inconsistent with scientific fact, or 3.) contradictory of itself, and not on small issues, but large issues.

How do you KNOW that they were "messing up names" if you don't know which names they messed up? How can you draw an accuracy conclusion with two abridged genealogies? You might ask: "How do YOU know that they AREN'T messed up?" Then we come to a stalemate. It becomes an issue of faith, and for me, faith always wins.

As for the other issues you mentioned, I believe that the Bible is indeed the Word of God. You said that some parts of the Bible are inconsistent with history and science or are contradictory. I don't believe that the Bible contradicts history, science, or itself. However, I do assent to the possibility that Genesis 1-3 is possibly nonliteral, meaning that I believe that they can potentially be interpreted as ascientific and ahistorical. The Bible was never intended to be a book of science, but rather a book of faith. When it comes to issues of miracles, esp. in the New Testament, I can only accept by faith, because I do not understand how they happened. I can only believe through faith.

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. - Hebrews 11:1, NASB

Sinai · May 1, 2002

You have a good discussion going regarding what appears to be a contradiction between the two ancestrial lines listed (in Matthew and Luke) for Jesus. This was something that concerned me enough (back a number of years ago when I came across it) that I did some research into the scriptures involved. They are two separate geneologies because they are of two different lines: Matthew traces Jesus' heritage through his earthly father, Joseph...while Luke traces Jesus' pedigree through his mother, Mary.

Since Matthew was interested in showing how Jesus' birth fulfilled Messianic prophecy, he began with Abraham [through whose offspring would all nations on earth be blessed], carried it through David, and on down to Jacob, who was the father of Joseph, and heir of the house of David.

Luke, on the other hand, showed by his listing that Jesus was the seed of the woman that should crush the serpant's head, and he therefore traces the lineage from Heli (Mary's father) back to Adam.

elephanticity · May 1, 2002

while Luke traces Jesus' pedigree through his mother, Mary.

.......but what is the name right before Jesus in Luke's geneology? It isn't Mary. Most of the geneologies i've looked at are father begat father begat father....

not father begat unlisted daughter who married begotten son in law...what verse lists Mary's lineage?

Sinai · May 2, 2002

Originally posted by elephanticity
.......but what is the name right before Jesus in Luke's geneology? It isn't Mary. Most of the geneologies i've looked at are father begat father begat father....

not father begat unlisted daughter who married begotten son in law...what verse lists Mary's lineage?

As I said earlier, this was a point that concerned me when I found what appeared to be a contradiction between the genealogies presented in Matthew and Luke. The Greek scholars and commentators I consulted concluded that the ancestoral line presented by Luke was of Mary's lineage. They generally pointed out that it would not make sense for Luke to give a genealogy of Joseph after saying that Jesus was only supposed to be Joseph's son. Some also pointed to other ancient documents that list Heli as being Mary's father and as Joseph's father-in-law.

Although I personally think you have raised some good questions, it appears that we no longer have the official Jewish records that could totally settle the matter. It might be noted, however, that such records were apparently still in existance at the time both Luke and Matthew were written, and persons knowing the family history were still alive at that time. However, there is no record that either account was questioned at that time, and the earliest date I could find of a controversy regarding the two accounts was about A. D. 230, when Sextus Julius Africanus presented arguments that Luke was giving the genealogy of Joseph instead of Mary. Modern translations often include a footnote that Heli may have been Joseph's father-in-law.

elephanticity · May 3, 2002

I don't believe that the Bible contradicts history, science, or itself. However, I do assent to the possibility that Genesis 1-3 is possibly nonliteral, meaning that I believe that they can potentially be interpreted as ascientific and ahistorical. The Bible was never intended to be a book of science, but rather a book of faith.

I can really go along with the last, there. I do think the bible contradicts science, but if viewed as parable, loses any conflict.
If anyone thinks the Bible DOES support science, or even has science within it that was too advanced for the time of authorship, could you explain exactly where is the little house God made for the sun to stay in at night?

Caedmon · May 3, 2002

That reminds me of something. Have any of you heard the theory that the entire Bible was written from a "flat-earth" perspective? I've seen a rendering of what the Bible authors may have thought the universe looked like. It has a flat circle with a dome over it with little doors on the horizon/circumference where the stars, sun, moon, etc. enter and travel across the inside surface of the dome... PLANETARIUM?!?

elephanticity · May 3, 2002

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm

The Real Flat Earth Society. Not the posers. With a picture.

The bible says the earth is a circle. Circles are flat. It doesn't say 'sphere' or 'globe' or even 'ball' which is used elsewhere.

Martin Luther · May 3, 2002

Yes, but I think the point must be made that if throw a tire, a chair, and some nuts and bolts into a pile..they will not evolve into a Ford. Maybe a Honda..but not a Ford..

Time is the magic wand of evolutionists.

elephanticity · May 4, 2002

Originally posted by Martin Luther
Yes, but I think the point must be made that if throw a tire, a chair, and some nuts and bolts into a pile..they will not evolve into a Ford. Maybe a Honda..but not a Ford..

Time is the magic wand of evolutionists.

no, selection is. stuff left in a pile doesn't change, and no one says it does.

Caedmon · May 4, 2002

Originally posted by Martin Luther
Yes, but I think the point must be made that if throw a tire, a chair, and some nuts and bolts into a pile..they will not evolve into a Ford. Maybe a Honda..but not a Ford..

Time is the magic wand of evolutionists.

Nice tongue-in-cheek, but you failed to consider that steel is an inorganic substance.

Besides, if you want to talk about Fords, read some Chinua Achebe.

Late_Cretaceous · May 4, 2002

Martin Luther, your arguement about a pile of materials not being able to evolve into a car is neither original, nor does it even make sence. It is taken from the "tornado through a junkyard not being able make a 747" arguement (one which creationists no longer use). Where, and how do "evolutionists" make such a claim ML? The fact is they don't. It is not only a straw man, it is also blatently dishonest. You know it is not true, and yet you say it anyways. Deliberatly saying things you know to be untrue is lying. And lying is a sin. Otherwise, will you please show where evolutionary theory makes such outlandish claims.

This whole thread was ment to help direct creationists to keep thier arguments credible. You have resorted to the lowest form of debate, and have not only debased your self, but all other creationists as well.

2000gtstang · May 4, 2002

Bottom line....
Science continues to prove it's self inconsistent. Scientist make mistakes (because they are human), and will continue to make mistakes. An atheist will make every excuse out of the book to deny God's creation, but in the end, the truth will come out. People once thought by science the earth was flat. And that has been proven wrong. It is only a matter of time before something else in changes or proven wrong b/c science is based on human judgement, and not God's.

elephanticity · May 4, 2002

Inconsistent science? Science thought the world was flat, but has been updated to new evidence...

The bible still has the verses that show a flat earth view, that bats are birds, that the sun stays in a tabernacle...and it's against God's law to update God's word.

So, actually, give me inconsistency. Or, as my dad has described a certain congregation...'mind like a steel trap...rusted shut.'

mac_philo · May 4, 2002

I don't understand this vocal subculture of anti-scientific christians.

Science is not like the bible. It is not a collection of proclamations about the way the world is.

Science is an activity; a progression. It's essence is change.

You've just butchered a straw-man; congratulations. Do you take this same stance towards your healthcare proffesional?

2000gtstang · May 4, 2002

Originally posted by elephanticity
Inconsistent science? Science thought the world was flat, but has been updated to new evidence...

The bible still has the verses that show a flat earth view, that bats are birds, that the sun stays in a tabernacle...and it's against God's law to update God's word.

So, actually, give me inconsistency. Or, as my dad has described a certain congregation...'mind like a steel trap...rusted shut.'

As many have found out, the Bible is not to be taken all completely literally. It is to be used as a guide for our lives and a reference to our history. Not to be compared to a science book. Instead of me going and looking up a lot of research to prove you wrong. Its a no brainer that science is not always right. So why dont you show me where science is consistant. Point was, science is always being proven wrong or updated. Even if it was updated, means it wasnt right in the first place. Im sure Microsoft could testify on that.

elephanticity · May 4, 2002

Originally posted by 2000gtstang

As many have found out, the Bible is not to be taken all completely literally.

there are those on this board that would argue with you on that one.

. So why dont you show me where science is consistant.

Click to expand...

Gee, what was it i said?

So, actually, give me inconsistency.

Or flexibility, or update-ability. It is consistent in that given enough proof, any theory, however established, can be altered or even thrown out. Science gives us the best explanation for the facts discovered so far. New facts, new science. The search continues. Knowledge grows.
Science isn't every COMPLETELY right...but certainly more right, now, than it was before. And it'll be more right tomorrow. It's a process, not a goal. And i trust the process a lot more than any system that starts with the answers, and works backwards to shoehorn facts into them.

Part of my job for a long time involved imperfect guidance systems for nuclear missiles. We knew they were imperfect. We humans aren't capable of making perfect systems. But, we could measure the imperfections with GREAT accuracy, and correct for really, really accurate missiles.
Humans make mistakes, but science has a lot of checks and balances to correct for them. The more people involved, and the better the measuring technology, the better science can self-correct.

The Nebraska Man wasn't science's greatest hour. BUT , the same guy that dug up the pig tooth and identified it as a human was the guy that discovered (and announced) his error.
Piltdown Man was an actual hoax, made to fit the then-current theories. But as more evidence was gathered, it was harder and harder to fit PM into the growing theories, until later scientists finally looked more closely (with tools and techniques unavailable to earlier scientists) and discovered (and announced) the hoax.
Cold Fusion hit the covers of news magazines for a few months as a great discovery....some time later, it was a great joke.
Ponderous and conservative though it may be at times, mainstream science does eventually catch up with new theories and old mistakes.

"Time is the magic wand of evolutionists..." That's been bothering me for a while. Is that a Kent Hovind quote? It sounds like his kind of science...

Martin Luther · May 6, 2002

Originally posted by Late_Cretaceous
Martin Luther, your arguement about a pile of materials not being able to evolve into a car is neither original, nor does it even make sence.
This whole thread was ment to help direct creationists to keep thier arguments credible. You have resorted to the lowest form of debate, and have not only debased your self, but all other creationists as well.

Martin:

Well, I will tell ya...something, LC....

1st law of thermodynamics says there are no beginnings...
(energy cannot be destroyed or created).

2nd Law of Thermodynamics deals with measured disorder or
entropy and the entropy of the Universe increases, causing things to mutate into other forms.

That means that things do have a beginning.

In either case God is needed to compliment these forumulas.

And while the Earth is not a closed system, it does fall into both these laws.

Late_Cretaceous · May 6, 2002

Ok ML, lets play true or false shall we.

quote: "1st law of thermodynamics says there are no beginnings... "

FALSE! The first law of thermodyanamics (a.k.a. "energy can be neither created nor destroyed") says nothing at all about beginings. I defy you to show me a legit physics text book that states this. As a matter of fact, time does not play a role in the first law. Past, present and future are indistinguishable. Since time is not an element of this most fundamental concept of modern science, the concept of beginings does not enter the picture at all.

quote: "2nd Law of Thermodynamics deals with measured disorder or entropy and the entropy of the Universe increases, causing things to mutate into other forms."

FALSE! The second law of thermodynamics (a.k.a. the entropy law) in its simplest an least refined definition states that "all systems will tend to move towards a state of maximum disorder (entropy)". In other words systems move towards thermal equalibrium (a cup of hot coffee cooling down to room temp is an example of the 2nd law in action). It also goes on to declare more or less that the system will take the path of least resistance. Now a living system like a person, or a biosphere, appear at first glance to contradict this. If you are moving towards a state of equalibrium with the surrounding environment then I suggest you update your will. If you are in a state of equalibrium with your surrounding environment then may you rest in peace. The fact is that any system with a large input of energy can be out of equalibrium - such as a living creature, the biosphere or even the atmospheres of venus and earth. None of them violate the 2nd law, they are simply eddies of complexity caused by input of energy. Any arguement that states that evolution violates this law is flawed for the same reason (evolution is nothing more then a symtom of a long lived and dynamic biosphere). Now , back to beginings. ALthough time does enter the picture for the 2nd law (flow of energy), it says nothing about beinings. The 2nd law would be the same in a universe that began yesterday and one that existed forever.

Oh, BTW Martin. Even "answers in genesis" has given up on the "evolution violates the second law" straw man arguement.

quote: "That means that things do have a beginning. "

TRUE! But so what. That statement has nothing to do with the laws of thermodynamics, nor the theory of evolution.

quote: "In either case God is needed to compliment these forumulas"

FALSE! The laws of themodynamics are fundamental principals in all sciences (chemistry, evolutionary biology....). Again I defy you to show me any legit science text that requires god in it's formulae.

quote: "And while the Earth is not a closed system, it does fall into both these laws."

TRUE! Everything in the universe obeys these laws. THe ironic thing is that this final statement of yours bolsters my arguement and not yours.

Well, three out of five statements you made are false. The two true statements you made are of no relavence whatsoever to this debate.

Now, there are two reasons why people make false statements. One is that they are lying (and the bible has a lot to say about liars). THe second is that they are honest, but misinformed (the bible also has something to say about people who make statments when they don't know what they are talking about see Proverbs 18:13).

I do not think you are a liar, but I am sure that you are misinformed.

quote: "Well, I will tell ya...something, LC..."

What exactly are you trying to tell me Martin, that you didn't read or heed the top of this thread?

Discontinued debunked and dismissed creationist arguments

This appears beneath your name.

Active Member

kawaii

Well-Known Member

This appears beneath your name.

Well-Known Member

This appears beneath your name.

kawaii

This appears beneath your name.

Active Member

This appears beneath your name.

kawaii

&lt;font color=&quot;#880000&quot; &gt;&lt;/font&g

New Member

This appears beneath your name.

Veteran

New Member

This appears beneath your name.

Active Member

&lt;font color=&quot;#880000&quot; &gt;&lt;/font&g

Similar threads

<font color="#880000" ></font&g

<font color="#880000" ></font&g