Wherein I prove that the bible cannot be trusted

[tas8831]

We are told that the tested methods used to compare DNA in different species are invalid and unreliable and phony because the methods are INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED!!!

But here is a small sample example where there is only a one base pair difference:

Human segment: AGTCGTACCAGTCGTACC

Same segment in Chimp: AGTCATACCAGTCTACC

So via computer programs they separate the chimp genome after AGTC and then call the human G an “insertion”, or the lack thereof in the Chimp a “deletion”, but what if the two respective genomes are exactly what they are supposed to be and nothing was actually ever inserted or deleted? When the intelligently designed program is applied they create a non-existent gap...

Human: AGTCGTACCAGTCGTACC

Chimp: AGTCGTACCAGTC TACC

which now must be explained!

Now in reality that gap does not exist!​

Amazing - a gap in DNA does not exist in nature, thus, the compared sequences are just the way they are supposed to be!


OK... Then let us compare verses from two different versions of the bible:


Here we have:

Genesis 1King James Version (KJV)

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.


but then we have:


Genesis 1New International Version (NIV)


1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.



1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.


There are apparently 31,102 verses in the bible according to WordCounter - Count Words & Correct Writing

By the logic employed by our creationist friend, I just proved that two versions of the bible are 99.999967% DISsimilar, and thus unrelated via a common source, so they must be fabrications.

Thanks for showing us a great new argument against the veracity of the bible!

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I've found over the years, anything can be proof for or against anything based on what someone wants to believe.

 

[Tom 1]

We are told that the tested methods used to compare DNA in different species are invalid and unreliable and phony because the methods are INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED!!!

But here is a small sample example where there is only a one base pair difference:

Human segment: AGTCGTACCAGTCGTACC

Same segment in Chimp: AGTCATACCAGTCTACC

So via computer programs they separate the chimp genome after AGTC and then call the human G an “insertion”, or the lack thereof in the Chimp a “deletion”, but what if the two respective genomes are exactly what they are supposed to be and nothing was actually ever inserted or deleted? When the intelligently designed program is applied they create a non-existent gap...

Human: AGTCGTACCAGTCGTACC

Chimp: AGTCGTACCAGTC TACC

which now must be explained!

Now in reality that gap does not exist!​

Amazing - a gap in DNA does not exist in nature, thus, the compared sequences are just the way they are supposed to be!


OK... Then let us compare verses from two different versions of the bible:


Here we have:

Genesis 1King James Version (KJV)

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.


but then we have:


Genesis 1New International Version (NIV)


1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.



1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.


There are apparently 31,102 verses in the bible according to WordCounter - Count Words & Correct Writing

By the logic employed by our creationist friend, I just proved that two versions of the bible are 99.999967% DISsimilar, and thus unrelated via a common source, so they must be fabrications.

Thanks for showing us a great new argument against the veracity of the bible!

Wrong kind of argument for establishing the accuracy of textual transmission. The evidence for the accuracy of the bible, or rather the faithfulness of copies to the original texts, is arrived at by comparing those copies to each other. This process reveals some differences, copying errors, late additions, explanatory notes etc., that don´t really add up to much. There are plenty of books on the subject. Comparing the text of the bible to DNA is meaningless.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Comparing the text of the bible to DNA is meaningless.

I actually found a positive application for that, I'm kind of laughing now.

 

[Tom 1]

I actually found a positive application for that, I'm kind of laughing now.

Tell me more? ;-)

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Tell me more? ;-)

Back in the day I took the Jesus is the word of God + the bible is the Living word a little too literally and researched "the genetics of scripture" as part of some sort of thought replacement therapy I was doing on myself.
.
Some of what I learned back then still actually helps today.

 

[Tom 1]

Ah ok. Sounds mind bending. Might look into that though, cheers

 

[tas8831]

Wrong kind of argument for establishing the accuracy of textual transmission. The evidence for the accuracy of the bible, or rather the faithfulness of copies to the original texts, is arrived at by comparing those copies to each other. This process reveals some differences, copying errors, late additions, explanatory notes etc., that don´t really add up to much. There are plenty of books on the subject. Comparing the text of the bible to DNA is meaningless.

Thanks pal!

I guess you are unaware of the context - I was applying the logic of the creationist arguing against the use of DNA to study evolution by applying his standard to the bible.

The OP was a statement on the logic of the creationist's argument, not actually on the bible.

Get it?

 

[Tom 1]

Thanks pal!

I guess you are unaware of the context - I was applying the logic of the creationist arguing against the use of DNA to study evolution by applying his standard to the bible.

The OP was a statement on the logic of the creationist's argument, not actually on the bible.

Get it?

Ah right, I didn't see the other post. Please ignore my answer then, tas8831

 

[tas8831]

Ah right, I didn't see the other post. Please ignore my answer then, tas8831

No problem - trust me, I would never use so shallow an argument against the veracity of the bible. I was just shocked that anyone would use such an argument - at all - when that "logic" could just as 'successfully' be used against what he holds to.

 

[Tom 1]

No problem - trust me, I would never use so shallow an argument against the veracity of the bible. I was just shocked that anyone would use such an argument - at all - when that "logic" could just as 'successfully' be used against what he holds to.

Could you paste me a link to the original post? Thanks, and apologies for my misunderstanding

 

[tas8831]

Could you paste me a link to the original post? Thanks, and apologies for my misunderstanding

There is a link in the OP - the blue "Intelligent Design"

 

[Tom 1]

There is a link in the OP - the blue "Intelligent Design"

Got it, thanks

 

[DogmaHunter]

I've found over the years, anything can be proof for or against anything based on what someone wants to believe.

True.

And in the end, it turns out that those conclusions that weren't driven by any such "wants" but rather by the evidence itself, are the most accurate.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

True.

And in the end, it turns out that those conclusions that weren't driven by any such "wants" but rather by the evidence itself, are the most accurate.

Evidence is a funny thing, I see it from one angle and someone sees it from another angle, until we have the panoramic view ... we aren't really discussing evidence, but what is factual, is factual regardless of how you slice it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Evidence is a funny thing, I see it from one angle and someone sees it from another angle

Would that angle by any chance, be determined by what you believe religiously?

, until we have the panoramic view ... we aren't really discussing evidence, but what is factual, is factual regardless of how you slice it.

I wonder what non-factual evidence looks like, now.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Would that angle by any chance, be determined by what you believe religiously?

Not necessarily, tangentially for sure. For example, if someone says "the bible says X" but I have experiences "relating the bible says Y" then there may be some heated discussion until we come to agreement that X and Y are in the same alphabet.

In terms of science, Jesus used parables to explain heavenly things. Science as it is, is an asset.

I wonder what non-factual evidence looks like, now.

We see it on the news all the time. It distracts us from what it is not reporting, such as what did Trump say to the guy in North Korea to provoke him?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I wonder what non-factual evidence looks like, now.

Another good example of non-factual evidence is evidence that I cannot independently verify. I am trusting that the information provided on physics is correct, but there could be nuances that I'm totally missing.

However the best example of non-factual evidence is an established liar declaring facts

 

[Tom 1]

Another good example of non-factual evidence is evidence that I cannot independently verify. I am trusting that the information provided on physics is correct, but there could be nuances that I'm totally missing.

However the best example of non-factual evidence is an established liar declaring facts

I think there's a fair bit of this in theology and generally in Christian writing too. Over time I've come to make a distinction between books that make a careful exposition of the scriptures, citing other scholar's work and leaving room for uncertainty where it exists, and those books that start out with a stated belief and then find isolated scriptures, without much notice being paid to context, to support that belief.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Another good example of non-factual evidence is evidence that I cannot independently verify. I am trusting that the information provided on physics is correct, but there could be nuances that I'm totally missing.

Disagree.
You can know that physics is rather accurate, because planes fly and nukes explode.
Also, while you might not be qualified to evaluate advanced physics, other people are.

And you could be if you would study it.

However the best example of non-factual evidence is an established liar declaring facts

Claims aren't evidence...