Still doesn't answer my question, really. Why should there be an explanation at all? Evolution may be the best one according to you, but if it isn't sufficient it shouldn't be used at all until something better IS found.

The problem with both of your arguements is that you are both making an assumption based on your view of how the slaves in question were treated. Faz, I'm pretty sure there is a big difference between abortion and selling a child into slavery. Aborted babies don't get a chance to decide what they think about it. I would even go so far as to say that it is a lot closer to adoption, in the the child gets food clothes and shelter part. You are reading a historical passage and thinking about it as if it were something taking place in modern times.

Just because you put it in parenthesis doesn't mean you didn't challenge it Weren't you just complaining about how women were treated worse? And now you are doing the opposite make up your mind.

Noone here said polygamy wasn'y a common practice in those days. Obviously this was taking place before Jesus reformed the "religion". Judeism and Christianity are two different things. If you have a problem with this you should take it up with some Jews who also don't follow these ancient laws.

I'm pretty sure Jesus never crucified anyone. By the way Jesus did set standards.


Who told you he was making assumptions. You are assuming that he is making assumptions. Who is FaZ- and why are his assumptions any more valid than mine on the issue of the condition of slaces 2000 years ago? (Hint: it's written above.)
And what atheist is going to make a claim that supports something that opposes his beliefs? You are obviously going to assume the absolute worst because you are convinced that that is the only possible translation of the Bible.
I made and will make again in the following sentenceHonestly, I couldn't care less if I changed your mind, you've obviously been indoctrinated into believing that the Bible is false.

You keep talking about how science is better evidence than the Bible; perhaps you've heard of This.

Sorry, but that's not how science works. Or has ever worked. We use the best theories that we have at the time. If the theory has a few holes and known problems in it, then we try to find ways to extend or modify the theory so that it covers those holes, we don't just throw the whole thing out.

A fairly well-known example of this is Ptolemy's geocentric universe, where all orbits were perfect circles around the Earth. In order to explain the apparent ''wandering' of the other planets he had to add epicycles to his model to account for the motion he observed (empirical evidence). As more observations were made, he had to add more and more epicycles to his model to make it predictive. Ptolemy did a very good job - his charts were quite predictive (not 100%) of where planets would be on certain dates, for hundreds of years into the future.

It wasn't until the 1600's that Copernicus seriously studied and proposed the heliocentric view of the universe, with the sun at the centre (thus creating the idea of 'solar system'). He still used perfect circles for orbits however, so his model was actually *less* predictive than Ptolemy's, and so not taken seriously.

Tycho Brahe made some very accurate observations with his telescope and showed that assumptions Ptolemy made about the heavens being perfect celestial spheres simply were not true.

Johannes Kepler, using Tycho's observations and Copernicus' heliocentic model, realised that using elliptical orbits instead of perfect circular ones would solve the majority of the problems with Ptolemy's model. He was able to successfully predict the transit of Venus in 1631, thus confirming his model.

You can read about it all in much more detail here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model

The moral of the story, though, is that science makes do with the best theories that it has. When it finds holes or problems, more evidence is gathered to attempt to patch them up - they don't just drop the entire theory and say "although this explains 98% of everything we see, that last 2% isn't explained, so lets just drop it". If that were the case, Ptolemy's theories would have been rejected because they weren't 100% perfect.

In fact, requiring scientific theories to 100% fit all of the observed phenomenon would completely impede progress. How often do you get the answers to a test 100% right on your first attempt? Are you expecting people to solve every possible problem with a theory, including things they never even experienced (eg, new experimental observations), and if they can't do that they might as well not do anything? Sorry, but that's a laughably flimsy stance to take. And if you believe that his how science works, then again, you clearly don't know anything about science.

Also, you might like to reflect on the church's response to Copernicus back in the 1600, to how it is reacting to evolution these days. You might be interested to know that almost 400 years after his death, the church realised how wrong they were and pardoned him. It took them a while, but eventually they realised that science works, bitches. It's only a matter of time before evolution is likewise accepted.

http://www.nightskyobserver.com/astronomy-news/copernicus-to-be-reburied/

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Mar 24 2011, 2:45 am by Lanthanide.

The same idea goes for the Bible. Simply because one part doesn't make sense to you, you don't just throw the whole thing out. you gather evidence and fix the holes.

I'm glad that you acknowledge the bible has holes.

Many of those issues are based on translation, and God knows how much has been edited or removed entirely around the time that the pope went on his bible burning rampage. obviously not everything is going to be explained in perfect clarity either.

Is this a serious question? If you are comfortable sticking your head in the sand and pretending that we can't learn anything about our universe, be my guest. But please don't chastise the brilliant people over the past millenniums who have devoted their lives to the advancement of human knowledge. Evolution is not the best explanation "according to me," it is the best one according to millions of scientists who throughout their daily lives rely on the tenets of evolutionary biology to improve our world. The hypocrisy in denying evolution and then going to get a flu vaccine (which needs to be remade at least every year to account for new species of virus) is somewhat staggering.

Things written by a perfect being do not have holes, especially not logical or moral ones. So no, that argument doesn't quite work with the Bible if you're going to pretend it's written by a god. If you want to acknowledge, as I do, that the Bible is a collection of stories written years after events took place by various people who may only have secondhand knowledge of those events, then we can begin to make some progress in addressing what those holes may be. If you want to continue to claim that the Bible is god's word, however, you either take it all or you don't.


That's ... exactly the point I was making. Both Jack and I are as good as guessing, as is "John Thomas."

Someone with no credentials who does not cite sources is considered to be making assumptions. That is how debate works, as does our legal system. If you can find someone who professionally studies slavery who has made inquiries into the condition of Israelite slaves, that would be a worthwhile person to quote. Not someone on a Bible forum, nor myself, since you seem to think I'm elevating myself to a level above his assumptions, which I'm not.

They're both treated poorly in different ways. Women slaves aren't allowed to go free after 6 years, but have protection from foreigners, because as Jack was saying: "She would, in most cases, be extremely badly treated in another nation." ... Male slaves, however, are allowed to be sold to foreigners, so it's evidently okay for males to be treated badly. Or, he needed some way to divert that this is clearly an issue of racial purity. I'm pointing out the inconsistencies inherent in the Bible's moral rules, it's kind of the point that I'm having it "both ways."

So God's ideas of morality change over time? Either the Bible is divinely inspired or it is not. If polygamy was okay then, why aren't you all living in Utah?

This is not a translation of the Bible issue. This is a "did people actually follow the Bible's rules" issue. Since over the course of history people obeying any silly laws strictly is somewhat scarce, I think I'm justified in making that claim, but readily admit that it's no more evidenced than any other.

If you must know, I attended Church every Sunday until I was about 13, plus religious classes every other Wednesday. Since asking intelligent questions and challenging the reasoning of authority figures are both discouraged in those arenas, I obviously have a lot of resentment for the organized ravaging of youthful curiosity. I flatly refused to be Confirmed, and that was the end of it. I'm about as far from indoctrinated as you can get: I was put into the system and still came out thoroughly rejecting its shackles. Not all of us are so lucky; it's absolutely disgusting to force beliefs on children unable to reason for themselves.

I'm sure many stories in the Bible are based on fact. Maybe it rained for 40 days, causing flooding of crops and many deaths, and that somehow became "everyone but Noah died for their wickedness." But the more you concede to these as scientific phenomenon, the more you deny god's direct influence. That's progress, at least.

One does not have to deny God to accept science, or vice versa. He is in no way saying that there was no divine intervention, merely that it is plausible scientifically to have an east wind hold up the Red Sea, which is the method the Bible says God used.

Please don't equate the Roman Catholic church with Christianity. They may claim to believe the Bible, and perhaps some are genuinely converted, but in general Catholics, Muslims, Mormans, Jehovahs Witnesses etc. (who all claim to believe atleast parts of the Bible) are not to be considered Christians.

@lanth Evolution and geocentric orbits are different enough that your point doesn't quite work out, simply because there was empirical evidence that fit with the geocentric theory, whereas there is not any for evolution. The problem with the suggested answers to the questions How did life begin? and Where did it go from there? aren't falsifiable, making them unscientific. We can't go back in time to say time began 6000 years ago, not can we go back 2.5 billion years and see that there was only fish. This is why I consider evolution to be as much a belief as any other religion.

And I said I'd stop arguing with faz so I will, even though he's using strawman arguments again )

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Mar 24 2011, 9:24 am by Jack.

My point was to show your assertion that if evolution isn't "sufficient" then it shouldn't be used at all as a theory until something better comes along that is "sufficient". I was showing by demonstration that that is not how science works.

Here's a copy and paste from the wikipedia page about objections to evolution. I guess you've probably already run across this page, and if not, then you really should have.


Also this bit from a bit later down is essentially the argument you just used:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution#Unfalsifiability

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Mar 24 2011, 10:00 am by Lanthanide.

Correct, but are you willing to hold back scientific or moral progress in the name of God?

If you actually read the article, you would ask how the Israelis crossed while the winds were blowing at upwards of 60 miles per hour?

All Catholics are Christians, but not all Christians are Catholics.

I hope you're trolling here and that you don't actually believe that Catholics are not Christians.

It's sad that you shut your ears to the valid arguments that have been going on for the past seven pages and hundred years. We already mentioned carbon dating, vestigial organs, the fossil record, and modern observations using natural selection, to name a few.

Evolution does not define how life began. It only addresses the method that life changes once it has begun. And if evolution is unscientific, are you saying that the Bible is automatically true, and therefore scientific?

Evolution doesn't say that fish were the first organisms on Earth. Single-celled bacteria were the first, and their descendants slowly changed until multi-celled organisms lived.

We can see natural selection in modern biology (on a much smaller scale that evolution, of course). Jack (and all the other Creationists), if you don't "believe" in evolution, do you believe in natural selection? Do you believe that animals and plants can be bred to bring out certain attributes? There are a plethora of examples out there, such as racehorses and food crops. Do you believe that genes don't exist? No, I'm not trying to use straw men, these are relevant points to the theory of evolutionc

Would you mind pointing those out?

Hmm. Depends on what you mean. If scientific progress includes finding (for an extreme example) how well a human body can survive a 100meter drop, and deciding to use 100 real humans on a real 100meter drop to make sure it's statistically accurate, then most certainly. That's an extreme example, like I said, but if it is immoral to push one part of science then yes. Not necessarily in the name of God, and there'll be plenty of people who would "hold back" science like that but not in the name of God, rather in the name of it being immoral. I don't know how I could truthfully hold back moral progress in the name of God. Then again, I get my morals FROM God and the Bible.

I genuinely believe that the Catholic Church is at best an extremely corrupt Christianity. If you have heard even half the things they did in the past, and realized how unBiblical their beliefs are, then you'd agree. Just have a look at the Inquisition.
I also know a few catholics who don't consider christianity and catholicism to be the same religion.

I showed how carbon dating is inaccurate. Vestigial organs? Pfft, all the "vestigial organs" they had 100 years ago have been shown to have uses. There may be a few that we don't know the use of yet but until it's been shown with absolute certainty that they are in fact vestigial and have no use, vestigial organs is a terrible argument to use. The fossil record is erratic at best, plus as I said, carbon dating can't be assumed to be accurate. Natural selection is something I agree with. What I don't agree with is that natural selection can so change an animal as to make it a different species, giving it genetic makeup that it didn't already possess the ability to have before.

I'll copy paste something I PMed to epyon just recently:
"I only have a problem with macro evolution (change from one species into another). Microevolution (change within a species' genetic potential) isn't unbiblical, and has large volumes of evidence. For example, in any of the numerous fruit fly experiments the original fruit flies were different from the end fruit flies, but they were all still fruit flies. A great dane and a chiuaua are enormously different creatures, but they are both dogs."

I didn't say I thought evolution defines how life began. I realize that it does not. I merely states that BOTH questions, one of which evolution attempts to answer, aren't falsifiable. Also, the Bible has been shown to be accurate in everything relating to science, although it isn't a science book. For example, http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml (ignore the bit around Statements Consistent With Physics, it's premilleniast garbage )

I didn't say that you strawmanner you. Fish are easier to see than single celled bacteria, so only go back far enough that there are fish. Easy beans.

I definitely believe in natural selection. Assuming you mean survival of the fittest. See above where I talk to epyon about it.

Would you mind pointing those out?[/quote]
The one I can see off the bat is "pretending that we can't learn anything about our universe" I never said that, the Bible tells us to learn about stuffz, and it's very strawman of him to say that.

Again, until some proof that proves the decaying rate can change over time arises, carbon dating is considered to be (quite) precise. Also, vestigial organs aren't completely useless, their current functions are just far from what they used to do.
Also, FYI, separation of species occur when too many genetic differences in 2 groups of same species animals cause them to not recognize each other as from the same species (i.e. changes on body color, body plan, pheromones, behaviours, etc.) and lead to the 2 groups stop mating with each other. Over time, the species mutate in divergent ways, and 2 separate species are born.

It may be considered to be, but that doesn't mean it is. It used to be considered that the earth was the centre of the universe.

How do you know what their functions used to be? You ASSUME that they used to have animalistic functions, and then say "They used to have different functions, because we evolved from animals." How do you know we came from animals? "Well, we have vestigial organs so we came from animals."

So does that mean that because a chihuahua doesn't mate with a great dane (I assume it doesn't, just think about it >.> ) they are two different species?

There's a difference between variety within a species (dogs were domesticated at least 10,000 years ago) and actual speciation.

Two different species are unable to produce fertile offspring, hence why mules are infertile (except in very rare cases). A chihuahua and a great dane could (and left together would probably try to) produce offspring which themselves would go on to breed.

Presently there is no scientific evidence that carbon dating is somehow wrong. If anything, the method has been refined and made more precise over time, rather than being thrown out.

Sure, it might turn out to be wrong, but saying you don't trust science to have gotten carbon dating accurate, means you really shouldn't trust that science has gotten anything correct. Like gravity. Or thermodynamics. As much as you might like to say "well gravity is obvious, duh" or "thermodynamics is obvious, duh", we can equally say "well carbon dating is obvious, duh". The only real difference between carbon dating and any other scientific theory, is that you choose not to believe it because it goes against your world view, not because there's any actual evidence that it's wrong.

Carbon dating assumes that you know the original ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the body of an species that has been extinct for years. How is this possible?
How do you know that animals back then didn't incorporate as high of a percentage of carbon-14 in to their molecular structure as we do today. I'm 17 and I figured that out without anyones help. Scientist also assume that the ratio of ccarbon-14 in the atmosphere is the same as it was x years ago... There is no way of prooving this. The same principal applies to any other radioactive dating techniques.

Even so, just by seeing how there is barely any carbon-14 left in fossils, one can tell that either the Earth is definitely way way older than 6000 years old, or there was barely any carbon-14 a few thousand years before (and no evidence exists to show that the carbon-14 amount in the atmosphere changed dramatically in the past few thousand years). So, despite all the flaws you pointed out, carbon dating can still prove that the Earth is older than 6000 years old.

Ahhh but the creation of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is a process and the amount of it in the atmosphere could have started at almost nothing when the world was created. It just may have slowly increased as time went on. Carbon-14 has a slight poisoning affect on the body which would also add to explaining the seemingly impossible age that people lived to in the early Bible.

Mhmm, which shows my point quite well. A chihuahua and a great dane are rather different in shape, size, body colour, and behaviour. (at least, all the chihuahuas I've encountered personally seem rather psychotic, whereas great danes...don't.) I wouldn't know about their pheromes being different.

The process of creating carbon-14 is as easy as giving a nitrogen-14 a neutron while taking from it a proton, both are which have been plenty on Earth (since the atmosphere is mostly nitrogen, and most of the nitrogen on Earth is nitrogen-14), so it shouldn't take long for the carbon-14 to rise to the same concentration as now (assuming the Earth is 6000 years old, and was life-sufficient when it was "created"). Also, life expectancy depends on many factors, so just not being poisoned by carbon-14 alone wouldn't give people such a long life (and I'm not even questioning the credibility of that part of the bible).

PS: I've yet to see anything claiming carbon-14 to be a little bit poisonous =/