Is the Bible 100% truth?

[Xue Sheng]

Good points, Xue Sheng.

As I said earlier in this thread, oversaturation does not trump logic. . . .

Although, it seems that Beowulf's account has been closed. I suppose this thread has just about run its course.

Have a good one.

It appears that you are right, his account is in fact closed. I had not noticed.

Take it easy. :asian:

 

[hongkongfooey]

And since I did warn you, I have another question, since you are asking if the others are scientists… are you a theology or Biblical Scholar?

No! But, I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

 

[Carol]

No! But, I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

:roflmao: :lol: :cheers:

 

[Xue Sheng]

No! But, I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

I agree with Carol Kaur on this

:roflmao: :lol: :cheers:

 

[qizmoduis]

I know that Beowulf's account has been closed, but I'd like to address the questions he/she/it posed:

You're right, we are sidestepping this issue.

So do you mind if I ask you a few questions? Please use peer review and academic journal publications only.

1.Where did the space for the universe come from?

2. Where did matter come from?

3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?

4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?

5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

The previous 5 questions are irrelevant to the question of Evolution and it's explanatory theory.

6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?

This is also not relevant to Evolution, but is an interesting question in its own right. Not that the other questions aren't interesting, of course.

7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

Ah! Now we have a relevant question. Here's what talkorigins has to say:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB350.html

Note how the article includes <gasp> REFERENCES to scientific articles about this very subject. This particular claim is a standard creationist claim. Beowulf has yet to actually post an original idea, and as such follows in the hallowed footsteps of modern creationist apologetics, where are arguments are put forth by copying and pasting lists of nonsense from either the ICR handbook or AnswersInGenesis.com.

8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

Who did Adam's sons marry? Who was Cain afraid of when he was worried about being considered a murderer?

9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since
this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)

Why do creationists insist on anthropomophizing a process?

10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)

A genetic mutation involes CHANGING genetic code, not recombining it. It's important when debating anything that you get your definitions correct, otherwise your arguments are complete nonsense. One of the most important mechanisms at the DNA level of evolution involves duplication of strands of DNA, which then go on with separate sets of divergent mutations. Here's an example using english words:

original: sit
duplication: sit sit
mutation: sit fit

Uh oh, look at that. We now have two words. New information, and all I did was use just two of the genetic mechanisms that have been observed. There's also deletion: sit it
Addition: spit fit

And other mechanisms that I'm unaware of. It's also important to note that mutations are not required to result in meaningful information, so long as it doesn't prevent the organism from reproducing. For example:

mutation: sit sst

is perfectly fine so long as it doesn't kill the organism before the information is passed on.
[/quote]

11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?

It is. Possible != probably. There's no need to posit some unmeasurable creator when a phenomenon is perfectly explainable via natural processes.

12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?

See above. You completely misunderstand how natural selection works.

13. When, where, why, and how did: a) Single-celled plants become multicelled? (Where are the two- and threecelled intermediates?) b) Single-celled animals evolve? c) Fish change to amphibians? d) Amphibians change to reptiles? e) Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!) How did the intermediate forms live?

14. When, where, why, how, and from what did: a) Whales evolve? b) Sea horses evolve? c) Bats evolve? d) Eyes evolve? e) Ears evolve? f) Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
15. Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others)? a) The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body&#8217;s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)? b) The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce? c) The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs? d) DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts? e) The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose? f) The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants? g) The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones? h) The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system? i) The immune system or the need for it?

Research. It's what scientists do. You can do it too. None of your questions are obstacles.

www.talkorigins.org

I should also point out your appeal to the ideal of Irreducible Complexity, championed by Michael Behe and the Discovery Institute. IC as an idea is just long-winded, intellectually vacuous appeal to incredulity. Basically, Behe can't comprehend it, therefore it doesn't happen.

Let's see what my favorite site has to say on the subject:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/design/faqs/nfl/#irred
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section3.html#IC

Again, I would suggest you not copy your arguments directly from AnswersInGenesis.

Don't forget to familiarize yourself with the burden of proof and only use science in its purest empirical forms.

Please no citing "overwhelming evidence", nor appeals to common practice, nor that which has not been published in academic journals and peer review.
Remember, the burden of proof is on you. If you don't think so, I suggest you familiarize yourself with it.

Irony is a common occurrence when reading posts by creationists. This last tidbit is a perfect example.

 

[searcher]

I won't get in on this oh so good discussion except for my answer. Yes I believe the Bible 100%. I don't have to rationalize it out since it is God's word. It has yet to be shown to contradict itself. This is a wonderful argument that is going on. One of our bible studies has been going over this very topic and it is good to see what the "outside" world has to say on the subject.

On the note of how the flood occured without there being that much water on the face of the earth and as to where it could have gone I will say this. It was and is God that is in charge of the whole thing so anything is possible. If you say that it cannot happen then you can explain to me how everything came from one piece of black matter(Big Bang Theory).

I do believe in the Big Bang, but it goes more like this: Bang!! God made everything in 6 days.

 

[hongkongfooey]

I won't get in on this oh so good discussion except for my answer. Yes I believe the Bible 100%. I don't have to rationalize it out since it is God's word. It has yet to be shown to contradict itself. This is a wonderful argument that is going on. One of our bible studies has been going over this very topic and it is good to see what the "outside" world has to say on the subject.

On the note of how the flood occured without there being that much water on the face of the earth and as to where it could have gone I will say this. It was and is God that is in charge of the whole thing so anything is possible. If you say that it cannot happen then you can explain to me how everything came from one piece of black matter(Big Bang Theory).

I do believe in the Big Bang, but it goes more like this: Bang!! God made everything in 6 days.

Okay, but who or what made God?

 

[heretic888]

I won't get in on this oh so good discussion except for my answer. Yes I believe the Bible 100%. I don't have to rationalize it out since it is God's word.

Ah, the myth of self-reification.

It has yet to be shown to contradict itself.

In much the same way, the world has yet to be shown to be round.

I would suggest reading over the arguments that have been presented before making banal and dismissive statements like this.

On the note of how the flood occured without there being that much water on the face of the earth and as to where it could have gone I will say this. It was and is God that is in charge of the whole thing so anything is possible.

So, in other words, it's true because I say so. Gotchah.

If you say that it cannot happen then you can explain to me how everything came from one piece of black matter(Big Bang Theory).

And that, class, is what we call a Red Herring. It will be on next week's exam.

I do believe in the Big Bang, but it goes more like this: Bang!! God made everything in 6 days.

So, in other words, you think a bunch of Bronze Age semi-literate pig farmers that owned slaves, had multiple wives, and believed the earth was flat had more insight into cosmological history than modern-day physicists.

Uh huh. Sure.

Laterz.

 

[pstarr]

I'm just curious - what was out there before the big bang?

 

[elder999]

I'm just curious - what was out there before the big bang?

Nothing. Or, one thing, or if you prefer void and without form.:wink2:

This argument, between "science" and the Bible, really shouldn't be one at all-the two are not altogether mutually exclusive, but one cannot be used to prove the other in any way-nor can one be used to completely refute the other.The Creator, by definition, has to be metaphysically AND physically, outside of the creation, and not bound by its laws. As such, scientific evidence of a creator is lacking, and may be altogether absent. Where the Bible is inaccurate-and it is, quite simply, inaccurate-can be chalked up to a variety of factors, none of which make it untrue, merely factually wrong (see my 68 degree rule post a few pages back).......while some of the stories are myths, many have a basis in history. Others, of course, are scientifically inexplicable-inaccurate, and most likely false.

Also, the numerous "scientists" quoted in the many creationist posts (some of whom I know) are largely discredited, though I won't get into it, since their principle proponent has departed.

 

[pstarr]

Nothing. Or, one thing, or if you prefer void and without form.:wink2:

This argument, between "science" and the Bible, really shouldn't be one at all-the two are not altogether mutually exclusive, but one cannot be used to prove the other in any way-nor can one be used to completely refute the other.The Creator, by definition, has to be metaphysically AND physically, outside of the creation, and not bound by its laws. As such, scientific evidence of a creator is lacking, and may be altogether absent. Where the Bible is inaccurate-and it is, quite simply, inaccurate-can be chalked up to a variety of factors, none of which make it untrue, merely factually wrong (see my 68 degree rule post a few pages back).......while some of the stories are myths, many have a basis in history. Others, of course, are scientifically inexplicable-inaccurate, and most likely false.

Also, the numerous "scientists" quoted in the many creationist posts (some of whom I know) are largely discredited, though I won't get into it, since their principle proponent has departed.

I'm not necessarily arguing for or against the Bible. I just wonder what there was before the Big Bang? It couldn't have been nothing because it's not possible to create something out of nothing...so there must have been something there and I am wondering what it was.

 

[elder999]

I'm not necessarily arguing for or against the Bible. I just wonder what there was before the Big Bang? It couldn't have been nothing because it's not possible to create something out of nothing...so there must have been something there and I am wondering what it was.

Well, no-the question is not only one of physics, but somewhat metaphysical:Before the Big Bang, there was actually no time-time and space were generated at the Big Bang-moreover, time slows in gravitational fields, and, since all the matter that exists now was theoretically condensed into one very small thing, it's gravity would also be such that time didn't move-in theory, and depending upon which model is being used.

 

[heretic888]

Nothing. Or, one thing, or if you prefer void and without form.:wink2:

This argument, between "science" and the Bible, really shouldn't be one at all-the two are not altogether mutually exclusive, but one cannot be used to prove the other in any way-nor can one be used to completely refute the other.The Creator, by definition, has to be metaphysically AND physically, outside of the creation, and not bound by its laws. As such, scientific evidence of a creator is lacking, and may be altogether absent. Where the Bible is inaccurate-and it is, quite simply, inaccurate-can be chalked up to a variety of factors, none of which make it untrue, merely factually wrong (see my 68 degree rule post a few pages back).......while some of the stories are myths, many have a basis in history. Others, of course, are scientifically inexplicable-inaccurate, and most likely false.

Also, the numerous "scientists" quoted in the many creationist posts (some of whom I know) are largely discredited, though I won't get into it, since their principle proponent has departed.

Well, nobody as far as I can tell thus far on the thread has made the argument that because the historical, geographical, and cultural descriptions of the Bible are less than factual, that God therefore does not exist. I myself have certainly not advanced such a position, as I consider myself something of a panentheist (not to be confused with a pantheist).

So, it isn't a question whatsoever of the existence or non-existence of God (although I think even that question is logically nonsensical). This issue hasn't even been raised except by the apologists on this thread (and the ID thread) when backed into a corner. It's little more than a cheap ploy to divert attention from the original argument (in other words, a Red Herring).

The fact of human evolution tells us nothing whatsoever about "God", neither for nor against. Likewise, the issue of geological time tells us nothing whatsoever about "God", neither for nor against. It's an entirely separate question.

This is one of the traditional tactics of creationist apologists, of course: either believe the Bible to be 100% literally true or you're an atheist. This is what is called a False Dilemma, as the vast majority of the world's scientists are probably theistic evolutionists (as is the Vatican).

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

I'm not necessarily arguing for or against the Bible. I just wonder what there was before the Big Bang? It couldn't have been nothing because it's not possible to create something out of nothing....

It's curious that you say that, as "creation out of nothing" is precisely orthodox Christian doctrine.

Laterz.

 

[pstarr]

Well, nobody as far as I can tell thus far on the thread has made the argument that because the historical, geographical, and cultural descriptions of the Bible are less than factual, that God therefore does not exist. I myself have certainly not advanced such a position, as I consider myself something of a panentheist (not to be confused with a pantheist).

So, it isn't a question whatsoever of the existence or non-existence of God (although I think even that question is logically nonsensical). This issue hasn't even been raised except by the apologists on this thread (and the ID thread) when backed into a corner. It's little more than a cheap ploy to divert attention from the original argument (in other words, a Red Herring).

The fact of human evolution tells us nothing whatsoever about "God", neither for nor against. Likewise, the issue of geological time tells us nothing whatsoever about "God", neither for nor against. It's an entirely separate question.

This is one of the traditional tactics of creationist apologists, of course: either believe the Bible to be 100% literally true or you're an atheist. This is what is called a False Dilemma, as the vast majority of the world's scientists are probably theistic evolutionists (as is the Vatican).

Like I said, I'm not arguing for or against the Bible. I'm curious and instead of answering my question you're jumping up and down about the validity of the Bible!
I asked a question about what was there before the Big Bang? If all matter, time, and so forth were condensed into an infinitely small thing, what was around it?

 

[heretic888]

Like I said, I'm not arguing for or against the Bible. I'm curious and instead of answering my question you're jumping up and down about the validity of the Bible!

I don't suppose you've checked the thread title, eh?

 

[pstarr]

Yes, but the idea of the Big Bang was brought up and I decided to ask about it....maybe we should move this to a different thread.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I'm just curious - what was out there before the big bang?

I have always thought that before the big bang were a group of scientists trying to discover what caused the big bang and as soon as they discovered it BANG it started all over again

And no I am not serious.

Sorry, I just couldn’t resist.:asian:

 

[Ray]

It's curious that you say that, as "creation out of nothing" is precisely orthodox Christian doctrine.

I found this (quote from Wikipedia - under "Ex Nihilo") interesting:

Early Christian theologians and philosophers, including Philo, Justin, Athenagoras, Hermogenes, Clement of Alexandria, Origen of Alexandria, and, later, John Scotus Erigena also found no good reason to affirm the creation-out-of-nothing hypothesis. Philo, for instance, postulated a pre-existent matter alongside God.

For an examination of how the doctrine arose originally in Gnosticism and then was adopted by early Church leaders to shore up doctrines of divine determinism, see Gerhard May, Creatio Ex Nihilo: The Doctrine of &#8216;Creation out of Nothing&#8217; in Early Thought. trans. A. S. (Worrall. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1994).

 

[elder999]

I asked a question about what was there before the Big Bang? If all matter, time, and so forth were condensed into an infinitely small thing, what was around it?

Nothing no-thing, not a thing. If you can't wrap your mind around it, let it go.