Evolutionary Contradictions

[Truman]

Pilate, haven't you been reading the discussion Vtmarik and I have been having about it?

[vtmarik]

Pilate, haven't you been reading the discussion Vtmarik and I have been having about it?

If you consider it a discussion. It was more a mini-flame war ending with me throwing my hands up in disgust and fatigue and going to sleep.

[jay_a2j]

It was more a mini-flame war ending with me throwing my hands up in disgust and fatigue and going to sleep.

aka "throwing in the towel"

[vtmarik]

aka "throwing in the towel"

Oh, let's not quibble over semantics , I think heavycola's doing quite well in my stead.

[maritovw]

Source: Wikipedia.

man, you shuold get better sources... i'm not saying that what wikipedia states is false, but i don't think it's reliable enough to use it as an argument in this scientific discussion. what i mean is that anyone can change the articles, so they are prone to being innaccurate...

i'm not against using wikipedia as a source to get casual information/knowledge, but i don't think it is reliable enough to support scientific argumentation.

[Nappy Bone Apart]

When you guys change one mind with this, let me know

[vtmarik]

man, you shuold get better sources... i'm not saying that what wikipedia states is false, but i don't think it's reliable enough to use it as an argument in this scientific discussion. what i mean is that anyone can change the articles, so they are prone to being innaccurate...

i'm not against using wikipedia as a source to get casual information/knowledge, but i don't think it is reliable enough to support scientific argumentation.

Anyone can change the articles in Wikipedia, however these articles are also closely monitored by the moderators and all information is required to be referenced. If you read the article itself rather than making assumptions simply based on where the article comes from, you'd see the numerous references to its source material.

I went to wikipedia simply because that article is a good collection of multiple sources of information.

[zarvinny]

Wow, although i have to say that in general the people that support the evolution theory have well worded arguments that stand superior to the fundamentalist Christians with not many arguments, Truman has shown great intellectual ability, as a supporter of creationsim, both refuting most all arguments thrown at him in a logical fashion, and giving his own arguments/opinions.

It seems to me that everyone comes and critisizes Truman, but I believe he definetly deserves a lot of credit.

Especially since-- a. The Evolutionist Theory is supported by most scientists.
b. people that are for it, have their (the scientists') arguments to use.

[heavycola]

SO in one post you:

accuse the big bang of being a supernatural being
accuse 'natural processes' of being a god
describe a corner as being a compass point
decide that atheists actually worship stuff


And while this:
""Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go, and say unto thee, Here we are?" must be predicting electricity, the 'four corners of the earth' must be a metaphor... whatever you say man. I have no idea why a perfect being would use ambiguous metaphors based on human inventions such as the four compass points to tell us stuff, but i'm sure you do.
Again, "where is the way the light dwelleth" - seems to me the light is dwelling, not travelling. But then again it's only YOUR INTERPRETATION.

People have used their own interpretations of the bible to support slavery. Is that your reading, too? (It certainly doesn;t comdemn the practice and even offers helpful guidance on how badly to beat your slaves.)
There is nothing factual in anything you have quoted - it is all subjective interpretation. Why do most sensible christians not buy in to all the rapture bullshit - because their interpretation is different. Differences in opinion over what the bible means have started wars. Don't post as if you alone have the answers, because all you have is your own entirely subjective readings of a few ambiguous-at-best lines of scripture, all of which could be refuted by a believer with a different slant on things.

My belief has much evidence for your information, but you're so close-minded you never look it up.

Actually I have spent a lot of time reading up on creationism beliefs of varying sorts - i really am fascinated by the idea and i want to understand it - and I honestly have not found one of its claims that stands up to scientific enquiry. Find me a few convincing claims and I might even change my mind.
I do wonder if you're not just winding me up - you use some quite long words and it's hard to imagine anyone as obviously intelligent as you or 'dr' kent hovind would actually believe this giant pile of wank. It's not true, man. Do you think Val Kilmer buys into this?

[heavycola]

Val - reading that chapter of Job you quoted i found these:

Job 38:13 That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?

Ends of earth? How does a globe have ends with which to shake it?

Job 38:18 Hast thou perceived the breadth of the earth?

How does a globe have breadth?

he's talking about a flat earth. Do you believe in a flat earth? Are the rest of us then round-earthists?

Are these metaphors and not your examples? Who gets to choose when god is being metaphorical and when he isn't?

[macwin]

Many are close-minded about what I say since they're annoyed by my arguments which actually kick their little world of "scientific evolution" into the gutter.

Gees!!...i would love to come back at ya with some fancy language and some cool facts....but why bother.....you are truly certifiable!!!

Certainly you must be the dumbest, smartest person i have ever read.

[jay_a2j]

don't hate.

[Caleb the Cruel]

everything about evolution and the big bang theory contradicts itself

[heavycola]

Caleb, for a sociopath you're an ignorant mofo

[mightyal]

everything about evolution and the big bang theory contradicts itself

Thank you for sharing your insight.

[Truman]

Hi guys. Sorry I didn't reply in a while, I was occupied during the week. Here we go...

Again, "where is the way the light dwelleth" - seems to me the light is dwelling, not travelling. But then again it's only YOUR INTERPRETATION.

It's like you read one word and then kick it out in the same sentence. You do know that "way" and "dwelleth" are used together, don't you? "The way where light dwelleth" obviously says that light moves with the word "way" alligning itself with "dwelleth." It's sad you don't know how to put the pieces together.

People have used their own interpretations of the bible to support slavery. Is that your reading, too? (It certainly doesn;t comdemn the practice and even offers helpful guidance on how badly to beat your slaves.)

I've actually answered this claim before when someone posted 5 scriptures referring to slavery in the Bible.

I have no problem with posting my responses again. I got 1 Timothy 6:1-5 from a guy who said it says that those who disagree with slavery are spurned. The scripture says,

"Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.

And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.

If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;

He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,

Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.

But godliness with contentment is great gain."

Back then there was slavery; no question. But it doesn't say at all anywhere about if the slave disagrees with the master, he will be spurned. It says that the slave shouldn't disobey the master. This is a simple task. If you had a slave, you'd agree. It says that the master and the slave cannot blaspheme God, and if they do, it says they're stupid and ignorant.

It also says that if the master does not teach the right doctrine to the slave, the slave should not obey the master. It never mentions a thing about what happens to a slave if they disobey their master and such.

I'm not saying that slavery is good, and neither does the Bible. Then they'll bring up Deuteronomy 15:17 about branding slaves, which says,

"Then thou shalt take an awl, and thrust it through his ear unto the door, and he shall be thy servant for ever. And also unto thy maidservant thou shalt do likewise."

This, however, shows how the reader bringing up this scripture cannot read the entire chapter. This scripture is taken out of context. The chapter talks about how if you have a servant, you can have him as a servant for 6 years, and on the 7th year you must let him free. Verse 16 (which comes right before the scripture) will show exactly what it means. Both scriptures together say that if the servant is willing to serve the master he has chosen, he will allow an awl to be thrust through his ear, which is a sign he'll be a servant to his master for his life on his own free will.

This whole concept of the Bible supporting slavery is poppycock, and should be ignored.

There is nothing factual in anything you have quoted - it is all subjective interpretation. Why do most sensible christians not buy in to all the rapture bullshit - because their interpretation is different. Differences in opinion over what the bible means have started wars. Don't post as if you alone have the answers, because all you have is your own entirely subjective readings of a few ambiguous-at-best lines of scripture, all of which could be refuted by a believer with a different slant on things.

Just give me that "believer." Cola, the scriptures I posted were obvious ones, not ones that are open to interpretation like the prophecies yet to come. "The way where light dwelleth." Light "dwells" in a way, which means it moves. What else could it possibly mean?

"Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go, and say unto thee, Here we are?"

Cola, there is no dodging this one. Even the grammar used implies electricity. Sending lightings...they may go...say unto thee, Here we are. Just "say unto thee, Here we are?" proves it. It speaks of a person talking to another with this one phrase, with the comma coming before the "say unto thee" and the phrase being capitalized right after the comma. Please show me how this isn't talking about electricity being used to send a message. It cannot translate to anything else.

"By what way is the light parted, which scattereth the east wind upon the earth?"

This one is unbelievably obvious. Light parted to scatter the east wind upon the earth? I really, really cannot see how you could translate this to possibly mean anything else than what it says flat out right there in the scripture.

"Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth?"

Right here I laugh at you. "Springs in the sea" tops it. It's like how the Bible says it took six days to make the earth, with "evening and morning" included to clarify they were normal 24-hour days. It's clear in its meaning. Tell me what else it could mean. Please.

"All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again."

--Ecclesiastes 1:7

This one is as clear as the last one. Rivers running into the sea and yet the sea isn't full? Then it says, "...unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again. It's like saying, "You can type letters on the keyboard, and then they return to the screen." Simple. I again ask how else you can interpret this scripture.

Isaiah 55:10...

"For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater..."

"Rain cometh down" should pretty much give it away. Didn't you read this before you said,

"...a few ambiguous-at-best lines of scripture, all of which could be refuted..."

Talk about slander and arrogance. You didn't read one damn thing!

Psalms 135:7 talking about evaporation:

"He causeth the vapours to ascend from the ends of the earth; he maketh lightnings for the rain; he bringeth the wind out of his treasuries."

Vapours ascending. God making lighting for the rain. Umm...do I sense a glaring clearness arising from this passage? You'll probably bring up "ends of the earth" in this passage. Isn't it obvious here that it talks about the horizons around the area?

Jeremiah 10:13 uses the same words and says the same thing as the last scripture, basically.

Condensation nuclei in Proverbs 8:26:

"While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world."

"Dust of the world," I admit, is up to interpretation. But "highest part" added in makes it sound like its talking about fog or haze. I don't know, and I'll give you that about this one.

Isaiah 40:22, talking about the round earth and the atmosphere surrounding it:

"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in..."

This one is good. "Circle of the earth" is up to interpretation until you apply the Hebrew word used. The word "circle" used in the passage is "hhug" which translates to "sphere." On the atmosphere, "stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain" can pretty much tell you it's talking about the atmosphere.

Actually I have spent a lot of time reading up on creationism beliefs of varying sorts...

Yes, you proabably have...on a skeptic website. If you had read it on a website that really explains it you would not be saying these words. Trust me.

...i really am fascinated by the idea and i want to understand it...

Do I sense a lie here? How about you re-read every bash you've made on creationists and their ideas, and every close-minded comment you've made about the Bible, showing you truely don't know beans about it.

...and I honestly have not found one of its claims that stands up to scientific enquiry. Find me a few convincing claims and I might even change my mind.

No you won't. You'll continue in every way you can to try and discredit every one because your dogmatic evolutionary thinking has dominated your mind to a disagreeable extent.

I do wonder if you're not just winding me up - you use some quite long words and it's hard to imagine anyone as obviously intelligent as you or 'dr' kent hovind would actually believe this giant pile of wank. It's not true, man. Do you think Val Kilmer buys into this?

You mean people like Robert Gentry, discoverer of radio halos in granite, but getting fired because his discoveries were against evolution? He's a creationist. Carl Baugh is another example of a brilliant scientist and evolutionist turned creationist. Even my dad has a BS in geology and was an evolutionist turned creationist. The list goes on.

And stop referring me to Val Kilmer. The picture in my avatar is from the screenplay I wrote. The Val Kilmer character plays "Lieutenant Ecglaf." My avatar has nothing to do with the way I think about him.

And by the way, Val Kilmer is a Christian scientist. I disagree with Christian scientists in many many ways, but hey! He's Christian.

Val - reading that chapter of Job you quoted i found these:

STOP CALLING ME VAL KILMER!

Job 38:13 That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?

Ends of earth? How does a globe have ends with which to shake it?

Like Psalms 135:7, this speaks of the horizons when put into its context.

"Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place;

That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?"

It's purely poetic in every sense of its expression, and obviously speaks about the horizons, with the reference to the "morning" taking hold of the "ends of the earth."

Job 38:18 Hast thou perceived the breadth of the earth?

How does a globe have breadth?

Do you have to take every scripture literally? "The breadth of the earth" refers to the vast expanse of how large the world is when taken into context; it doesn't necessarily mean the earth has breadth.

he's talking about a flat earth. Do you believe in a flat earth? Are the rest of us then round-earthists?

You wish it was talking about a flat earth when I've just shown how it says nothing of the sort. Yet, you'll conclude that my "interpretation" rests with other "experts" on what it might mean. Tell me, do you need to be a rocket scientist to figure out what "six days" means when the Bible talks of how long it took God to make the Heavens and the earth?

If someone was picked out who knew nothing of any of the arguments of the Gap Theorists and others, and just read Genesis 1, he would say exactly this: "Hmm. It says God created the earth in six days. I guess that means....God created the earth in six days." It's that simple! But then when you have someone saying something it cannot possibly translate to, like each day being an age, then that person is probably involved in a cult.

Now, with scriptures like "The circle of the earth," "the breadth of the earth," and "the ends of the earth," you can easily tell what the verse is really saying if you read it thoroughly through. If you read Genesis 1 thoroughly through, you're still going to arrive with the same conclusion. With a scripture like "the circle of the earth" from Isaiah 40:22, you can tell it talks about a spherical earth. If you aren't sure, and want to know exactly what it might say, you'll still find that in the Hebrew, the word "circle" translates to "sphere." With "ends of the earth" you must look at the context. With "breadth of the earth" you must look at its context as well.

With you, like most atheistic skeptics who doubt the Bible, you have to have it spelled out for you. You aren't looking for an explanation for the scriptures you give.

Why can't criminals find any policemen? ................ They aren't looking for them. Anyone with eyes can see that you and others are doing the same with Biblical "errors."

Are these metaphors and not your examples? Who gets to choose when god is being metaphorical and when he isn't?

Only God. But the thing is, with common sense, these scriptures shouldn't be difficult to interpret if read thoroughly, which is what you aren't doing.

Man, what a thing to write! Well whatever. This should be continued in "Bible Contradictions!" instead of here. Let's move it over there if we're to continue the discussion.

[heavycola]

I'll stop calling you Val when you stop calling me a "dogmatic evolutionist". There is as much dogma involved as there is in my belief in the theory of gravity. Like i said, show me a better theory and i'll gladly accept it. Organised religion is, on the other hand, dogmatic by definition.



Right: You missed my point.

I didn't go looking for errors; i thought what you said about Job was worth a look, so I read the chapter. And i knew as I posted them that the examples i found would be dismissed by you as metaphor. 'Dwelling' is not the same as 'travelling', by the way. It's almost the opposite. I would say that verse was hugely open to interpretation, especially when you are using two words - one of which means to be in a state of rest, the other which has lots of different definitions - to say the writer knew that light travels. Calling it a stretch is to dignify it too much.
Every verse you quoted is ambiguous at best. They just are, despite your rolling eye smileys and bafflement at the idea that people might not agree with you.

You'll probably bring up "ends of the earth" in this passage. Isn't it obvious here that it talks about the horizons around the area?

Well, no. A globe doesn't have ends. It's not obvious at all.

My point is this: Either it is all literal - as you take genesis to be - or it isn't (like the references to a flat earth). If you believe the bible to be absolute truth then you either believe it is all true, every word, or you admit to interpreting it as you see fit. Any other position is logically inconsistent. Interpretations of the bible are a thousandfold. Yours Could Be Wrong. Say it. Try thinking outside your own dogma for a minute.

[Truman]

You still haven't answered every scripture I posted, save two. Still, you have not read what I wrote, and your slandering again (what a surprise). Shall I post it yet again for you to read, or should I consider asking your address and sending you the book series called "Hooked on Phonics"?

"It's like you read one word and then kick it out in the same sentence. You do know that 'way' and 'dwelleth' are used together, don't you? 'The way where light dwelleth' obviously says that light moves with the word 'way' alligning itself with 'dwelleth.' It's sad you don't know how to put the pieces together."

The second one, about the horizons, you again show yourself incapable of reading what I wrote, and again humiliating yourself by doing so. Sorry.

"Like Psalms 135:7, this speaks of the horizons when put into its context.

'Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place;

That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?'

It's purely poetic in every sense of its expression, and obviously speaks about the horizons, with the reference to the 'morning' taking hold of the 'ends of the earth.'"

I'd like to bring up your idea on how it is either all literal, or all symbolic. That's where your logic is flawed. I'll give an example.

Suppose we bring up the contradiction in the Bible concerning Matthew 27:28 and John 19:2. In the first it says, "scarlet" and in the second it says, "purple." Now, if you study other ancient writings, the color "red" or "scarlet" is used for any object that contains red in it. You might say something like,

"Both texts describe different colors and there's a blatant contradiction. Saying that ancient writers back then said this and that doesn't prove anything. It says the robe was 'scarlet' in Matthew and 'purple' in John, and I really cannot see how you can get around that."

Again, this is also flawed logic. What if I was to say that the ocean was blue? It isn't, it only appears blue from a distance because the sky reflects off the water. But what if I was to say "The ocean is blue" and left my quote that way? Am I contradicting what science has to say about it, how it really isn't blue?

My point is some scriptures have inner meaning and no real literal description of what something actually does and does not do, and some scriptures are easy to translate to meaning something more than what it says. You're saying that it's either one way or the other when it is not. That's where your flawed logic lies, my friend, and you need to fix that before you get on with this debate.

[heavycola]

I'd like to bring up your idea on how it is either all literal, or all symbolic. That's where your logic is flawed.

That's not what i said, Val. Don't put words in my mouth - and don't accuse me of not reading your posts when you haven't read mine.

I said - either this book of absolute truth is all absolutely true, OR you need to admit that these are merely your own interpretations ( I like that in the chapter of Job beiung discussed, the flat earth stuff - i.e. the stuff that can be easily disproved these days - are the only metaphors, and everything else is fact).
But you don't seem able to do that. All you seem capable of doing is callign anyone who disagrees with you an idiot.

I am not going to discuss every verse you quote because then i end up with a massive post. But here's one that made you 'laugh out loud':
The verse 'springs of the sea' - water comes from springs. The sea is full of water. It seems a logical step for a writer to imagine that the sea might be filled by springs. Now you tell me that is an impossible reading.

Remember: You Could Be Wrong. Try saying it.

[heavycola]

'm not saying that slavery is good, and neither does the Bible.

And here it's the same story. The bible discusses slavery and how it should be conducted: "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money” (Exodus 21:20-21).
It condones it. And that's a pretty fucked up thing for a perfect, moral being to do. Slavery is immoral - luckily we have managed to arrive at this conclusion despite the bible's absence of condemnation.

Not saying slavery is good is not the same as saying it is bad, as you well know.

1) Morality comes from god
2) The bible - i.e. god - discusses slavery and rules to abide by for slave owners without condemning it as a horrific, dehumanising practice
3) therefore: slavery is not immoral.

[heavycola]

And LOL i can;t believe you used Carl Baugh and Robert Gentry as examples. Both have been discredited - especially "Dr" Baugh, whose ideas are rejected as unscientific even by mainstream creationists. Try again.

[heavycola]

I'm going to bring this up again....


On the train this morning I read a story in the newspaper about how the Royal Society (an elite group of british scientists) has written a public letter to Exxon Mobil. The letter asks teh company to stop funding right-wing lobbying groups who are arguing against human-caused climate change.
These groups represent firms like Exxon - that is, companies that stand to gain financially by refusing to face up to the overwhelming scientific evidence that yes, human beings are speeding up climate change on our planet at an imminently dangerous level.

Makes sense. The only people who really stand to lose bigtime from any reduction in the amount of fossil-fuels used are the ones arguing against the solid scientific arguments for that reduction.

OK - now take fundamentalist christianity and its belief in creationism. The only people arguing against the overwhelming mass of scientific data in favour of evolutionary theory are... fundamentalist christians. Why? because they stand to lose otherwise - believers, contributions, congregations. It's exactly the same thing.


EDIT bumping thsi until someone argues with me

[Jolly Roger]

EDIT bumping thsi until someone argues with me

No you won't

[vtmarik]

No you won't

How can you make such an outrageous claim?

[Jolly Roger]

I was trying to argue with him as requested