The Bible

[GostHacked]

Mighty AC and Sleipnir, I've already made a polite request for you guys to get back on topic. If you want to pursue your discussion, create your own thread.

I don't care what you think of my topic. You go elsewhere if you don't like it - I'm not twisting your arms to read it.

By deliberately and wilfully ignoring my request to stick to the topic, you are deliberately and wilfully ignoring the rules of this forum.

Be careful Betsy, trolling is against the rules here as well.

[cybercoma]

And besides, this is a 111 page monstrosity that has been off-topic and back again several times. In any case, how do you make a thread called The Bible and tell people to remain on topic with a topic that broad anyway? If you're talking about Christianity in any way, you're talking at least tangentially about The Bible.

[GostHacked]

And besides, this is a 111 page monstrosity that has been off-topic and back again several times. In any case, how do you make a thread called The Bible and tell people to remain on topic with a topic that broad anyway? If you're talking about Christianity in any way, you're talking at least tangentially about The Bible.

Good points. And yes this thread derailed a long time ago. The other inevitability is the cross talk between all these threads related to religion/evolution/science/evils of organized religion ect.... Proves your point, hard to stay on topic when the scope of the topic is ... large.

[Sleipnir]

Mighty AC and Sleipnir, I've already made a polite request for you guys to get back on topic. If you want to pursue your discussion, create your own thread.

Well technically I noticed no threads on this forum stays on topic past the 20th page mark.

you are deliberately and wilfully ignoring the rules of this forum.

Research Your Post

If you are stating a fact, be prepared to back it up with some official sources (websites, links etc). It is also important to structure your post in a way that everyone can understand. That means writing complete sentences and paragraphs with the appropriate grammar. If for some reason, you enjoy writing long confusing sentences and paragraphs riddled with poor grammar and spelling mistakes, your post, and therefore your opinions, will likely be discarded.

Therefore, it is in your best interest to make sure that your post includes sufficient sources and contains a well-researched and well-organized argument.

-Greg

Edited November 17, 2012 by Sleipnir

[betsy]

The subjects being discussed are the facts being listed here. You are welcome to refute them, challenge them, discuss them, criticize them.

Gosthacked, Cybercoma, Sleipnir, that the topic had derailed in the past is not an excuse to disregard the request of the creator of the thread.

I'm bringing it back on topic.

Edited November 17, 2012 by betsy

[Sleipnir]

You are welcome to refute them, challenge them, discuss them, criticize them.

They've been challenged and refuted, yet you keep pushing the topic as if evidence has become redundant.

[betsy]

To bring the thread back on track, I'm reposting the latest fact given:

FACT: THE SCRIPTURES AND SCIENCE ARE COMING INTO AGREEMENT.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18914&st=1620

[The_Squid]

Conversations evolve. Stop spamming the thread with the same post over and over. It is a violation of the rules!

[Sleipnir]

FACT: THE SCRIPTURES AND SCIENCE ARE COMING INTO AGREEMENT.

http://www.mapleleaf...c=18914&st=1620

More like a statement than an argument. What is your question?

[betsy]

More like a statement than an argument. What is your question?

Didn't you know????

Of course it's a statement! Duh.

I'm stating what I claim to be facts! Not just claims based on faith alone. But with something credible to back-up my claims....that's why I've got those links!

That's why you are asked to either refute it or criticize it or discuss it! This is one of those discussions where-in personal opinion definitely do not count!

Aren't you the one who claimed to be well-experienced with debating or something like that?

Everything clear to you now? If not.....then what can I say. Either you get it, or you don't.

Edited November 18, 2012 by betsy

[Mighty AC]

Hey, I'm not a young-earth creationist....so I cannot answer for them. It's not only young-earth creationists however, who believe the limited diversification within "kinds".....I believe that too.

But I believe that science was given to mankind for a reason. I believe it is God-given, to explain or reveal to us what God wants us to know and understand. Thus, that's one of the points I was trying to make with the Bible facts.

Therefore....I can go where the evidence(s) lead. If evidences show the irrefutable and conclusive fact that we've evolved - macroevolution - I can accept that, too.

The thing is you don't go where the evidence leads, your community only accepts evidence that gels with the Bible. What about the facts that disprove statements in the Bible? I know that some Christians do not believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God, are you personally allowed to state there are errors in the Bible?

Side Point: Microevolution and macroevolution are not actually two different processes, they are just terms which describe the type of change within an organism. Evolution is just the result of changes in the genetic code. These changes can effect "minor" or "micro" attributes like colour or size, or they can lead to "major" or "macro" changes that create new species that can no longer breed with their parent populations. "Micro" changes can add up or compound over time as well. Anyway, so called macro or speciation events are not just theorized, they are observable.

If you are interested, the university of Berkeley has a site that addresses common misconceptions about what evolution is and how it works. http://evolution.ber...eptions_faq.php

[cybercoma]

The thing is you don't go where the evidence leads, your community only accepts evidence that gels with the Bible. What about the facts that disprove statements in the Bible?

She's already addressed this.

The facts that are disproven will eventually be proven. Science is behind and only starting to come into "alignment" with God's Truth in the Bible.

In other words, the science that disagrees with the Bible is wrong and eventually future discoveries will show the Bible is true.

That's betsy's argument.

[Mighty AC]

She's already addressed this.

The facts that are disproven will eventually be proven. Science is behind and only starting to come into "alignment" with God's Truth in the Bible.

In other words, the science that disagrees with the Bible is wrong and eventually future discoveries will show the Bible is true.

That's betsy's argument.

I see... I guess we have all the answers we need then, that's a relief. I do have a new question though. Why do creationists use the word evidences? Evidence is already a plural noun; we don't use the word peoples.

[cybercoma]

We do use the word "peoples" for multiple groups of people, when referring to the groups. (i.e., Aboriginal Peoples include First Nations, Metis, and Inuit).

I'm not sure why they use "evidences." I've honestly never noticed that.

If I had to venture a guess, it's probably a function of believing that everything is just opinion and open to interpretation, even evidence.

[Sleipnir]

The facts that are disproven will eventually be proven. Science is behind and only starting to come into "alignment" with God's Truth in the Bible.

In other words, the science that disagrees with the Bible is wrong and eventually future discoveries will show the Bible is true.

That's betsy's argument.

Interestingly, such argument only applies to AFTER whatever is found/discovered - not prior to.

[betsy]

The thing is you don't go where the evidence leads, your community only accepts evidence that gels with the Bible. What about the facts that disprove statements in the Bible? I know that some Christians do not believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God, are you personally allowed to state there are errors in the Bible?

Sorry AC...but I can go where the evidence(s) lead. I'm not talking about "some Christians." I can't speak for them. There are no errors in the Bible.

What "facts" do you think disprove the Bible? Be specific.

Side Point: Microevolution and macroevolution are not actually two different processes, they are just terms which describe the type of change within an organism. Evolution is just the result of changes in the genetic code. These changes can effect "minor" or "micro" attributes like colour or size, or they can lead to "major" or "macro" changes that create new species that can no longer breed with their parent populations. "Micro" changes can add up or compound over time as well. Anyway, so called macro or speciation events are not just theorized, they are observable.

If you are interested, the university of Berkeley has a site that addresses common misconceptions about what evolution is and how it works. http://evolution.ber...eptions_faq.php

I've got this site too.

Microevolution are changes in the gene pool that do not create new genes. That is every gene in the new gene pool has a similar function and purpose in the original gene pool. A gene that is altered by mutations, but maintains its original function and purpose is called an allele. Alleles are different variations of the same gene. Microevolution creates new alleles. It does not create new genes. Macroevolution: changes in the gene pool that create new genes. Since new organs and structures require new genes, any evolutionary transition that involves a new structure or organ is an example of macroevolution.

http://library.thinkquest.org/27407/micro.htm

Bottomline for me: evolution does not create NEW specie. Until science can provide an irrefutable proof that it can.

[betsy]

The thing is you don't go where the evidence leads, your community only accepts evidence that gels with the Bible. What about the facts that disprove statements in the Bible? I know that some Christians do not believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God, are you personally allowed to state there are errors in the Bible?

Side Point: Microevolution and macroevolution are not actually two different processes, they are just terms which describe the type of change within an organism. Evolution is just the result of changes in the genetic code. These changes can effect "minor" or "micro" attributes like colour or size, or they can lead to "major" or "macro" changes that create new species that can no longer breed with their parent populations. "Micro" changes can add up or compound over time as well. Anyway, so called macro or speciation events are not just theorized, they are observable.

If you are interested, the university of Berkeley has a site that addresses common misconceptions about what evolution is and how it works. http://evolution.ber...eptions_faq.php

Your own source have also this to say:

Misconceptions about evolution and religion

• 
  MISCONCEPTION: Evolution and religion are incompatible.
  
• 
  CORRECTION: Because of some individuals and groups stridently declaring their beliefs, it's easy to get the impression that science (which includes evolution) and religion are at war; however, the idea that one always has to choose between science and religion is incorrect. People of many different faiths and levels of scientific expertise see no contradiction at all between science and religion. For many of these people, science and religion simply deal with different realms. Science deals with natural causes for natural phenomena, while religion deals with beliefs that are beyond the natural world.
  
• 
  Of course, some religious beliefs explicitly contradict science (e.g., the belief that the world and all life on it was created in six literal days does conflict with evolutionary theory); however, most religious groups have no conflict with the theory of evolution or other scientific findings. In fact, many religious people, including theologians, feel that a deeper understanding of nature actually enriches their faith. Moreover, in the scientific community there are thousands of scientists who are devoutly religious and also accept evolution. For concise statements from many religious organizations regarding evolution, see Voices for Evolution on the NCSE website. To learn more about the relationship between science and religion, visit the Understanding Science website.
  

[betsy]

I see... I guess we have all the answers we need then, that's a relief. I do have a new question though. Why do creationists use the word evidences? Evidence is already a plural noun; we don't use the word peoples.

You can't nitpik on the facts listed here....so now you'll nitpik on grammar?

[betsy]

Interestingly, such argument only applies to AFTER whatever is found/discovered - not prior to.

<bangs head on the wall>

That's the point this thread is trying to make: There are claims in the Bible that were made thousands of years ago.....and are being supported NOW by modern science!

[Sleipnir]

<bangs head on the wall>

That's the point this thread is trying to make: There are claims in the Bible that were made thousands of years ago.....and are being supported NOW by modern science!

But the problem is anyone can use that argument because the description in those books can be so vague that could mean anything. Even the Torah, Koran, Scientology book and the Prose Edda could be supported with that argument

[Mighty AC]

You can't nitpik on the facts listed here....so now you'll nitpik on grammar?

I'm not "nitpiking", evidences is an actual word. It is the plural of a plural noun. However, the only place I see it in that form is on creationist sites and they all use it. Hence, I was wondering if there is a reason.

[Mighty AC]

Bottomline for me: evolution does not create NEW specie. Until science can provide an irrefutable proof that it can.

Again, macro and micro evolution are not two different processes, they are just labels used to describe the results of the same process, evolution.

Based on your acceptance of evolution, I suspect that you understand that evolution is just genetic drift over time. The resulting changes tend to be small, but can compound over time, especially if selection pressures push a population in a certain direction. So a wolf doesn't just give birth to a chihuahua one day, but over time, under selection pressure and over many intermediate generations we now have sub-species with a dramatic difference in physical characteristics. The two populations share ~98.7% of their genetic make up and can't naturally interbreed but if a wolf was inseminated with Chihuahua sperm viable hybrid pups could be produced. This would be labelled as "microevolution".

However, we have witnessed that exact same process of genetic drift being caused by natural selection pressure, create new species that can no longer interbreed. The 3 min video below documents how a population of salamanders separated by geography and subjected to different selection pressures evolved into 2 species that can no longer interbreed. This example is interesting in that all of the intermediate populations are still living.

[GostHacked]

The subjects being discussed are the facts being listed here. You are welcome to refute them, challenge them, discuss them, criticize them.

Gosthacked, Cybercoma, Sleipnir, that the topic had derailed in the past is not an excuse to disregard the request of the creator of the thread.

I'm bringing it back on topic.

The topic is the bible, and as another poster here said, it's a wide ranging topic covering and overlapping other topics, so maybe you want to get more specific in your argument before you accuse others of derailing the thread.

[cybercoma]

<bangs head on the wall>

That's the point this thread is trying to make: There are claims in the Bible that were made thousands of years ago.....and are being supported NOW by modern science!

What about all the stuff in The Bible that is being disproved NOW by modern science?

[Sleipnir]

• MISCONCEPTION: Evolution and religion are incompatible.
  

Don't you mean 'Misconception: biological evolution and bible are incompatible'? Because biological evolution and religion are two separate mutually exclusive concepts that cannot be combined.