Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Youngin

The bible is a work of fiction

422 posts in this topic

On the other end. I could ask you to prove that it is truth.

No you can't. The argument is that some people believe its a work of fiction, prove that statement, that its a work of fiction.

Nobody needs to try to prove its the truth. Its well documented that GOD asks for faith, not facts. Therefore, we are moved by faith, and that has to be proved individually. Those who have no "faith" we have nothing to prove to you. You're "faithless" and that's fine, just continue on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

haha

Classic!

Yes lets all argue about the fictional little man in the sky. The only thing the bible is good for, is for lighting the fire when you have run out of newspapers...

Ah, book burning: what an enlightened perspective.

CLofton50 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No you can't. The argument is that some people believe its a work of fiction, prove that statement, that its a work of fiction.

(A)Nobody needs to try to prove its the truth. (B)Its well documented that GOD asks for faith, not facts. Therefore, we are moved by faith, and that has to be proved individually. Those who have no "faith" we have nothing to prove to you. You're "faithless" and that's fine, just continue on.

(A) As far as the burden of proof argument goes... If Christianity or any religion for that matter is going to make its way into the world the rest of us live in, then yes the burden of proof lies within that religion. Another poster in here put it very well:

You can believe in whatever religion you want to believe in, AS LONG AS YOU KEEP IT TO YOURSELF. When you start trying to force those beliefs on everyone else, like thru public policy, trying to post the 10 commandments on public buildings, invading Iraq because "god told me to," getting tax exemptions from the government because of being a church, etc...then you do, IN FACT, have to prove to the rest of the rational world your case. Therefore the burden of proof DOES rest on you to prove your outlandish claiims before the rest of the rational world will accept any of that.

If I tell you the tooth fairy gave me a BJ, you could easily just dismiss it and call me a whacko. However now say I'm the governor of your state and am now outlawing BJs from anyone else because the tooth fairy will do it... yes now the burden of proof would rest on the person trying to change the rules and social environment based on the outrageous claim.

(B) Why this statement doesn't throw up a red flag in everyone's head is beyond me. That anyone would choose faith IN LIEU OF fact... I don't even know what to say to that. It reminds me of a situation my brother had when he was a kid, and even still, albeit in more of a joking way, is still with him today. He got sucked into this cheesy horror movie called Poltergeist in which, among other things, a TV that has the "snowy" screen (whenever a TV doesn't get reception) is talking to this girl and she gets sucked into the screen and is now in this Netherworld kidnapped by spirits. Because he got so into this movie at such a young age, he was absolutely PETRIFIED of seeing a TV with the "snowy" screen in real life.

This is an example of him completely ignoring his knowledge that a human cannot ACTUALLY get sucked through television screen, but still believing it could happen because this fictional, yet highly appealing (at the time anyways) story had such an impact on him (keeping in mind he was 5). Now he eventually grew older and allowed REASON to be his king and just like that he was no longer scared of the snowy TV screen.

I also find interesting parallels with religious belief in him developing this fear at such a young age; an age that in any human, logic is not the primary driver of action and thought. In a way it makes feel like people who follow these religions are sort of stuck in this mode...because that has been their way of life and the way of life of the people around them since before the time they were able to locate their pricks. It seems completely infallible that there is another way...although I find it quite interesting that within the religious umbrella, the particular being you worship is highly affected by where on this planet you were born. For instance say you were born and raised in New Dehli, India with Indian parents...I highly doubt you would still be pedaling Jesus Christ. Which tells me ... along with red2play ... that it is entirely based on faith, not fact.

I've always thought fact and faith had a cause and effect relationship. In a logical being, fact dictates faith. The logician does not consider these two ideas mutually exclusive as the statement "Its well documented that GOD asks for faith, not facts" seems to suggest, because in a thinker...asking for faith is inherently asking for facts.

FelonFreeFalcons and RandomFan like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't need to. It's up to you to prove that the bible is true.

Not really ... everyone will find out that the Bible is true once they die. Whether they want to know the truth or not .... Christians or those that believe the Bible don't have to "prove" anything.

It's the Holy Spirit that convicts us of our sins, and if you reject him and the gift of salvation, you WILL end up being rejected and punished for your unbelief.

It's not Gods will that any should suffer, and he has provided for everyone a chance at salvation through Jesus death on the cross.

If you truly "read" the Bible instead of searching for discrepancies you will find that it is a perfect work of truth.

chazbykr likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not Gods will that any should suffer, and he has provided for everyone a chance at salvation through Jesus death on the cross.

This is the part that stands out to me.........So, if Adolph Hitler confessed his sins to God and accepted Jesus as his saviour 2 minutes before he blew his brains out, then he must be up there in heaven. Sipping Schnapps in a mountain chalet perhaps........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the part that stands out to me.........So, if Adolph Hitler confessed his sins to God and accepted Jesus as his saviour 2 minutes before he blew his brains out, then he must be up there in heaven. Sipping Schnapps in a mountain chalet perhaps........

See this is the part you fail to realize ... Yes Hitler could have admitted his sins and accepted Christ and been saved. Did he ? I seriously doubt it because he was VERY heavily involved with the occult, and very anti-christian. Also his very last act of suicide was a sin and in defiance to God. Yes, suicide is a sin, and anyone that truly accepted Jesus as their savior would not immediately follow that act by killing themselves.

The whole point is it's not even my place to say he went to heaven or ****, that is completely between him and God. That's the way it is for everyone that has ever lived, it's between them and God where their soul goes once they shake of this mortal coil.

I'm only telling you what "I" know to be true. There is one way to salvation through Christ Jesus, and if you reject him and his gift, he will reject you.

chazbykr likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See this is the part you fail to realize ... Yes Hitler could have admitted his sins and accepted Christ and been saved. Did he ? I seriously doubt it because he was VERY heavily involved with the occult, and very anti-christian. Also his very last act of suicide was a sin and in defiance to God. Yes, suicide is a sin, and anyone that truly accepted Jesus as their savior would not immediately follow that act by killing themselves.

The whole point is it's not even my place to say he went to heaven or ****, that is completely between him and God. That's the way it is for everyone that has ever lived, it's between them and God where their soul goes once they shake of this mortal coil.

I'm only telling you what "I" know to be true. There is one way to salvation through Christ Jesus, and if you reject him and his gift, he will reject you.

You don't know anymore about truth than I do.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, book burning: what an enlightened perspective.

Yep... The bible can keep you physically warm so its useful for something. Oh and you can also wipe ur azz with its pages if you run out of crap roll...

2 uses now :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've unfortunately had to neglect this thread for too long. First, to tidy up a few loose ends. I see that the poster ReggieCantdothis (who changed his name to jonathan babineaux), has gone back and deleted all his posts. In effect, removing all of his flawed arguments that were sufficiently refuted. I hope he retracted his statements because he actually took the time to read through his arguments and the rebuttals, and realized how errant his position was. But I would like to have seen him leave his arguments in place so that others that read this thread in the future could have seen what his flawed arguments were and how they were debunked. However, that is his choice.

Metatron, I'm not even sure I know where to begin with you. You're like a broken record that keeps spinning the same broken tune, and the worst part is you don't, or won't, see how broken you really are. I've sufficiently rebuked every single one of your arguments and yet you still keep spinning your broken record with your head in the sand, ignoring what is obvious to any objective observer reading this thread. I'm satisfied that anyone that has actually looked at the arguments and evidence in this thread have been equipped with all the ammunition they would need to see right through your ignorance. Yet, I'll indulge you yet again in what I feel is a futile hope that you might finally...get a clue.

you are just a denier so you can't be argued with. you have not read the bible. if you had, this section you focused on is mostly orthodox jewish law. they are outdated rules and are not required they are mere suggestions. no i beleive everything the bible claims within reason. since much of the bible was written by man trying to comprehend things man clearly did not understand. you can't debunk on that realization.

Let’s just skip past the problem of you still clinging to the historical accuracy of the bible, even though I have shown a mountain of evidence that destroys that hypothesis. The part of your post that I bolded is a prime example of what I find wrong with the religious mind, and your inability to see reality for what it is. There are only 3 ways to interpret the bible (or the Koran, or any other holy book for that matter). 1) Either the bible (or holy book) is the infallible word of (your) god and every word contained in it is true. Or 2) it's partially true and left to the reader to decipher which parts are to be accepted as true, which as allegorical, which as metaphorical, and which as outdated. 3) or the whole thing is just a glorified story book written by Bronze Age unsophisticated bigots in order to push their own ethical agenda and biases on others? It simply boils down to those three options on how to view the bible.

As I've already clearly shown numerous errors in the bible, it is impossible that the entirety of the bible is the infallible word of (your) god. The third option is obviously the one I subscribe to due to the overwhelming amount of evidence that points in that direction. What I always find interesting, and disheartening, is that the overwhelming majority of believers in the world do end up being people who subscribe to the second option: interpretation and acceptance of certain parts of their holy book, but not the entire thing. I completely understand the cause for this. It is impossible for a majority of people of moderate intelligence to maintain their beliefs in the face of such obvious inaccuracies as some of those that I've already pointed out in this thread. The only workable alternative to keeping ones beliefs due to this dilemma is to pick and choose which parts of the holy book you accept as true, and which you choose to discard as outdated, allegorical, or metaphorical.

What I find sad about this situation is that these people are bending over backwards to try and conform to their indoctrination into the cult mentality of their religion, instead of simply looking at the issue rationally and objectively, and realizing that the holy book is simply not something that should be held up as the work of some divine entity. If you have to pick and choose which parts you believe are true and/or are still relevant, then you are imposing your own morals, beliefs, and ethics on that holy book. This is a subjective distinction to morality that should be evident to anyone that we derive our morals from sources outside a holy book or any divine entity. As opposed to the objective morality said to be required by people of faith that can only be defined by their god. This simply is not true, and we have a growing amount of evidence that our morality in fact IS subjective instead of objective. And we also have a growing understanding of where our morality originates from: a combination of our evolutionary development, our environment, and the social impact of our family, friends, peers, and the culture we grow up around.

Metatron, the part of your quoted post I underlined you say you claim you believe everything the bible says within reason. You obviously subscribe to option 2, as I've described in the paragraphs above. I hope you will come to realize the untenable position you find yourself in. You can't claim that your holy book is the word of god, and therefore true, and then also pick and choose which parts of the holy book you choose to accept or reject. It's either the word of god, or it isn't. The evidence says it almost definitely isn't. The evidence says almost definitely that none of them are. I recall a great quote from an author I can't recall at this time, "When you understand why you reject all the other gods and their holy books, then you'll understand why I reject yours as well."

this guy should realize he's a minority for a reason. about 95% of people beleive in a higher power probably more than that. it's an accepted fact. much like gravity evolution and most popular theories out there. i realized this guy was full of hot air when he did'nt need factual evidence to beleive in evolution but needed it to beleive in god. science at this point can PROVE neither...heck it can't even prove how gravity works and we see it daily. there are several beleif's we all hold that are accepted as truth yet not proven by science and mosy of these things are worldly or are seen physically yet it is still unproven.

Ok, the entire quote of yours here is ignorant beyond belief. First of all, show me where I said I don't need evidence to accept evolution as true? You can't, because I never said it. You're the one throwing the term "liar" around fairly loosely: you might want to look up what that word means; because I think you are confused (about more than a few things). I accept evolution as true because OF the evidence, not because I believe it's true simply because I just want to think it's true. It's not surprising that you completely misunderstand the rationalist’s worldview - a position based on the available evidence from science, and not conjecture or hyperbole that have no basis in reality. You may have beliefs you hold as true without evidence, but I don't; and other rationalists don't either. You are projecting, and you are deeply confused sir.

I've already given a lengthy definition of what "proof" and "theory" actually mean in scientific discourse. You obviously didn’t understand it or neglected to look at it. I'll not go over it again, but this is just another example of your willful ignorance relating to the material of these discussions. As for the part of your post that I bolded, while I dispute your number of 95%, I'll ignore that for the time being as the exact number is irrelevant for my rebuttal. You say it's an accepted fact. I'm confused by exactly what you mean here. Are you saying that it is an accepted fact that a lot of people believe in a higher power? If so, I'd concede that point because the evidence shows this is the case. But if you're arguing that it is an accepted fact that there is a higher power simply because a lot of people believe there is one, then this is a very simple logical fallacy known as an Appeal to the Masses, and is an invalid argument.

I do concede the point that a lot of people believe in a higher power. I'd like to take this time to post a video from an evolutionary psychologist discussing in great detail some of the reasons humans are predisposed to believe in things such as a soul and a higher power. Dr. Andy Thompson makes a convincing, evidence based argument that belief in gods is the default position of the human brain, and growing and freeing yourself from that position is the next step in intelligent development.

random is probably some kid who thinks when his nintendo breaks god hates him or b/c he can't find a G/F god hates him. negative people always blame god like they do every one else for there problems. then they wanna drag positive people who look at the bigger picture down thinking we are just like them. well we are not just b/c i have a bad day does'nt drag me down where i swear aginst god and annything holy. i know that good is happening to others who need it more so i stay happy. atheists are always damaged people with problems who hate some thing in randoms case it's probably over divorce or loss of a girl friend or simply can't get a woman. he probably slouches around all day complaining about life and hates people that seem happy and good looking. he hates those unlike himself, hates his boss and his job whispers under his breath obsenities in public to others but probably screams at them in his car...sign of a coward, i know this kid and i say kid b/c mentally thats what he is. he fits the profile of a 15 -25 year old but i think he has development issues so ill say he's 25 - 35, his parents have a major role in taking care of him either with money, food or does him some service that if they don't do he cuss' them out or is angered. he probably has never lost a close family member. and lives alone or with his parents. while i feel bad for random and his felings i think he has alot of growing up to do so i'm showing him how obvious he is. argue all you want but don't degrade people and lie to do it random. i would probably like you if i met you but that is b/c if some one hangs with me i make them be honest to them selves, clearly you are not doing that.

/facepalm. Aside from the ad hominem attack that this entire paragraph constitutes, you're misunderstanding and misrepresention of reality, and the atheists position, is mindnumbing. I can't hate or curse at something I don't believe exists. Unlike the religious person, when something bad happens I don't turn around and look for someone to blame or look for a reason why I have been wronged. I simply accept that it happened. There are no agents acting on anyones behalf to work for or against me. It merely happens, and that is the end of it. There is a far greater peace in this worldview that you will likely never be able to understand due to your deep religious indoctrination. Sounds like a bit of projection, once again, on your part.

"i can feel you questioning yourself now"

I question myself everyday. It's how I establish with some degree of confidence that my beliefs and positions are based in reality and are supported by evidence. “The Unexamined Life is Not Worth Living,” - Socrates (at his trial for heresy) It is the person who thinks he "knows" things that he couldn't possibly know, and refuses to examine his position whom is the person in need of pity. (In case you are still confused, that person would be you.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Faith is what you make it.

To quote the great PZ Myers of Pharyngula:

"The problem is faith.

Faith is a hole in your brain. Faith stops critical thinking. Faith is a failure point inculcated into people's minds, an unguarded weak point that allows all kinds of nasty, maggoty, wretched ideas to crawl into their heads and take up occupancy. Supporting faith is like supporting people who refuse to be vaccinated: they're harmless in and of themselves, they may be perfectly healthy right now, but they represent fertile ground for disease, and they represent potential severe damage to the social compact. When you're in a culture that worships Abraham's insanity, you're fostering the nonsense that enables the Son of Sam."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No you can't. The argument is that some people believe its a work of fiction, prove that statement, that its a work of fiction.

Nobody needs to try to prove its the truth. Its well documented that GOD asks for faith, not facts. Therefore, we are moved by faith, and that has to be proved individually. Those who have no "faith" we have nothing to prove to you. You're "faithless" and that's fine, just continue on.

This has already been addressed in this thread multiple times. But here we go again, with a slight variation so maybe you'll understand it this time.

Logical fallacy called the Burden of Proof.

Burden of proof is the obligation of a party on one side of a dispute or issue to provide sufficient evidence in support of their position. There are two common but quite distinct applications of burden of proof.

Legal burden of proof

Philosophic burden of proof

The philosophic burden of proof is the obligation on a party in an epistemic dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position. In any such dispute, both parties will hold a burden of proof. However, their respective burdens of proof will often be unequal or asymmetrical. The burden of proof has been demonstrated to be a useful tool in public debate and scientific methodology.

Holder of the burden

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on him or her making a claim. This burden does not demand a mathematical or strictly logical proof (although many strong arguments do rise to this level such as in logical syllogisms), but rather demands an amount of evidence that is established or accepted by convention or community standards.

This burden of proof is often asymmetrical and typically falls more heavily on the party that makes either an ontologically positive claim, or makes a claim more "extraordinary"[4], that is farther removed from conventionally accepted facts.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The burden of proof clearly rests on the party that tries to imply that a god exists. You are the party making the claim, you are the holder of the burden of proof. The default position is that there is no god. If you try to claim otherwise, the responsibility falls on your shoulders to provide evidence to support that claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just making sure you've got things clear here. Jesus Christ was the living embodiment of the Triune God.

Really? OK, you try explaining the holy trinity to us then. I defy you. People the world over have been trying to explain this nonsensical contrivance for centuries, and nobody has come up with a satisfactory answer to date. There have been weak attemtps, but when push comes to shove, you christians have always resorted to simply throwing your hands up and claiming that there are certain things that just aren't meant to be understood. Well, isn't that just too convenient...for you. I call b.s. - along with the rest of the rational thinking world that require our beliefs to make a little more logical sense.

I pray that the Lord would use this somehow to touch someone's heart and life through this outlandish discussion. If you do go about disproving the Bible, good luck with that, there are far too many historical facts that have been found around the world that further prove the evidence of the Bible. They've found Noah's ark, they've found other ancient documents that tell of the same facts the Bible does. Every culture in the world refers to a great flood, it's not just a Christian thing, it's even Native Americans, it's Islam, it's everywhere. So believe what you will, but I implore you, please, before you spend the rest of your life hating Christians, take matters into your own hands and discover for yourself the Truth that the rest of us have found, and the Joy in Jesus Christ.

The part that I bolded is pretty much the only part of your entire post that isn't a total fabrication or outright foolishness. Noah's Ark has been found? Got a link to that great discovery? No? Well stop the pressess. A discovery of this magnitude would have certainly made worldwide headlines. Isn't one of your commandments something along the lines of not lying? Floods have been documented all over the world you say? Yes, geologists know this. They are called local floods. The problem with your little Ark theory is that there is ZERO evidence for a global flood ever occuring. And it's not from a lack of looking. Geologists have looked, thouroghly. There is actually evidence for the opposite, that there never was a global flood. Furthermore, a global flood is a physical impossibility. If you had bothered to read thru this thread and taken a gander at the information I've already provided refuting the incredulous Noah's Ark myth, you would already know this. But you didn't. Like most other bible thumpers that cares not for truth, only for reinforcing your own agenda, you tuned everything out, didn't take the time to observe any evidence against your position, and came in slinging ignorant opinions that have already been totally destroyed in this thread. Congratulations for reinforcing the faith-head stereotype that the rational community has bestowed on your kind.

They've found other ancient documents that confirm the facts from the bible too? OK, cool. Grab your list of confirmed facts; now go check them against the list of facts that have been debunked. If you actually perform this excercise, you'll be amazed at how much information stacks up on the debunked side, and how little stacks up on the confirmed side. Quoting you from above, "take matters into your own hands and discover for yourself the thruth." You obviously haven't done that up to this point.

I apologise to anyone else if this post has come off as too condescending. One thing that is fairly annoying is for someone to be a Johhny-come-lately to a very long and detailed thread, not read a single page of it, and proceed to display their ignorant claims that have already been reduced to rubble in said thread. If you want to make a contribution here, it behooves you to have a rudimentary understanding of the discussion in the thread to date. Otherwise, you advertise yourself as the willfully ignorant...person...that you are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really ... everyone will find out that the Bible is true once they die. Whether they want to know the truth or not .... Christians or those that believe the Bible don't have to "prove" anything.

It's the Holy Spirit that convicts us of our sins, and if you reject him and the gift of salvation, you WILL end up being rejected and punished for your unbelief.

It's not Gods will that any should suffer, and he has provided for everyone a chance at salvation through Jesus death on the cross.

If you truly "read" the Bible instead of searching for discrepancies you will find that it is a perfect work of truth.

Thanks for the chuckles. A muslim would tell you that everyone will find out the Koran is true once they die. Who is right, who is wrong? Is one of you wrong? Or are both of you wrong? Only one of you CAN be correct, you both can't be correct. However, you can both be wrong. The muslim believes just as thoroughly and just as convincingly as you do as a christian. Yet at least one of you are 100% without a doubt wrong. So which is the more likely scenario, that only one of you are wrong, or that both of you are wrong and there is an alternate naturalistic mechanism to explain how both of you can feel so deeply that your belief is true? Because if you are concerned with the truth at all, there actually is a naturalistic explanation for the tricks your brain is playing on you. The first step is to watch the video I posted a few posts above titled, "Why We Believe In Gods," by the evolutionary psychologist Andy Thompson.

You say it's not god's will that any should suffer. I assume that you believe your god to be omnipotent and omniscient? In that case, due to the fact that suffering does, in fact, exist then it is a logical conclusion that your god actually does want people to suffer since he allows it to happen. Nevermind the fact that it's a logical impossibility for a being to be both omnipotent and omniscient in the first place.

Your last line I quoted totally blows my mind. Once again, someone comes into this thread that apparently hasn't read one single post here and attempts to sell more ignorance. I've spent many posts in this thread providing evidence for exactly how incorrect and how inaccurate the bible is on the whole; and here you come with your head in the sand taunting how it is a perfect work of truth? So I assume that means you are a fundamentalist? Which means you think the Earth is flat, since thats what it says in the bible. And that the Earth is only 6000 years old, since thats what the bible concludes? And that evolution isn't true, since that goes against the Creation myth? If so, then I rest my case...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Hitler could have admitted his sins and accepted Christ and been saved. Did he ? I seriously doubt it because he was VERY heavily involved with the occult, and very anti-christian.

I'm only telling you what "I" know to be true. There is one way to salvation through Christ Jesus, and if you reject him and his gift, he will reject you.

Actually, it's heavily debated whether Hitler was an atheist at all, because he professed on many occasions that he considered himself to be the christian god's enforcer of justice. He was after all raised a catholic. However, he also said on several other occasions things that would lead one to believe he was anti-religious as well. I conced the matter that he was likely not religious past a certain point during his reign of power, but most likely started out with a mild acceptance of catholicism. Regardless, it is not highly debated at all that he was a conniving man that likely lied and used his catholic upbringing to motivate a very religious German population to twist them into doing his bidding. Hitler was an evil man with no moral redemption whatsoever. But lets not forget, he could have accomplished nothing without bending the will of the German people to his clouded vision. While Hitler was likely an atheist, he portrayed himself to his country as a religious man. And his religious countrymen were suckered into commiting countless atrocities in the name of his twisted vision. To say Hitler was very anti-christian is to show how little you know about what you speak.

Which brings us to your next comment: that you "know" something to be true. Something that you, nor anyone else, could possibly "know." As has been discussed in this thread already in one of the video's from AronRa, simply claiming that you believe something really really strongly is NOT the same thing as knowing it. You have a belief that you are correct, you don't "know" it. Because knowing something is being able to demonstrate it to others, with objective evidence. Belief does not equal knowledge, and that is one of the fundamental intellectual mistakes that most faith-based people are guilty of commiting.

So lets correct your previous statement. You are only telling us what you "believe" to be true. And since you've made a positive claim professing your belief in something, the rest of the rational world asks you to provide evidence that the rest of us can see before accepting your claim. And since none has yet been provided regarding this particular claim, we of the rational world reject your claim. And therefore, you DON'T "know" it, becuase it's not demonstrably true. You might really really believe and claim that you are actually Napolean; but that doesn't mean anyone else is going to accept that claim. And it most definitely doesn't qualify as knowledge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll throw some more wood on the fire regarding the real hostorical origins of what is today known as the Bible. This is a very long, very detailed essay regarding what is known and suspected about the real origins of where the biblical stories came from, and the later written version(s). I wont post the entire article becuase it took me several hours to read way back when I first saw this. But I will post the introduction.

The Bible And Christianity - The Historical Origins

A rational, secular, historical perspective on the history of Christianity and its scripture

An essay by Scott Bidstrup

"If the truth is that ugly -- which it is -- then we do have to be careful about the way that we tell the truth. But to somehow say that telling the truth should be avoided because people may respond badly to the truth seems bizarre to me." --Chuck Skoro, Deacon, St. Paul's Catholic Church

The Bible is a lot of things to a lot of people, but to Christians, especially, it is a source of inspiration and a guide to daily living.

To others, the Bible is a historical document and a source of controversy.

To others still, the Bible is a self-contradictory mish-mash of arcane rules and proscriptions, mostly relevant to long-dead cultures in far away places.

What is the truth in all of this?

The reality is that it is all true to an extent, and equally nonsensical at the same time. The Bible has meaning to all its readers, but it is important to consider that the meaning it has is informed by the prejudices the reader brings to it.

To really understand the Bible and what it intends to say to present generations, it is necessary to understand who wrote it and why, and the cultural context in which it was written. The story is an interesting one, in no small part because the story is so much messier than most of its advocates would have you to believe. And its very messiness is why it is a story rarely told in any completeness to Christian audiences.

The overriding theme of the Bible storylines is the theme of cultural conquest. Conquest by the Hebrews over their enemy neighbors, culturally by the Jews over the Israelites (used here to mean members of the ten "lost" tribes), the Christians over the Jews, the Catholics over the Gnostics, Marcionites, and other pre-Catholic factions, and on and on. In some cases, the conquest is recorded as a historical, often military event. In others, it merely is recorded as a change in content and context, an alteration of the storyline and outlook and worldview.

And the story of the editing and translation of the final form of the Bible into what today is regarded as holy scripture is a story not just of cultural conquest, but of political intrigues, and not just between competing bishops, but with secular political authority itself. It is as if the U.S. congress or president were to decide what constituted Christian doctrine and scripture, and everyone went along - at the peril of their lives - until no one even questioned the accuracy of the official viewpoint.

The effect of its origins as selected parts of whole bodies of scripture, written by at least a hundred and fifty different people in dozens of different places at different times, many centuries apart, and for different reasons, colors what its authors wrote. Yet that simple fact is widely ignored, both by people who naively follow what they read in it as the inerrant word of God, and by more liberal scholastic theologians, who seek to understand its historical context as well as a body of doctrinal scripture, which they often blindly follow, even though they know full well its messy origins.

Origins of the Earliest Scripture

Prehistory to 1850 B.C.E.

Scholars have traced the roots of many of the Old Testament stories to the ancient, pagan myths of the ancient Mesopotamian cultures. In the Fertile Crescent, the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, in present-day Iraq, gave birth to some of the worlds first civilizations.

In this early flowering of civilization, many religious myths abounded, seeking to explain what was then unexplainable. From this context comes the oldest complete literary work we have, the age of which we are certain, dating back at least 7,000 years. The Epic of Gilgamesh is a lengthy narrative of heroic mythology that incorporates many of the religious myths of Mesopotamia, and it is the earliest complete literary work that has survived.

Many of the stories in that epic were eventually incorporated into the book of Genesis. Borrowed from the Epic of Gilgamesh are stories of the creation of man in a wondrous garden, the introduction of evil into a naive world, and the story of a great flood brought on by the wickedness of man, that flooded the whole world.

In this Mesopotamian basin civilization, known to us today as the Chaldean Empire, tribal alliances that predated the amalgamation into a single empire, continued to exist and flourish. Many were allied to the palace, many opposed, all retained elements of their pre-conquest cultures.

The patriarchs first appear in our story with the journey of one of them, Abraham, who, the story tells us, led members of his tribe from the city of Ur, west towards the Mediterranean, to the "promised land" of Canaan, sometime between the 19th and 18th centuries B.C.E. Or so the story goes.

The problem is that we don't really have any good archeaological evidence to support the Abraham story, and there is much archaeological evidence to contradict it. The land where Abraham supposedly settled, the southern highlands of Palestine (from Jerusalem south the the Valley of Beersheba) is very sparse in archaeological evidence from this period. It is clear from the archaeological record that its population was extremely sparse - no more than a few hundred people in the entire region, and the sole occupants of the area during this time were nomadic pastoralists, much like the Bedouin of the region today. We know from clear archaeological evidence that the peoples known as the Phillistines never even entered the region until the 12th century B.C.E., and the "city of Gerar" in which Isaac, the son of Abraham, had his encounter with Abimelech, the "king of the Phillistines" (in Genesis 26:1) was in fact a tiny, insignificant rural village up until the 8th century B.C.E. It couldn't have been the capital of the regional king of a people who didn't yet exist!

This isn't the only problem with the account of the Age of the Patriarchs, either. There's the problem of the camels. We know from archaeological evidence that camels weren't domesticated until about the late second millenium B.C.E., and that they weren't widely used as beasts of burden until about 1000 B.C.E. - long after the Age of the Patriarchs. And then there's the problem of the cargo carried by the camels - "gum, balm and myrrh," which were products of Arabia - and trade with Arabia didn't begin until the era of Assyrian hegemony in the region, beginning in the 8th century B.C.E.

Yet another problem is Jacob's marriage with Leah and Rachel, and his relationship with his uncle, Laban, all of whom are described as being Arameans. This ethnic group does not appear in the archeological record prior to 1100 B.C.E., and not a significant group until the 9th century B.C.E.

Yet influences from the east must have been, because we have evidence of worship of their gods and goddesses. The heiarchy of gods and goddesses who included Baal, the god of storms, who made the land fertile, and Lotan, the seven-headed dragon, known to Old Testament readers as Leviathan. There is Yam Nahar, the god of the seas and rivers, and other pantheons and heiarchies of gods and goddesses.1 Reigning over them all was El, the king of the gods, ruler of the pantheon. Remember the name, we'll encounter it again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Religion is nothing more than a 'comfort for the living'.....created by man.

Excellent commentary from randomfan...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I realize that Richard Dawkins is YOUR God, but he's not the only scientist that has worked in or around evolution for the last 150 years. Why don't we look at what some of the other scientist and atheist have to say about the subject. Since I'm well aware this is the altar you come to for worship, and you have no interest in what the Bible says about anything.

Let's just look at what some of these "brilliant" men that are well known evolutionary theorist have had to say on the subject.

Dr. Arthur Keith, Scottish anatomist and anthropologist. He wrote the introduction to an earlier edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species. “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation which is unthinkable.” Cited in Origins?, by BG Ranganathan, p.22

How enlightening ... let's accept something we can't prove just because we don't want to accept the conclusions that actual science would lead us to find.

(T.L. Moor, paleontologist, “The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone.” (cited in Origins?, by BG Ranganathan, p. 22)

Hmmm .... how interesting since "faith" is the prerequisite of any "religion" that would mean evolution is a religion, and isn't religion what you're railing against in all of your diatribes.

("What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseen— belief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works.“ —Arthur N. Field.)

"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit in with it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.

"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity—omnipotent chance."—*T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102.

"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology; and we shall certainly not advance matters by jumping up and down shrilling, `Darwin is god and I, So-and-so, am his prophet.' "—*Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London, 177:8 (1966).

That last part sounds an awful lot like a prayer that Muslims quote .... :o

"The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils."—*D.B. Gower, "Scientist Rejects Evolution," Kentish Times, England, December 11, 1975, p. 4 [biochemist].

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."—*Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October 1963) [Director of Research at the National center of Scientific Research in France].

Seems like some scientist are jumping off this bandwagon before it runs off the cliff. :lol:

"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science."—Colin Patterson, The Listener [senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London].

"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but that it is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructs—as has been repeatedly shown—the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up."—*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbuilding, 1954, p. 11.

Hmmm ... so we're going to cling so tight to this belief system that doesn't fit in with REAL science that it affects real research. Nice .... maybe if they would drop the illusion that evolution has any basis in reality they might start to find cures for some diseases. Wouldn't that be nice ... I can see the headline now.

"Scientist stops researching in Fantasy Land, Finds cure for Cancer"

"It is therefore of immediate concern to both biologists and layman that Darwinism is under attack. The theory of life that undermined nineteenth-century religion has virtually become a religion itself and, in its turn, is being threatened by fresh ideas. The attacks are certainly not limited to those of the creationists and religious fundamentalists who deny Darwinism for political and moral reason. The main thrust of the criticism comes from within science itself. The doubts about Darwinism represent a political revolt from within rather than a siege from without."—*B. Leith, The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism (1982), p. 11.

and the revolt from within the scientific community is due to the fact they know that this theory is a big steaming pile ..... that has no basis in reality. It also appears to interfere with REAL science because apparently you have to try to force a round peg in to a non-existent hole.

The reality is there's not one single shred of proof to support evolution in the fossil record, the closest they have come is some fossils of creatures that may have existed at one time and went extinct, but they've yet to find ONE definitive transitional fossil.

Then we have some well known atheists such as your self that weigh in on the subject.

"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do. For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."—*Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19 [grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend and promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th century].

That's only a very SMALL sample of the scientist that have left your belief system, and ironically a great number still cling to it, KNOWING that it's a false religion.

If you have any REAL questions about the Bible or what it has to say. Ask them 1 at a time, and I'll answer them to the best of my ability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A word of advice, unplug yourself from your god complex and try to realize that not everyone needs to worship at the altar of something in order to live a full happy life, such as myself. Dawkins can't be my god because I don't subscribe to any gods. I subscribe to the truth, whatever that may tell us; whether it's pleasant or not, it's still the truth, and that is what is important to me.

It's clear from your ignorace regarding the theory of evolution that you have not looked at one single item of evidence in this entire thread. My first recommendation is that you try and remove your blinders for a few days and objectively take a look at the evidence for yourself. That's all I ask, look at the evidence for yourself. Don't let someone else tell you what the evidence says: not even me. Look at it yourself and stop letting other people fill your head with nonsense. If you have the courage to do that, then you'll be far better off than a lot of the indoctrinated sheep in the U.S. and around the world. There is a saying among the rationalist community regarding religious people," You can't reason someone out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into." Which basically means most atheists and rationalists think it is a waste of time trying to talk to religious people about the facts that we know about our universe. A lot of the time, I feel that might be the case with some of the responses in this thread. But I try to not lose hope with my fellow human beings so easily, and all of my efforts in this thread are an attempt to prove that theory incorrect. Let me take this moment to thank those that have sent me private messages in support of my efforts in this thread: thank you.

I sincerley hope you take my challenge to look at the evidence for yourself, for just this reason. If I had something to hide up the old evolution sleeve, would I challenge you to look at the evidence for yourself? The evidence is all on my side, and I'm confident in saying that because it's the truth. It's demonstrably true, it's evidence you can see, touch, taste, smell, and hear; and it's all right in front of you if you will just use your brain for something other than a hat rack.

Now, on to debunking your effort at pulling quote mined information off of a creation website without researching the validity of any of it: your quotes will be underlined to keep them seperate from my comments.

"Dr. Arthur Keith, Scottish anatomist and anthropologist. He wrote the introduction to an earlier edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species. “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation which is unthinkable.” Cited in Origins?, by BG Ranganathan, p.22

How enlightening ... let's accept something we can't prove just because we don't want to accept the conclusions that actual science would lead us to find."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html

The quote that is attributed to Sir Arthur Keith is a figment of the creationists imagination. I researched that quote a month or two ago and could not find a trace of it. No library in the Atlanta metro area has this particular edition and neither Amazon nor Barnes and Noble has this edition. I am in nine newsgroups and no one in these NGs had a copy or had ever seen one. A search of the internet showed many references for this quote but every one of them was from a creationist site. It is also amazing because that Sir Arthur died in 1955 and the 100th anniversary edition would not have been issued until 1959. Tell me, did "God" write this for Sir Arthur from heaven?

- Tom

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As Tom points out this quote is indeed a figment of the creationists' imagination.

However, Sir Arthur Keith did indeed write an introduction to the Origin of Species (Keith, 1928), although he did so over 30 years before any centennial edition would have been printed. And considering that Keith died in 1955, he wouldn't have been in a position to write one had he wanted to. Did Keith write another introduction later in his life? This is doubtful as well, since the author of a later introduction to the Origin, W. R. Thompson, states right at the beginning of his own effort:

When I was asked by the publishers of this new edition of The Origin of Species to write an introduction replacing the one prepared a quarter of a century ago by the distinguished Darwinian, Sir Arthur Keith, I felt extremely hesitant to accept the invitation. (Thompson 1958)

Does the supposedly quoted material reflect Keith's views? Describing Darwin's arrival at the Galapagos Islands, Keith writes:

And why should each of the islands have its own peculiar creations? Special creation could not explain such things.

We see that Keith doesn't believe that that special creation is an alternative at all, since he doesn't feel that it can explain the fauna of the Galapagos. And later on he writes:

The Origin of Species is still the book which contains the most complete demonstration that the law of evolution is true.

It's obvious that Keith believes in evolution not because he doesn't like the alternatives, but because he believes evolution to be true.

REFERENCES

Keith, Arthur. Introduction to "The origin of species by means of natural selection", by Charles Darwin. London: J.M. Dent, 1928.

Thompson, William Robin. Introduction to "The origin of species", by Charles Darwin. London: J.M. Dent, 1958.

- Jon (Augray) Barber

"(T.L. Moor, paleontologist, “The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone.” (cited in Origins?, by BG Ranganathan, p. 22)

Hmmm .... how interesting since "faith" is the prerequisite of any "religion" that would mean evolution is a religion, and isn't religion what you're railing against in all of your diatribes."

1925? Do we really have to say more?

More was apparently a professor of physics at the University of Cincinnati. He seems to have been most famous as a Newton biographer, and I have found reference to a biography of Robert Boyle as well. I found a used copy of Dogma of Evolution available for a trivial price via an online book search. Since it was so cheap, I decided to go ahead and order it. Perhaps I'll have an interesting update when it arrives [see below].

- Mark VandeWettering

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some info on Dr. More from The Creationists by Ronald Numbers [Numbers, Ronald L., The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism, New York: Knoph, 1992].

On page 72:

. . . Louis T. More (1870-1944), a physicist and dean at the University of Cincinnati who had just written a book, The Dogma of Evolution (1925), protesting the extension of evolution from biology to philosophy, replied that he accepted evolution as a working hypothesis.[2] . . .

That endnote [2] is on page 370:

. . . According to Slosson, L.T. More "admits evolution of a sort and is equally persona non grata to the fundamentalists as he is to the evolutionists.". . .

Of course it does not seem to me very kosher to be quoting a non-biologist from 1925 -- it amazes me that anyone would have the nerve to do this. That is before the development of the Modern Synthesis and before a great many fossils were found.

- Mike Hopkins

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I judge this one to be in context. But we still have some problems. As has been already stated this man's field is not relevant and he lived a long time ago. Thumbing through the book one very quickly discovers that Dr. More was a fan of Lamarck and believed in the inheritance of acquired traits. Such a belief in soft inheritance was when Dr. More wrote his book was dying and yet he clearly thought it was the wave of the future. This is the "authority" on the strength of his say-so the creationist would want us to reject evolution?

Let me quote the final paragraph of chapter five on page 184:

"Owing to the reverence for Darwin and the blind submission to his views which prevailed for so many years, it was a difficult task to live down Darwin's contempt. Only after facts had multiplied, showing the inadequacy of natural selection, did biologists begin timidly to take Lamarck's doctrine seriously. If one can read the signs aright, we may expect to have an increasing attempt to explain the cause of evolution by the inheritance of aquired traits. The reluctance of the biologists to accept this doctrine does not rest so much on the lack of experimental verification as it does on the fact that Lamarck's cause of variation is fundamentally vitalistic in so far as it acknowledges the influence of the will or desire. To admit such a cause is contrary to scientific and mechanistic monism."

This sounds a lot like Phillip Johnson and his "intelligent design" cronies. An examination of this 1925 book might be profitable for critics of the ID movement today.

Dr. More seems to have a poor grasp of relevant history. He writes on page 182 that "It is well know that Lyell had a high estimation of Lamarck's work and theory, and that it had a great influence on him when he wrote his Principles of Geology, . . ." Of course Lyell, in volume II of that work, strongly argued against Lamarck.

- Mike Hopkins

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also see the comment by Wesley R. Elsberry at An evening in the Wood's Hole MBL Library.

("What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseen— belief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works.“ —Arthur N. Field. )"

I can find no reference to any books or published papers by Arthur N. Field; and there is no reference of any scientist by that name anywhere. If you can provide a source for this quote, then I'll take the time to debunk it. But until that time I'll just dismiss it as more creationist quote propaganda: as they've been known to do quite frequently.

"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity—omnipotent chance."—*T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102.

Only the uneducated and ignorant that know nothing of the theory of evolution think that omnipotent chance is a driving component of evolution. It's not, never has been, never will be. If you would take the time to learn exactly what the theory is, then you would know this. The only area the word "random" has any bearing on evolution is in the random mutations that occur in a species. After that, there is absolutely nothing random about the selective environmental pressures that eventually select that randomly mutated member of his species to be best suited for his environment, or not. Don't take advice from people that don't understand the theory. Again, look at the evidence for yourself please.

"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology; and we shall certainly not advance matters by jumping up and down shrilling, `Darwin is god and I, So-and-so, am his prophet.' "—*Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London, 177:8 (1966).

Since the Revised Quote Book stated that "Prof. Bounoure" had served as the "Director of Research" at the "French National Centre of Scientific Research" I wrote the Center [The Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique = The National Center for Scientific Research]. I asked them about the exact origin of the quotation and received the following reply, dated March 3, 1995 (translated by professional French translator, Jacques Benbassat, with some minor editing and paragraphs re-arranged in an easier to follow order):

Dear Mr. Babinski,

The new director general of the CNRS [i.e., the National Center for Scientific Research in France], Mr. Guy Aubert, has given me your letter of December 6, 1994, in which you requested several points of information concerning the quotations by French scientists, concerning the theory of evolution.

Here is the information I was able to gather:

The beginning of the quotation, "Evolution is a fairy tale for adults" is not from Bounoure but from Jean Rostand, a much more famous French biologist (he was a member of the Academy of Sciences of the French Academy). The precise quotation is as follows: "Transformism is a fairy tale for adults." (Age Nouveau, [a French periodical] February 1959, p. 12). But Rostand has also written that "Transformism may be considered as accepted, and no scientist, no philosopher, no longer discusses [questions - ED.] the fact of evolution." (L'Evolution des Especes [i.e., The Evolution of the Species], Hachette, p. 190). Jean Rostand was ... an atheist.

The [end] of the quotation of Professor Bounoure to which you allude is taken from his book, Determinism and Finality, edited by Flammarion, 1957, p. 79. The precise quotation is the following: "That, by this, evolutionism would appear as a theory without value, is confirmed also pragmatically. A theory must not be required to be true, said Mr. H. Poincare, more or less, it must be required to be useable. Indeed, none of the progress made in biology depends even slightly on a theory, the principles of which [i.e., of how evolution occurs -- ED.] are nevertheless filling every year volumes of books, periodicals, and congresses with their discussions and their disagreements."

[Obviously, Bounoure was expressing his distaste at those in his day who argued over the "principles" of evolution, "how" it took place, whether via Lamarckian or Darwinian "evolutionism." Bounoure probably thought that such "principles" were not worth all the "discussions and disagreements" since they were not well understood, were yet to be discovered, and perhaps might not be discovered, i.e., if supernatural intervention into the evolutionary process was accepted. Bounoure was a theist. He also probably thought that more practical scientific investigations needed to be pursued and less "discussions and disagreements." - ED.]

As far as we know, Louis Bounoure never served as ["Director" nor was even] a member of the CNRS. He was a professor of biology at the University of Strasbourg. Bounoure was a Christian but did not affirm that Genesis was to be taken to the letter. He expressed his ideas in his work. He is clearly "finalist" and against all contingent visions of evolution. ["Finalism" is a philosophical term related to a belief in ultimate purpose or design behind everything, including, in this case, the evolution of the cosmos and of life. - ED.] He bases his views, among other things, on the existence of elements that are pre-adapted for their future functions.

[in my letter to the CNRS I also asked whether the quotation might not have originated with another French scientist, "Paul Lemoine," to whom the televangelist James D. Kennedy has incorrectly attributed the quotation. And here was the answer they gave to that question. -- ED.]

As far as Paul Lemoine is concerned, he is indeed a "famous French scientist" since he was the director of the National Museum of Natural History. In the Encyclopedie Francaise [French Encyclopedia, circa 1950s], volume 5, he wrote the following: "It results from this explanation that the theory of evolution is not exact ... Evolution is a kind of dogma which its own priests no longer believe, but which they uphold for the people. It is necessary to have the courage to state this if only so that men of a future generation may orient their research into a different direction." And this quotation often circulates among anti-evolutionist groups.

Paul Lemoine was an atheist, and he was against the theory of evolution because he felt it was not a good explanation of the origin of living beings and by showing its limits risked to discredit materialism. Although this point was not very clear we believe that when he spoke of "the theory of evolution" he was actually addressing the explanation of specifically [how] evolution [occurred] and not the [more general idea] of evolution itself.

The problem [of the origin of the quotation] apparently stems from the confusion in the discourse of these three scientists between the fact of evolution and the explanation of this fact. None were creationists but they all felt that the explanations given for the understanding of evolution were insufficient, even totally inexact.

This is the information that I am able to give you. if you would like to have more details, you could write to Jean Staune, Institut de Paleontologie Humaine, 1 rue Rene Panhard - 75013 Paris. This institute is associated with our own: The National Center of Scientific Research.

Very truly yours,

Marie-Antoinette de Lumley

----------------------------------------------------------------

I could go on and on, but I think you should be able to get the point by now. Aside from these quote mines, fabrications, and/or unqualified, ignorant authors you've listed above, are there scientists that denounce evolution and support creationism? Why, sure there are. Check out how many: a 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science". An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters states that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution". A 1991 Gallup poll of Americans found that about 5% of scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.

Since you are new to the party in this thread and haven't gone back and looked at any of the other information I've posted regarding evolution, let me state this clearly for you: there is no controversy within the scientific community regarding the theory of evolution - NONE.

See my next post for futher proof.

-P.S. Evolution isn't a "religion" as you try to claim. It's a theoretical framework with a mountain of supporting evidence that describes the diversity of life thru the process of natural selection. The actualy reality is that there is a ton of proof for evolution, and if you so desire I can direct you to a list of over 300 direct observations of transitional fossils, since you think there aren't any.

Evolution is also not a belief system, nor could it possibly be a false religion that people still cling to - since it's not a religion and all... It's either true or it isn't. Unfortunately for your Bronze Age religion, evolution is most definitely true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Say what you want about Wikipedia, but the information is almost always accurate, is checked by people that are experts regarding the information posted, and most importantly it's referenced - which means you can check the posted information directly at the source. If you have any doubt regarding the truth of my statement that there is no controversy among scientists pertaining to evolution, then I highly recommend you to this link to prove you wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution

And here is the first few paragraphs in case it proves too difficult to click the link.

Level of support for evolution

The level of support for evolution among scientists, the public and other groups is a topic that frequently arises in the creation-evolution controversy and touches on educational, religious, philosophical, scientific and political issues. The subject is primarily contentious in the United States. However, it is also important in other countries where creationists advocate the teaching of creationism as a valid alternative to evolution, or portray the modern evolutionary synthesis as an inadequate scientific paradigm.

Although in the scientific community there is essentially universal agreement that the evidence of evolution is overwhelming, and the scientific consensus supporting the modern evolutionary synthesis is nearly absolute,[1][2] creationists have asserted that there is a significant scientific controversy and disagreement over the validity of evolution.[3][4][5]

The Discovery Institute, a pro-intelligent design lobby group located in the United States, funded heavily by Howard Ahmanson, Jr., a right wing Christian reconstructionist millionaire, also claims that because there is a significant lack of public support for evolution, that public schools should, as their campaign states, "Teach the Controversy". Nearly every scientific society, representing hundreds of thousands of scientists, has issued official statements disputing this claim[2] and a petition supporting the teaching of evolutionary biology was endorsed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners.[6] Additionally, US courts have ruled in favor of teaching evolution in science classrooms, and against teaching creationism, in numerous cases.

Creationists have had some successes in the political realm in the US and other countries.[7][8][9][10][11][12] The most prominent organization behind this movement has been the Discovery Institute, the driving force behind the intelligent design movement. Through its Center for Science and Culture, the Institute conducts a number of related public relations and lobbying campaigns aimed at influencing the public and policy makers in order to advance its position in academia, which it claims is dogmatic and hidebound.

Many claims in the creation-evolution controversy rest on whether or not evolution is genuinely disputed by those in scientific circles, the public's acceptance of the theory of evolution and religious and educational organizations and both sides of the dispute exhibit interest in evaluating the level of popular and scientific support for evolution. Several publications discuss the subject,[13][14] including a document produced by the United States National Academy of Sciences.

Scientific support

The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, anthropology, and others.[16][17][18][19][20] One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science".[21] An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters states that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution".[22] A 1991 Gallup poll of Americans found that about 5% of scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.[23][24]

Additionally, the scientific community considers intelligent design, a neo-creationist offshoot, to be unscientific,[25] pseudoscience,[26][27] or junk science.[28][29] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[30] In September 2005, 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying "Intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent."[31] In October 2005, a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science" and calling on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory".[32]

In 1986, an amicus curiae brief asking the US Supreme Court to reject a Louisiana state law requiring the teaching of creationism in the case Edwards v. Aguillard[33] was signed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners, 17 state academies of science and 7 other scientific societies.[6] This was the largest collection of Nobel Prize winners to sign anything up to that point.[20] The amicus curiae brief also clearly described why evolution was science, not religion, and why creationism is not science.

There are many scientific and scholarly organizations from around the world that have issued statements in support of the theory of evolution.[34][35][36][37] The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society with more than 130,000 members and over 262 affiliated societies and academies of science including over 10 million individuals, has made several statements and issued several press releases in support of evolution.[19] The prestigious United States National Academy of Sciences that provides science advice to the nation, has published several books supporting evolution and denouncing creationism and intelligent design.[38][39]

There is a notable difference between the opinion of scientists and that of the general public in the US. A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "87% of scientists say that humans and other living things have evolved over time and that evolution is the result of natural processes such as natural selection. Just 32% of the public accepts this as true."[40]

Votes, resolutions and statements of scientists before 1985

One of the earliest resolutions in support of evolution was issued by the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1922, and readopted in 1929.[41][42]

Another early effort to express support for evolution by scientists was organized by Nobel Prize Winner German biologist Hermann J. Muller in 1966. Muller circulated a petition entitled "Is Biological Evolution a Principle of Nature that has been well established by Science?" in May 1966:

There are no hypotheses, alternative to the principle of evolution with its “tree of life,” that any competent biologist of today takes seriously. Moreover, the principle is so important for an understanding of the world we live in and of ourselves that the public in general, including students taking biology in high school, should be made aware of it, and of the fact that it is firmly established, even as the rotundity of the earth is firmly established.[43]

This manifesto was signed by 177 of the leading American biologists, including Nobel Prize Winner George G. Simpson of Harvard University, Nobel Prize Winner Peter Agre of Duke University, Carl Sagan of Cornell, John Tyler Bonner of Princeton, Nobel Prize Winner George Beadle, President of the University of Chicago, and Donald F. Kennedy of Stanford University, formerly head of the United States Food and Drug Administration.[44]

This was followed by the passing of a resolution by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in the fall of 1972 that stated, in part, "the theory of creation ... is neither scientifically grounded nor capable of performing the rules required of science theories".[45] The United States National Academy of Sciences also passed a similar resolution in the fall of 1972.[45] A statement on evolution called "A Statement Affirming Evolution as a Principle of Science." was signed by Nobel Prize Winner Linus Pauling, Isaac Asimov, Nobel Prize Winner George G. Simpson, Caltech Biology Professor Norman H. Horowitz, Ernst Mayr, and others, and published in 1977.[46] The governing board of the American Geological Institute issued a statement supporting resolution in November 1981.[47] Shortly thereafter, the AAAS passed another resolution supporting evolution and disparaging efforts to teach creationism in science classes.[48]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

****, you Atheists sure do try to make the Christians believe in not beleiving. I myself, do agree that the Bible is very fictional with few truthness in the pages it contains. But, I also beleive that their is a God. Not the Christian God, not Allah, and not the 100's of other gods their are. I don't know if their is a religion for this, but I believe in a God that really doesn't give a crap what happens to us, and doesn't really affect us, he is just the one that created us. I just have too hard of a time believing that nothing made us, and that were all here for absolutly nothing, although I do beleive in evolution. I also don't beleive in Heaven or ****

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites