Beach_MU

You criticize me for "selective reading" immediately following this sort of word game? Who cares if I use the term website or webpage, it doesn't change for an instant the fact the it is blatantly biased.

Wrong. It's the cliff notes version of scientific fact, backed up by scientific references. Creationist fundies are backed up by appeals to mythology. Just a slight difference. If you don't believe the site, check the references.

Elsewhere on the page when they have references they note it by adding the [24] or [2] but that is not present with the claims about the plate techtonics. I did not read every reference at the bottom of the page to double check this, but if there is feel free to point it out.

Whether an event happened 300 million years ago or 240 million years ago is within an acceptable level of error.

How is 60 million years an "acceptable level of error"???? Such a level of error in anything else would be considered absolutely ridiculous.

Yes, and where exactly does it say "global" as part of that example? Right, it doesn't. You really are fond of selective reading aren't you? I said the _fossil record_, not just the making of fossils. The layers that we see clearly could not have been created by a global flood. That was _your_ claim, not mine. The fossil record that we see is completely incompatible with a global flood. Period. Could fossils be made by mudslides caused by floods? Sure. Could the fossil record we have have been made by a single global flood? Not a chance.

This argument is absolute nonsense. Since it doesn't explicitly say that fossils can be caused by a flood in Asia does that mean that floods in Asia don't cause fossils. If fossils can be made from a small flood certainly they could also be made from a large flood. I am personally surprised that you accuse me of "selective" reading while you are playing word games.
And as far as your claims that the "layers" of fossils proves anything please include the evidence that you keep emphasizing so heavily in your posts.

Skeptical

First, I wasn't involved in the earlier discussion, so it's not relevant to your reply to me. No one speaks for me and don't assume that I agree with others that your argue with. Second, I'm curious, do you purposely read my posts and try to twist what I say to fit your pre-conceived notions of what you _think_ I'm going to say? I did _not_ say that Q was "unquestionable". I said that it was "almost unquestionable" that Mat. and Luke used Mark. That statement said nothing whatsoever about Q! It is patently disingenuous to misquote someone when you are debating them. I would appreciate as a common courtesy that you not lie about what I have said.

If you want to address me, address arguments I make, not something someone else said. I don't give a rat's ass what argument someone else made.

You really don't read anything people write that disagree with you and try to understand it, do you? If you had read some of the scholarly work on Q you would have much better clue why your analogy is inaccurate. You common sensical approach fails because the common material in Mat. and Luke that is not found in Mark is common not only on _content_ but on _verbage_. I defy you to find a single instance of 2 independent accounts of an event that have nearly identical phraseology (not counting direct quotes). No 2 individuals write the same way and use the same terminology and phrases in the same way. This is a fact. If 2 accounts of some event agree to a high degree on phrases and terminology it is almost certain that they used a common source or copied from each other. It's the same reason that teachers know when students cheat on essay tests.


Yes, and try comparing the verbage of say, US Today with the Wall Street Journal when they report a similar event. Some of the direct quotes may be the same, but the order of narration, the phrases and terminology are completely different.

Please, if your going to argue against something at least do some minimal research so that you understand what the argument _is_.

Peter Kirby

PTET writes: Thay may change in the future with further finds: but are we to suspend our judgment and the scientific method in the meantime simply because the Bible claims that it is inerrant?

Please let me know where the Bible claims to be inerrant.

First off, there is no book in the Bible (either the 73-book Catholic one or the 66-book Protestant one) that gives a listing of the books that are in the Bible. Since the Bible is an anthology and the complete contents of that anthology are never specified in the Bible, it is impossible that the Bible claims that the books of the Bible (66 or 73) are inerrant.

But let us ignore that. Does any book in the Bible state that the scriptures, whatever books that may entail, are inerrant? There is a commonly cited verse in this regard:

2 Timothy 3
16 Every scripture [is] divinely inspired, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for correction, for instruction in righteousness;
17 that the man of God may be complete, fully fitted to every good work.

Note that it says that all scripture is useful for teaching and is God-breathed. Non-inerrantist Christians would agree with that. But they would not agree with the claim that the Bible is entirely correct in factual terms. The verse above does not say anything about all scripture being entirely 'true', let alone factually correct in the modern fundamentalist sense.

There is a statement by Jesus that not one jot or tittle of the law will pass away, but how many Christians take that very seriously? Most Christians think that there is a 'better covenant based on better promises'. Besides, such a statement would apply to the Hebrew Scriptures, specifically the laws found in the Torah, certainly not to the New Testament. (For that matter, the same could easily apply to the 2 Tm. verse.)

So, tell me where a book of the Bible (either Protestant or Catholic) claims that 'the Bible' is inerrant.

best,
Peter Kirby

Skeptical

Are you serious? A 5% margin of error is acceptable in many areas of science. What difference does it make if the earth is 4.5 billion years old or 4 billion years old, the bottom line is that it's a lot older than 10,000 years. You may be suprised, but there is a lot of science that isn't exact, but still gives good results.

Again, you missed the point. The fossil record we have clearly shows a specific pattern of layering. I'm not saying that floods don't cause fossils. I'm saying that a global flood would have produced a fossil record with all fossils more or less evenly distributed without regard to genus. This is _not_ what we see. I specifically mentioned this earlier and gave as an example that humans are not found with dinosaurs. There are lots of other examples that could be given. The fossil record we have is not compatible with a lot of animals all dying at once and leaving remains at roughly the same time. Hope that's clear.

I'm not playing games, I'm being exact. There's a difference. Creationists make lots of claims that play fast and losse with terminology and "common sense" views of terms that have specific meanings that are twisted to fit their interpretation, I'm not going to do the same.

See above. If you want me to dig up references for the entire fossil record, I'll do so, there are several on talkorigins which you apparently still haven't had time to look at. The bottom line is that the fossil record is completely compatible with evolutionary theory in that certain organisms are simply not found in certain strata and certain organisms are found only in early strata and others only in late strata. If a global flood had destroyed millions of animals all at the same time, we would see a much more uniform layering than we actually see.

Beach_MU

I apologize if I implied that you agreed with what they said, that was not my intent. Also I apologize because I did misread your earlier post. I read each of these posts and when reading lots of posts it is possible to miss a word and unfortunately in this case it made a difference.

As far as the Q source is concerned. I do read posts and ideas that I don't agree with otherwise I wouldn't even be on this forum. I don't dispute that some of the material in Matthew and Luke probably came from Mark and perhaps some other written source simply based on the fact that there is similar verbage, but that doesn't suggest that all such content comes from one source and that Luke was merely copying it as Vork implied.

Peter Kirby

Skeptical writes: A 5% margin of error is acceptable in many areas of science.

This may be a nitpick, but 60 million is 20% of 300 million. Did you mean "1/5 margin of error"?

best,
Peter Kirby

Beach_MU

You don't have to dig up references unless if you'd like to, but I do have one quick question that I would like to ask since you seem to have investigated this to some degree (and yes I do plan to investigate this as well, but it's late and I'm going to sleep soon and just figured I ask). Is there evidence in the fossil record that suggests the claim of macro-evolution? What I mean by this is, is there fossil evidence to suggest that any species has ever evolved into another species and if so could you please provide references (for this part at least).

Lastly, your precision for words is fine but please don't criticize me if I use a word that you don't feel 100% comfortable with. Pointing it out is one thing, but accusing me of "selective reading" simply because I'm not using the same "exactness" in my terms that you would prefer is unwarranted.

PTET

Hello Peter

You are quite correct... I should have said:

ReligiousTolerance has a <a href="http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerran3.htm" target="_blank">useful summary</a> of the relevant Biblical verses.

Kind regards

<a href="http://dreamwater.net" target="_blank">PTET</a>

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan,
I at no point said that Roman slavery wasn't brutal or that there was cruelty. There is no doubt that there were many rebellions but regardless it doesn't suggest that slavery was viewed exactly the same during that time period. You make assumptions about what the authors of the Bible should have said and then figure that since they didn't say it, it means they condoned if not promoted slavery and were the cause of the slavery in America.

Never, ever did I say that. The link between Christianity and slavery is more one of justification than causation. Certainly Christianity provided a ready-made ethical foundation for slavery and exploitation.

You ignore that there were many Christians who fought to end slavery in America and seem to assume that atheists made some incredible effort to end slavery long before that time that was foiled by Christians.

Never did I say that, either. You are living in a fantasy world....

Your article, while well worded, is not based on the complete facts but rather on your intensely biased hatred of Christianity and on mere speculation and opinion.

Please identify where I posted "mere speculation and opinion" when I made a factual claim.

Also, I do not "hate" Christianity. Opposition to authoritarianism, in any form, however sweetly cloaked, is neither "bias" nor "hatred." I also "hate" Communism and "hate" facism; I spent a couple of years working for a national independence movement that opposed both. Opposition to Christianity is part of a larger commitment I have to freedom from oppression in any form.

I believe you are simply so unused to frank speech on the nature of your belief system that you do not understand it.

And lest we hear it again in your next post, the fact that you were in the Peace Corp does not mean that you non-violent or peaceful anymore than being in school guarantees intelligence or being in church means you believe in God.

Beach, it isn't up to me to defend myself. It's up to you to apologize for making unfounded accusations about me. I have not insulted you personally; like many Christians, you confuse comments about your beliefs with comments about you personally.

You may very well be a very peaceful person but given the conversation up to this point I haven't seen many signs of it.

After you apologize, perhaps you can point out h parts of the conversation in which you felt I was "violent."

Lastly, your use of Biblical verses taken out of context doesn't prove anything either.

Ah, the last gasp defense, the old "out of context" argument. Your rhetorical flailing here has gone from the clouds of confusion to the abyss of pathos.

Vorkosigan

scumble

I still don't think you understand how 4 accounts can't be strong evidence (when it comes to the gospel), especially when we're talking about resurrection - unless there is some other evidence you can call on.

Ah, interesting statement. Firstly, I don't believe the Bible is wrong. What I am is highly skeptical of it being a historical account. If it's a story it's absurd to think of it as incorrect.
What you seem to be missing is that what most of us find to be daft is the belief that the Bible is the "word of God". For a start, God is a character in the story, thus the word of God is only certain sets of dialogue. The only suggestion that the word of God is involved comes from the Bible itself, right?
I mentioned a question to your other belief, about the coherence of the Bible, supposedly written by many authors who did not know each other etc. It seems odd to me that you can't concieve of the compilers of the Bible arranging stories nicely, touching up the edges etc. to produce a sense of continuity. In addition, that you can't concieve of a very ancient oral tradition evolving over time, and that stories might have changed significantly.
Myself, I find this to provide me with plenty of doubt about the "Word of God" assertion. Obviously, I don't have any evidence to prove this happened, but the opposite also applies - there's no way of knowing it didn't happen.

If you think I am maintaining a stubborn belief about the Bible, you couldn't be more wrong. I have no belief about the Bible - that's the point. I appreciate much of it, but accept it for what it is - an interesting collection of old stories and poetry, pretty much like, say, Plato's republic.

I'm not suggesting it doesn't have a moral message, but it wouldn't be the only text to have one. You may believe in it as history, but when it comes to stuff like resurrection, which is beyond our ability to verify, what's the use in believing in it?
My response to lacking knowledge is to accept it, and continue with life attempting to find wisdom. I mean, the Bible does not assure me in any sense of having knowledge.
It occurs to me that you couldn't accept that life is possible without faith of the kind Christians think is necessary.