61 replies to this topic

[Ratty Randnums]

You know, I find it funny that so many people have a problem with evolution but are perfectly happy to reek the benefits of genetic research.

That is true. But those "laws" were at some point only theories to scientists when they were first conceived. This didn't make these laws any less true, it just meant scientists needed to spend some time working on a model that better explained what was already at work in the universe.

They're still theories. we just call them laws because they've been around so long and not disproven. I'd say evolution has been tested and scrutinized enough to be a law just about, it just needs another hundred years or so of continuing to do so before we'd feel safe calling it one.

It's still not, by the way, outside of scientific possibility that the law of gravity could be disproven one day.
You can see how likely that is, yet it's still a theory that has not been "absolutely proven", just as any "theory" is never likely to do so.

The reason Evolution remain indisputable in the scientific community is due to a number of reasons. The main one is that it doesn't pull from outside of science for verification, therefore allowing scientists to "shield" science from the influences of historical events (which is fine in medical research, but not in historical research). Intelligent Design encompasses more fields than just science, needing parts of history to help confirm it. So therefore it's not "pure science". Simply because something isn't science doesn't mean it's not truth. It just means it's not science. (There is no scientific evidence of WWII, yet we know it's existence in history to be true.)

Historical events? Like what, the bible? We "know these events to be true" because? Faith is the opposite of knowledge.

Another reason is because any evolutionist who finds fossils seem to also be confirming other theories are immediately expelled from the scientific community.

Kef's got this one. Though btw "evolutionist" and "evolutionism" are ear-mark terms for fundamentalist Christian propaganda, just a heads up.

I believe there are some forms of Evolution that are hard, solid facts. Microevolution is the one that has been tests and observed better than Macroevolution, since we can see that from day to day, and therefore making it more scientifically valid that Macroeveolution.

How so? One naturally follows from the other as kef pointed out.

Macroevolution is the elements take from Microevolution taken to extremes. Instead of just slight changes happening with in a species, like microevolution, you have spiecies changing into entirely different species.

We've actually seen this happening by the way http://www.pbs.org/w...2/l_052_05.html and with the use of genetics we don't have to observe animals reproducing for generations OR rely exclusively on bone structure/the fossil record to show relatedness.

Whereas the idea is not scientifically invalid, it has been nearly impossible to test this theory though the observation of animals. Only fossils, which by their nature contain very little data anyway, can one theorize macroevolution. And since fossils contain so little data, the theory has always remained "unclear".

As kef pointed out, the fossil record taken together contains a lot of data. This includes the transitional fossils that creationists/intelligent design perporters always ask for but ignore and pretend don't exist when given.

Intelligent Design "theory/hypothesis" is considerably young compared to Evolution. So it has been called both a theory and a hypothesis.

Neither of which it scientifically is since it started working backwards from the scientific method.

The fossil record has very little data or information within terms of what actually happened in the past. It's like trying to reconstruct what a house might have looked like when you only have a few broken planks of wood and some fragments of shattered glass to work with. You're not even sure if it was a house. It might have been a bridge. It might have even been remains from a really bad vehicle accident, and the vehicle was carrying some wood. You just don't know given what you have to work with.

See above. We do have transitional fossils.

As a result, there are several elements of the fossil record that seem to "confirm" Evolution, and others that seem to "confirm" Intelligent Design.

Such as? And as kef already pointed out, one does not negate the other.

Some Intelligent Design models (there are many models right now) contain an idea of a Young Earth. The fact that the rock layers are smooth and don't show any disturbance of intact plant growth seems to "confirm" that the rock layers were laid and fossilize rather quickly (some models even withing minutes), giving absolutely no time for plant growth to disturb the rock layers. Therefore, the undisturbed, smooth rock layers we see in the fossil record seem to "confirm" that model in Young Earth Intelligent Design.

Flash flooding occurred in some areas yes. As it still does today.

Evolutionists do the same thing with seem to be fossilized "missing links". They found a fossilized jaw bone fragment of an animal they've since called Ramapithecus. From the small fragment of bone, it seemed to be mammalian. And from the teeth sockets (there were no teeth within the jaw bone) it appeared that it had small teeth. So the scientists theorized that it couldn't use it's teeth as a defensive weapon. So it must have had to hold it's defensive weapons with its hands. So it probably couldn't walk with it's hands. So it might have walked upright. So it obviously must be the "missing link" between ape-like creatures and humans. Therefore this fossil seems to "confirm" Evolution.

Hahaha I assure you there are many links for many animals as far as transitional fossils go. It's not all about apes/humans.

That is true. But like I said earlier, not all truth comes from science.

Science itself is a method for studying and understanding the world. It is not a "thing" in the way you seem to suggest. It's not like a fountain with truth sprouting out of it.

And since some scientific theories are constantly changing, not all science can be called truth.

See above.

It used to be "true" that dinosaurs were dumb animals and so big that some had to remain submerged in water to keep their legs from breaking or suffocating their lungs under the pressure of their own weight. Now it's "true" that most dinosaurs were intelligent, hot-blooded animals with the strength to hold both the weight of themselves and the weight of other animals.

No, it used to be generally accepted that dinosaurs were as you said.
And as more evidence has surfaced many scientists think the latter example you give is more likely. It's all about the accumulation of evidence. Evidence makes hypotheses and theories. Not the other way around.

Our knowledge of science increases as we learn more about it,

*Our knowledge and general consensus about a subject often changes once we gather more data about what we're studying and re-apply the scientific method.

Fix'd.

and there's a great deal about science we know to be true.

Not really, things are only true to the best of our knowledge at the time. Absolutely knowing something isn't a scientific way of looking at things.

But because of some theories constantly changing, those theories cannot be considered "truth", since scientific truth cannot changed, but only become better understood through research.

See above. And I say again all theories including the ones we call "laws" have as far as we know the potential to be disproven at some point in the future. They appear to be true based on the body of evidence we have at the time.

And I personally don't see it wrong to incorporate science with things like history and archeology. History and archeology can't be tested like science, but they can be allowed to be compared and contrasted time to time. But that's just my opinion.

Archeology uses science. But to say what some historian (who could have had his own political agenda or prejudices) said in the 5th century should be taken at the same value as empirical scientific evidence is just ludicrous.

[FreakyFilmFan4ever]

Hm... Maybe I should clarify some things here. My intention is not to prove Intelligent Design over Evolution or to discredit science as a whole. I'm just trying to point out that historical events, biological or otherwise, may not be the strong suit of science. Science deals with the state of things as they are now, not as the existed in the past or how they came about.

For example:

You know, I find it funny that so many people have a problem with evolution but are perfectly happy to reek the benefits of genetic research.

Genetic research deals with the genetics as they exist today, not how they came about. As for genetic similarities between species (because I know someone's gonna bring that one up later), yes. We share over 90% of our genes with primates. We also share about 50% of our genes with bananas. What does that mean? It means that the genes are the same. Not that primates (or bananas, for that matter) are close evolutionary ancestors. Though it may be possible, genetics really can't clarify one way or another.

Historical events? Like what, the bible? We "know these events to be true" because? Faith is the opposite of knowledge.

LOL! I think the Bible is very clear that Lot wasn't a good role model anyway. Just before his wife turned to salt, it's also written that he also offered his daughters to the mob of hyper-sexual males outside his house so they wouldn't rape the male guests he had in his house that day. "Here! Have my girls and... do the straight and narrow!" Again, one of the many reasons I am against using the Bible as a text book in public schools. Parts of it just read like a soap-opera gone to Hell.
(*6th grader doing homework* "Do the straight and narrow"?!?! Haha! This is the BEST SCIENCE BOOK EVER!)
That and, yes, faith is not science.

It's well known that Darwin developed the theory of evolution after observing the apparent effects of speciation in finches in the Galapagos islands. It seems pretty clear to me that Darwin did go from observation to hypothesis.

The theory of Evolution was around long before Charles Darwin. It was first conceived in the 6th century by Greek philosophers, namely Anaximander, although other at the time around the world (even a Chinese philosopher named Zhuangzi) were also considering the idea of a "godless origin".

A couple natural philosophers in the 1700's named Pierre Maupertuis and Erasmus Darwin picked the idea back up and dusted it off a bit. A biologist at the time named Jean-Baptiste Lamarck did some research and had some influential ideas about what he called "transmutation of species".

Now you introduce Charles Darwin in the 1800's reading up on this research. So he want to the Galapagos Islands to confirm those ideas. And what he saw did confirm theories of what we call today "Microevolution" and proposed theories as to how they might be similar to Jean-Baptiste Lamarck's theory of "transmutation of species", or what we now know as "Macroevolution", and wrote his book in 1859 entitled "On Origin of the Species". But Charles Darwin hardly went to the Galapagos Islands with a "clean slate" and built a hypothesis from the ground up based on only his observations. He had the ponderings of Greek, Chinese, and natural philosophers as reference.

Kef's got this one. Though btw "evolutionist" and "evolutionism" are ear-mark terms for fundamentalist Christian propaganda, just a heads up.

Yes. Yes he does. And, yes they do.

How so? One naturally follows from the other as kef pointed out.

We apply the findings in Microevolution (species adapting within its species) to the fossil record and call it "Macroevolution" (species adapting outside of its species). But the fossils cannot show us the evolution of animals, just the animals themselves. It is up to scientists to interpret those fossils based on the tests and observations from a much smaller scale. Sometimes, it doesn't always work.

We've actually seen this happening by the way http://www.pbs.org/w...2/l_052_05.html and with the use of genetics we don't have to observe animals reproducing for generations OR rely exclusively on bone structure/the fossil record to show relatedness.

This is an example of microevolution. Not macroevoltuion.

Here's how adaption withing the gene pool works among birds:

We have a series of codes in our DNA that tells the body what needs to be what. Just for simplification, we'll call these genes AaBbCc. The ALL CAPS stand for large beaks, lower-case for smaller beaks. The birds have all of this genetic information inside of them. The differences within birds comes from the arrangement of that genetic information. From simply the arrangment of this simplified example, there can many different arrangements. Here's just a few:

aabbcc
Aabbcc
aAbbcc
aaBbcc
aabBcc
aabbCc
aabbcC
AaBbcc
AaBbCc
AABbCc
AABBCc
AABBCC

Now for the combination "AaBbCc", the bird will have a medium size beak. For "AABbCc", it will have a slightly larger beak.
When you encounter genetic information that is either missing or just dormant, you end up with mutants, and even more varying arrangements.

--BBcc
-A-bCC
Aa--Cc

Genetic information was lost and causes the beak to become deformed.
When you encounter a duplicate of that information, we see even more mutants, and even more varying arrangements.

AAbbcc AA
AaBbCc c
aabbcc BB

The duplication of genetic information is now causing the bird to grow extra beaks, or at least extra material for beaks. We've seen duplication of information cause a useless fifth leg in cows.
But new cannot come from simply rearranging the existing information.

AaBbCc Z (Z = hooves)
AaBbCC X (X = gills)

That new information needs to come from somewhere. But the bird does not have that genetic information in its system. This is why you can find variations of all different kinds of animals from everywhere, but no animals adapting into something completely different. That's why the reported salamander only reproduced with other salamanders. It's the more vast differences in the genetic information that probably caused the salamander to fail reproducing further than it already has.

As kef pointed out, the fossil record taken together contains a lot of data. This includes the transitional fossils that creationists/intelligent design perporters always ask for but ignore and pretend don't exist when given.

There might be more out there, but the ones that come to my mind are the missing links "Lucy", who's pelvis was spliced and reconstructed differently on live national television so that way "Lucy" could stand upright, Archeopteryx, who's fossils closely resemble two living species of birds in South America, the dinosaurian Sinopteryx, who's small hairs were called feathers (it was later discovered that most dinosaurs were born with hair).

There maybe reliable ones out there, so please redirect me to those.

Such as? And as kef already pointed out, one does not negate the other.

I'm not saying it is. I'm not trying to disprove Evolution or prove Intelligent Design. Just stating that observational science of the present isn't the best explanation of the past.

Flash flooding occurred in some areas yes. As it still does today.

Flash flood did occur then as well as today. But they would only fossilize the disturbance in plant growth, like the flash floods we see today. And that's if the plant growth didn't halt fossilization all together by eating away at the rock layer anyway, breaking it down into plant food before it even got a chance to fossilize.

Hahaha I assure you there are many links for many animals as far as transitional fossils go. It's not all about apes/humans.

I'd sure hope so.

Science itself is a method for studying and understanding the world. It is not a "thing" in the way you seem to suggest. It's not like a fountain with truth sprouting out of it.

YES! Finally! That's my point. Science is a tool. People use that tool to explore realms of our world that can't be explored otherwise. Again, I'm just offering the point that history may not me its strong suit.

No, it used to be generally accepted that dinosaurs were as you said.
And as more evidence has surfaced many scientists think the latter example you give is more likely. It's all about the accumulation of evidence. Evidence makes hypotheses and theories. Not the other way around.

AGain. YES!

*Our knowledge and general consensus about a subject often changes once we gather more data about what we're studying and re-apply the scientific method.

Fix'd.

Thanks!

And kef wanted an example of how Intelligent Design needed conformation within history/archeology:

The model with the rock layers that I described in the previous post accounts for these rock layers seem to confirm, or even explain the reason why in every culture there seems to be a legend of a global flood. The most obvious one is in the bible, but there are others in different ethnic groups from China, Japan, India, to Brazil. Now, it's not by any means science. But history in global cultural thought does "confirm" this model.

Archeology uses science. But to say what some historian (who could have had his own political agenda or prejudices) said in the 5th century should be taken at the same value as empirical scientific evidence is just ludicrous.

Ah. True. But then... See above with the 6th century Greek Philosophical origins of a "godless origin".

Again, I'm not disproving Evolution, or trying to prove Intelligent Design. There are many points in the theory of Evolution that Intelligent Design theories/hypothesizes cannot refute. I'm just stating the observational science of the present, although it is a useful tool when explaining the past, isn't the best tool for explaining the past. That's why we have fossils that seem to confirm both Evolution and Intelligent Design, even though it's impossible for both to be true.

[furrykef]

I'll refrain from addressing your entire post, since I'm beginning to tire of this argument for now (I am, however, developing a debate site, and we can retread this stuff there; in fact, I've been planning for Creationism vs. Evolution to be the biggest debate there since before this thread ever existed ), but I can't resist responding to this...

The model with the rock layers that I described in the previous post accounts for these rock layers seem to confirm, or even explain the reason why in every culture there seems to be a legend of a global flood. The most obvious one is in the bible, but there are others in different ethnic groups from China, Japan, India, to Brazil. Now, it's not by any means science. But history in global cultural thought does "confirm" this model.

...with this. (Granted, it mostly addresses the religious aspect of it, but point #2 does address the more general aspect.)

- Kef

[FreakyFilmFan4ever]

Yeah, this is getting boring. Especially for this thread.

And relative to this topic: I still don't believe the Bible should be used as public school text books anyway. Maybe if portions were used in the study of religon in history that would be one thing, but other than that I don't see what the schools would use it for anyway. And I keep saying that science isn't the "best" way of explaining of the past. I think what I mean to say is that it's not totally reliable. Though it may be the most reliable form of historic explanation we have at our disposal at times, but it still doesn't come out with 100% accurate results.

[Ratty Randnums]

I'll probably formally reply to the rest of this later, but

LOL! I think the Bible is very clear that Lot wasn't a good role model anyway. Just before his wife turned to salt, it's also written that he also offered his daughters to the mob of hyper-sexual males outside his house so they wouldn't rape the male guests he had in his house that day. "Here! Have my girls and... do the straight and narrow!"

Actually that was supposed to be admirable. You see at the time it was customary to protect people who were your guests. So even though Lot didn't know these men (who later turned out to be Angles) he considered these male guests to be more valuable than his female daughters. And we're supposed to admire that. Look up to it. Here is a man who respects his guests! Notice he didn't offer himself up to be "known", just the females in his house.

Yeah, this is getting boring. Especially for this thread.

And relative to this topic: I still don't believe the Bible should be used as public school text books anyway. Maybe if portions were used in the study of religon in history that would be one thing, but other than that I don't see what the schools would use it for anyway. And I keep saying that science isn't the "best" way of explaining of the past. I think what I mean to say is that it's not totally reliable. Though it may be the most reliable form of historic explanation we have at our disposal at times, but it still doesn't come out with 100% accurate results.

Nothing is ever likely to come up with 100% accurate results by that standard. But the scientific method produces more reliable information than word of mouth. Especially as evidence accumulates.

[FreakyFilmFan4ever]

Actually that was supposed to be admirable. You see at the time it was customary to protect people who were your guests. So even though Lot didn't know these men (who later turned out to be Angles) he considered these male guests to be more valuable than his female daughters. And we're supposed to admire that. Look up to it. Here is a man who respects his guests! Notice he didn't offer himself up to be "known", just the females in his house.

Well, he was in Sodom and Gomorrah, cities that were about to be burned up for looking up at that sort of thing anyway.

[Ratty Randnums]

It's not the Sodomites who find it admirable. It's US who are supposed to admire it.

Dawkins is the first one I saw to point it out though.

[Silicate]

Hmm, an interesting and informative video about that perspective; thank you, Ratty. I very much enjoyed that illumination of Dawkins' perspective. I wonder what other iterations can be found at large...? Pardon my naiveté, of course. I am not terribly informed as to the subject, but reading of the debates here is rewarding - because of my said inexperience, I have little to state of my own opinions or views.

[FreakyFilmFan4ever]

Richard's omission of details never ceases to amaze me. I'll bet he can find hateful messages inside a cook-book.

Deuteronomy 13:9-11

"9 You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again."

The Israelites were invading other cities. God had given them the promised land, but the promised land was already occupied by cities who's culture was hostile towards Israel in nature. One of the reasons was that they has built it on the "legacy" of a man named Balaam, a man who was hired by a nation to curse Israel in the past. Obviously, these cultures were not going to be happy to "co-exist" with Israel.

The armies of Israel married Israelite women, so they were not indoctrinated with ideas harmful to Israel's existence. Marriage with the women of these other cultures were forbidden as a matter of security. Those who had married outside of Israel were in danger of being married to a spy. Therefore, it was punishable by death.

But in some cases, the young children who lived in these cities were exempt:

Numbers 31:18

"But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves."

Women were married off at the age of 16. The younger children were brought up in a way that wasn't a threat to Israel. When they were old enough and eligible far marriage, they were married. But Dawkins' omission of those details made for more startling mental images.

As does the omission of the instances where sinful behavior of characters contradicted God's commandments:

Genesis 19:8

"Behold, I have two daughters who have not known any man. Let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please. Only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof."

This goes against God's commandments. As Jesus was said in scriptures as God incarnate, we can use that to interpret his view on women.


John 4:4-27

"4Now he had to go through Samaria. 5So he came to a town in Samaria called Sychar, near the plot of ground Jacob had given to his son Joseph. 6Jacob's well was there, and Jesus, tired as he was from the journey, sat down by the well. It was about the sixth hour.

7When a Samaritan woman came to draw water, Jesus said to her, "Will you give me a drink?" 8(His disciples had gone into the town to buy food.)

9The Samaritan woman said to him, "You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?" (For Jews do not associate with Samaritans.[a])

10Jesus answered her, "If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water."

11"Sir," the woman said, "you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where can you get this living water? 12Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did also his sons and his flocks and herds?"

13Jesus answered, "Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, 14but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life."

15The woman said to him, "Sir, give me this water so that I won't get thirsty and have to keep coming here to draw water."

16He told her, "Go, call your husband and come back."

17"I have no husband," she replied.

Jesus said to her, "You are right when you say you have no husband. 18The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true."

19"Sir," the woman said, "I can see that you are a prophet. 20Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem."

21Jesus declared, "Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."

25The woman said, "I know that Messiah" (called Christ) "is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us."

26Then Jesus declared, "I who speak to you am he."

27Just then his disciples returned and were surprised to find him talking with a woman. But no one asked, "What do you want?" or "Why are you talking with her?"

Samaritans were not dealt with kindly. The Israelites treated them the same way they did women. And a Samaritan woman was viewed as less admirable.

Yet, Jesus decided that she was human too. That she had rights. The right to hear ideas philosophy and to decide for herself what to believe. So Jesus gave her that opportunity.

This is the same way God sees woman in the Old Testament. The problem is the male-driven culture in Israel didn't see eye-to-eye with God on those issues. So you find a lot of people in the Old Testament treating their daughters the same shameful was as Lot did. But if Richard Dawkins reveled those "small little details", he'd be afraid you wouldn't come to his conclusions.

[An7imatt3r]

Sometime I am lazy and dont feel like reading the two miles worth of text people leave behind, its not that I don't respect you, I am just lazy. Anyway, as a side point, perhaps related or unrelated to anything above, I remember doing some research back in highschool about the whole evolution thing and somthing I used in it was the domesticaed Silver Fox (http://en.wikipedia....Tame_Silver_Fox). A scientist Belyaev wanted to see if you could actually breed for tameness (you can aparantly). But what was remarkable was that these foxes (The domesticated ones) had over 40 differing genes from the orginal generation after only a few selective breedings.
What this means, at least to me, is that natural selection is real and can have some serious effects, it just takes longer becuase the pressure isn't as severe as actualy selectivly breeding. Natural selection is the drive behind the evolutionary force, thus helping prove to me that it does in fact exist. Anyways I more or less just thought the expirament was cool and that it kind of applied. People who refuse to belive in this becuase a book that is over 2,000 years (when science didnt exist) tells them to are just ignorant to me. I am sorry if you don't believe in evolution, but like someone else said its hasnt been unproven for so long... wake up. What you think God thinks is not a trump car for everything. Not trying to offend anybody, just my opinion at its core.

[furrykef]

But if Richard Dawkins reveled those "small little details", he'd be afraid you wouldn't come to his conclusions.

I really wouldn't be so quick to attribute this to malice. Now, if people have already brought up these objections to him, and he offered no kind of rebuttal, then later repeated his claims anyway, then I would attribute it to malice. (This is what some people like Kent Hovind do. My contempt for such people knows no bounds.)

[ALIENwolve]

I thought the topic was that some dudes that run some website are flipping crazy?

Where'd all this bullcrap on whether or not religion is correct come from?

[Ratty Randnums]

Richard's omission of details never ceases to amaze me. I'll bet he can find hateful messages inside a cook-book.

Deuteronomy 13:9-11

"9 You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again."

The Israelites were invading other cities. God had given them the promised land, but the promised land was already occupied by cities who's culture was hostile towards Israel in nature. One of the reasons was that they has built it on the "legacy" of a man named Balaam, a man who was hired by a nation to curse Israel in the past. Obviously, these cultures were not going to be happy to "co-exist" with Israel.

And this justifies killing someone for changing their religion/suggesting you change yours how?

The armies of Israel married Israelite women, so they were not indoctrinated with ideas harmful to Israel's existence. Marriage with the women of these other cultures were forbidden as a matter of security. Those who had married outside of Israel were in danger of being married to a spy. Therefore, it was punishable by death.

They could be a spy, or, more importantly- they could introduce new ideas at odds with the Israelite's own indoctrination.

But in some cases, the young children who lived in these cities were exempt:

Numbers 31:18

"But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves."

He said after telling them to slaughter all the men and women. I'm sorry but taking girls against their will- who's fathers and mothers you have killed to be forcefully indoctrinated and married can't be passed of as merciful or accepting to me.

Women were married off at the age of 16. The younger children were brought up in a way that wasn't a threat to Israel.

Indoctrinated, forcefully. By the people who killed their parents.

When they were old enough and eligible far marriage, they were married. But Dawkins' omission of those details made for more startling mental images.

It cut to the point is more like it.

As does the omission of the instances where sinful behavior of characters contradicted God's commandments:

Genesis 19:8

"Behold, I have two daughters who have not known any man. Let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please. Only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof."

This goes against God's commandments. As Jesus was said in scriptures as God incarnate, we can use that to interpret his view on women.


John 4:4-27

"4Now he had to go through Samaria. 5So he came to a town in Samaria called Sychar, near the plot of ground Jacob had given to his son Joseph. 6Jacob's well was there, and Jesus, tired as he was from the journey, sat down by the well. It was about the sixth hour.

7When a Samaritan woman came to draw water, Jesus said to her, "Will you give me a drink?" 8(His disciples had gone into the town to buy food.)

9The Samaritan woman said to him, "You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?" (For Jews do not associate with Samaritans.[a])

10Jesus answered her, "If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water."

11"Sir," the woman said, "you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where can you get this living water? 12Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did also his sons and his flocks and herds?"

13Jesus answered, "Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, 14but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life."

15The woman said to him, "Sir, give me this water so that I won't get thirsty and have to keep coming here to draw water."

16He told her, "Go, call your husband and come back."

17"I have no husband," she replied.

Jesus said to her, "You are right when you say you have no husband. 18The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true."

19"Sir," the woman said, "I can see that you are a prophet. 20Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem."

21Jesus declared, "Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."

25The woman said, "I know that Messiah" (called Christ) "is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us."

26Then Jesus declared, "I who speak to you am he."

27Just then his disciples returned and were surprised to find him talking with a woman. But no one asked, "What do you want?" or "Why are you talking with her?"

Samaritans were not dealt with kindly. The Israelites treated them the same way they did women. And a Samaritan woman was viewed as less admirable.

Yet, Jesus decided that she was human too. That she had rights. The right to hear ideas philosophy and to decide for herself what to believe. So Jesus gave her that opportunity.

You mean he thought she was worth converting. So?
That doesn't change the fact that Lot's daughters are demonized a short while after the quoted text.
Or that the fall of human kind from grace is attributed to a woman.
Or Dawkin's final point that if God is both Jesus (and somehow Jesus's father) why is there a need for the crucifixion etc. -Who is he trying to impress? If he's God he's all powerful.


And another thing. So God is all powerful and all knowing? Then wouldn't he have known exactly what was going to happen from the moment he created the universe. And if so wouldn't he know that things would play out a certain way based on how he created it.

So where is free will? What is the point of praying etc.?
Whether or not you find the true religion/get "saved" /go to heaven or not, was Gods choice at the creation of the universe.

You can't have an omnipotent and omniscient creator of the universe AND free will. It doesn't work.

This is the same way God sees woman in the Old Testament. The problem is the male-driven culture in Israel didn't see eye-to-eye with God on those issues. So you find a lot of people in the Old Testament treating their daughters the same shameful was as Lot did. But if Richard Dawkins reveled those "small little details", he'd be afraid you wouldn't come to his conclusions.

Oh. Of course. What God really meant/thought wasn't the parts of the Bible that conflict with modern views. Oh no all that stuff was edited in by hateful people later. But everything else is infallable. Yuuuuuup. Just gotta read between the lines when it says something you don't like.

I'll need some damn good examples to support your claim here or I'm just going to assume it's a case of the above.







PS just for fun.

[The Man]

To shorten it the morale of the story, if you're irresponsible with <noun> then it' not good. Science, evolution, atomic bombs, intelligent design, dieties can all be good or bad depending on how you treat it.

Sorry to be generalistic but trying to debate the specific merits of one thing over another doesn't always get anywhere imo especially when people have the right to congtradict it/disprove it.

Fact: Human's kill each other(we kill each other). Could science and religion be motivations? How about other ideas?

I'm trying to shorten this debate with yes or no answers.

[FreakyFilmFan4ever]

Funny videos, man. Just proof that stupid Christians shouldn't be allowed to talk.
In short Ratty, no. It doesn't change a thing. It just shows that God's opinion of the events in the Bible are not the same as the opinion of the characters within those events. It shows he valued women, whereas the men leading the culture at the time did not. It was one of the reasons of Christ's crucifiction, in fact. The religions leaders of the time did not like the people Jesus was hanging out with, the things he was telling them, and the crowd that believed his culturally contradictive statements of equality within humanity. If you're really curious, read it for yourself and make up your own mind (instead of your mind being made up for you by others). Read it within context of itself, the culture of the days it was written, and the culture we see in the world now. See how it varies, for better or for worse.

Yes, some of the people , like those discussed in the thread who are "re translating" the Bible, are trying to misuse the Bible and use it as a text book in public schools. (Not even private Christian schools use the Bible as a text book. That should tell you something.)

As for Intelligent Design, there are many different models for it. Some are even accepted as an Evolutionary Theory (one model is the "Intelligent Designers" were aliens planting the first living organism on Earth has been discussed seriously in the scientific community. That's why NASA spends billions of dollars trying to find evidence of life out in space.) So not even scientists disregard the entire theory. Just the parts that depend on things other than science to support it.

[furrykef]

As for Intelligent Design, there are many different models for it. Some are even accepted as an Evolutionary Theory (one model is the "Intelligent Designers" were aliens planting the first living organism on Earth has been discussed seriously in the scientific community. That's why NASA spends billions of dollars trying to find evidence of life out in space.) So not even scientists disregard the entire theory. Just the parts that depend on things other than science to support it.

First off, that's a hypothesis, not a theory. I really do not think it is a good idea to continue to mix these two terms.

Second, I really doubt very many scientists are interested in that hypothesis. It's an acceptable hypothesis in the sense that there is no contradictory evidence and it is within the realm of possibility, but as it's essentially untestable, there's little that can be done with it from a scientific standpoint. Also, even if aliens planted life on Earth, I wouldn't call it intelligent design, because planting the seeds of organic life on Earth and watching it grow involves no more design than planting a seed and watching a forest grow. You have a choice in what the first plants in your forest will be, but that's it.

Third, the reason NASA spends billions of dollars to find life in space is simple and obvious: it would be cool as hell to find life in space. There's no need to introduce the notion of an alien origin of life on Earth into the equation to justify that.

- Kef

[John Roberts]

Third, the reason NASA spends billions of dollars to find life in space is simple and obvious: it would be cool as hell to find life in space. T

We need something to shoot at once religion and politics die out.

[FreakyFilmFan4ever]

We need something to shoot at once religion and politics die out.

Your assuming, of course, that politics will actually....

die?

[John Roberts]

One can dream, can't they? One can dream...

[Tristan Palmgren]

People are perfectly capable of killing themselves without religion or politics. (They just give us excuses).