And you can feel the effects of wind...you can smell the effects of wind, the moment it leave your body

Indeed - if you could prove it, then it would be.

However - as the earliest Masoretic text I can find containing Daniel is 9th Century AD - do you have a link describing these manuscripts?

Sorry, fullywired, I read that section of post twice (and the full article at that link once) and still found no textual/historical reference that showed Daniel was written in the 2nd Century BC. In fact, the article itself seemed to be arguing for Daniel being a prophetic text. At the very least, I read nothing that showed any clear proof that Daniel was written after the fact. edit: Check out this post if you want further details - it's rather strange that you'd quote a source that agrees with me when you're trying to argue against me

You can also measure the wind and observe its effects.

There are lots of reasons. Rather than hijack this thread, I'll start a new one.

That was so random!!! LOL.

Excellent post, swollen ostrich, welcome to UM.

Yeaa..but its so very true...my partner is living proof on the smelly ones YUCK..when we are in the car and he lets one rip...next thing my head is out the window for air

Sean - you're post is long. That's OK, you're making your points. I would like to respond, but I'll have to just "pick and choose" for now. First, some of the statements that you made actually disprove evolution, IMO. You have differentiated micro and macro, rightly. Some people like to claim that evolution is a fact and they use microbiology to prove it. Resistant bacteria and so forth. However, real evolution as we are led to believe created we humans, is going to have to show a genetic mutation resulting in a benefitial trait being transferred from the individual, to the population of a given species. Until that can be shown, evolution is speculation no matter how many studies you show because it just doesn't hold with the facts that we see, namely complex or multiple system organisms. There is a huge, vast, and irreconcilable gap between simple systems and complex ones.

The Bible; your criticism of the bible would be accurate if the bible was one book. The bible is not one book, it is a collection of many books spanning a time frame of around 5,000 years if you include modern history. These books work together in synergy to give us the basics of God's will for us. Therefore, arguments in favor of the bible are not circular in nature.

Genesis Account: the bible should be taken literally when it is reasonable to do so. It should be interpreted figuratively when figurative language is used. Even the parables of Christ can be taken literally though they are sometimes poetic or allegorical in nature.

Talk Origins. I think it would be best to not quote from Talk Origins in a debate of this nature. They exist soley to attempt to refute Creationist claims. They are an anti-creationist source and nothing more. Their presentations would be so filled with bias as to render them useless for a conversation of this sort.

That argument rocks like AC/DC in 1980!

OK,

It seems people on both sides of this argument are playing fast and loose with science. So, let's review what science is not. This is taken directly from a unit study plan from Indiana University, so if you have a problem take it up with the Science Dept. at Indiana University. But unless you can prove that any of these statements is incorrect, then be prepared to be received with skepticism:

Evolution is a fact and microbiology (as well as botany) has proved it. There is also a theory of evolution which covers the mechanism by which evolution occurs. The fact of observed evolution in 'simple' organisms such as bacteria does not obviate the fact of evolution in more complex organisms - at the DNA level the relative difference in complexity is not so great. It is only that evolution occurs in a generational mode and so, with complex organisms generally having a much longer generational 'lifetime', it is more difficult to observe evolution in action in such species.



That the bible is more than one book by different authors over such a vast period of human history would have a negative tendency on the 'synergy' of the compendium. Given the undoubted cultural changes taking place in society over this expanse of time one would expect to see an evolution in the sophistication of the writing and the concepts of the divinity involved, and this is, in fact, what occurs. If the writings were 'God-inspired' one would not expect to see such development as God has (allegedly) not changed over the same period of time. What we see in the bible is a purely human epic with no evidence of God's will being involved at all.



Would you agree those episodes in the bible were God intervenes in the affairs of humankind directly should be treated as figurative? Is all the reference to God in the bible figurative? If the bible is part allegory/part literal history, does that mean God is an allegory, or are the passages involving God literal?



TalkOrigins contains many rebuttals of Creationist claims, explaining the misconceptions behind those claims and clarifying the science those claims purport to refute. It is no more anti-Creationist than evolution is anti-God. That you cannot refute the science explained there does not invalidate it.

Again, a quick look at bible commentary, other bible translations, and a dictionary will tell you that "To make the weight for the winds" means that God decides how hard the wind should/will blow, again a far cry from your assertion.

And again, you take this out of context. Job chapter 28 is all about man's quest for wisdom, and starts by showing/listing of the things man knows - how/where to find/make silver and gold, iron and brass, etc. The chapter then switches to things man doesn't know/understand - how hard the wind will blow, how much water is in the sea, when/where it will rain, where the lightning and thunder will go. etc. - things that ONLY God knows. The chapter then concludes by saying that true wisdom can be found only through God.

For someone who likes to quote the Bible and says he understands it, I am confused by your seemingly total lack of understanding of the MEANING of the quotes you use. You also seem to lack an understanding of the concept of context. Words taken out of context often lose/change their meaning as compared with the same words IN context.

I'm not trying to sound mean here, but please, make sure you understand the meaning of something before you quote it.

Hi Tiggs

Thanks for the response. Sorry if this has already been discussed ad nauseum in other forums and you are tiring of the subject.

1. Science can't explain something at the moment ergo there is a great creator? Even if your rather vague information is correct, 2 + 2 = 17. If I used this method to do my job it would be disaster. Bit of a gamble if one bases one's life on such a thin premise. Where is your evidence that a great creator is the one responsible for this? Something solid and irrefutable? Otherwise this kinda puts you in the same limbo as the non-believer community and hardly constitutes evidence.

2. So where is the evidence I asked for that a great creator was responsible for this? All you've done is point out a gap in our knowledge and suggest a hypothesis. 2 + 2 = 17 again.

3. ? I haven't seen a first or second argument, never mind a third. Two hypothesis without any hard evidence and based on negatives and you haven't even bothered presenting a third. That pedestal is looking a bit delicate right now, mate.

I promise to look into these subjects but, with all due respect, this is only because your explanations were weak and didn't 'prove' anything to me, or anyone reading this I presume. This is the level of detail creationists seem to expect from 'evolutionists' out there so i think its only fair that I ask for the same level of response. This is a public forum and this subject is big enough to merit some solid answers so I'll offer to help you out and contact some independant senior people in these fields. I'll post responses here when they arrive for the delectation of the wider community. Remember that I've invited you guys to convince me.

I'm sure you're a decent bloke but interesting if anyone else takes up the baton....

What argument? No argument was presented. 2 hypothesis with no supporting evidence. All due respect but I am not asking for an argument but evidence. Over to you!

If you are convinced by this that there is a great god creator then I seriously worry about your reasoning abilities my friend. Could you explain the evidence to me as I didn't see any?

Hmm. The bible. I cannot recommend such a vicious book. Doesn't it promote raping of women, murder of children, beating of wives, polygamy, and genocide? Forget the disagreements about a word or interpretation. Have you read the whole book?

There is no need for information to travel faster than light in a universe with greater than 3 + 1 dimensions. Our perception of Bell's Theorem is heavily dependent on our common perception of the universe as having the 3 physical dimensions plus time. In developing multi-dimensional theories such as M-Theory, any and all part(s) of the universe could occupy (an)other dimension(s) that would have no apparent 'size' from our perspective. This negates the necessity for FTL information dissemination.

Mandrake, you are polite and simultaneously make your points nicely!! Welcome to the boards, you are a nice edition.

OK. I live in paradise on a cul-de-sac with 16 houses, 14 kids, 22 dogs and we all get along - and not one Bush supporter in the crowd!
Doug

Dr. Robert V. Gentry Makes Amazing Discovery

Radiohaloes of Polonium 210,214,& 218 Found within Granite


While examining thin sections (very thin slices) of granites, Dr. Robert V. Gentry found certain ring-type structures, {or "haloes"}, within samples of granites from all around the Earth. These impressions had to be put into the granites sometime during their formation, due to the fact that they are within the matrix,(or crystaline structure), and not stamped on the outside of the granites. Granites are the basement rocks of the world, and so it would be impossible to "doctor" or "fake" these results.
According to cosmological-evolutionary theory, it took hundreds of millions of years for the granites to form, and yet these haloes are within the granites!
If you find a sunken ship off the coast of Florida, and find some gold coins, you would know that the ship could have sunk no earlier than the newest coin found there!
Likewise, if you find something within the inner structure,(or matrix), of these granites, the granites HAD to form faster than the items would have taken to disappear, or degenerate.
Radioactive elements are called isotopes, and they have an elevated energy state. It is the natural process for these isotopes to give off their excess energy and to eventually "step-down" in energy level until they are no longer radioactive.
Each different radioactive element, or isotope, has a different amount of energy stored up in its particular "elevated energy state." This means that it will take different isotopes different amounts of time to give off their excess energy. This leads to different lengths of time for each individual isotope's "half-life."
What a half-life is, is that period of time in which a given radioactive element, or isotope, needs to give off enough of its excess energy for only half of the amount of the sample to still be radioactive. The length of time for each isotope, or radioactive element, is different. Some are fast, and some are very slow, or long lasting.
Scientists have determined that in order to show that a certain radioactive element, or isotope, existed at one time, you must record its emissions of its high energy particles, the alpha particles in general, within 7 of the isotope's half-lives, or else there will not be enough high-energy particles left to emit and leave trails on or within the matrix of the matter you are using to record the decay of the isotope.
So, you have to conclude that if you find radio-haloes of radioactive elements, (isotopes), within granites, then the granites had to form faster than the 7 half-lives of fastest isotope within the sample.
What is interesting about this is that the isotope Polonium 218 has a half-life of 3 minutes!! So if you find a radiohaloe of Polonium 218 within any sample of granite, that granite HAD to form within less than 21 minutes!!
Now this is really interesting!! The isotope Polonium 214 has a half-life of 164 microseconds,(164 x 10 to the -6 or, .000164 of one second!!!) This means that the granites absolutely, had to form in less than .001148 of one second!

It also means that in order for the granites, the basement or foundation rocks of the planet Earth, to have formed in less than one second, that the entire Earth had to come into existence in less than one second!
This leaves us with only ONE conclusion, which is, that when the Bible says that Jesus spoke and the universe came into existence, {"ex-nihilo",(from nothing)}, the Bible is telling the Truth! The radiohaloes within the granites give irrefutable, physical evidence of this!

From Dr. Gentry's book "Creation's Tiny Mystery."
------------------------------------------------------------------

Evidence
Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians, all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same. The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions; these are things that are assumed to be true without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.

Past and present
We all exist in the present; and the facts all exist in the present. When one is trying to understand how the evidence came about (where did the animals come from? how did the fossil layers form? etc.), what we are actually trying to do is to connect the past to the present. However, if we weren’t there in the past to observe events, how can we know what happened so that we can explain the present? It would be great to have a time machine so that we could know for sure about past events.

Christians, of course, claim they do have, in a sense, a time machine. They have a book called the Bible, which claims to be the Word of God who has always been there and has revealed to us the major events of the past about which we need to know. On the basis of these events (Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, etc.), we have a set of presuppositions to build a way of thinking which enables us to interpret the evidence of the present. 1

Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g., no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation); so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present.

Thus, when Christians and non-Christians argue about the evidence, in reality they are arguing about their interpretations based on their presuppositions.

That’s why the argument often turns into something like:

“Can’t you see what I’m talking about?”

“No, I can’t. Don’t you see how wrong you are?”

“No, I’m not wrong. It’s obvious that I’m right.”

“No, it’s not obvious.”

And so on.

These two people are arguing about the same evidence, but they are looking at the evidence through different glasses.

It’s not until these two people recognize the argument is really about the presuppositions they have to start with, that they will begin to deal with the foundational reasons for their different beliefs. A person will not interpret the evidence differently until they put on a different set of glasses—which means to change one’s presuppositions.

A Christian who understands these things can actually put on the evolutionist’s glasses (without accepting the presuppositions as true) and understand how they look at evidence. However, for a number of reasons, including spiritual ones, a non-Christian usually can’t put on the Christian’s glasses—unless they recognize the presuppositional nature of the battle and are thus beginning to question their own presuppositions.

It is, of course, sometimes possible that just by presenting “evidence” one can convince a person that a particular scientific argument for creation makes sense of “the facts.” But usually, if that person then hears a different interpretation of the same evidence that seems better than the first, that person will swing away from the first argument, thinking they have found “stronger facts.”

However, if that person had been helped to understand this issue of presuppositions, then they would have been better able to recognize this for what it is—a different interpretation based on differing presuppositions (i.e., starting beliefs).



Debate terms
Often people who don’t believe the Bible will say that they aren’t interested in hearing about the Bible. They want real proof that there’s a God who created. They’ll listen to our claims about Christianity, but they want proof without mentioning the Bible.

If one agrees to a discussion without using the Bible as these people insist, then we have allowed them to set the terms of the debate. In essence these terms are:

“Facts” are neutral. However, there are no such things as “brute facts”; all facts are interpreted. Once the Bible is eliminated from the argument, the Christians’ presuppositions are gone, leaving them unable to effectively give an alternate interpretation of the facts. Their opponents then have the upper hand as they still have their presuppositions.
Truth can/should be determined independent of God. However, the Bible states: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (Psalm 11:10); “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge” (Proverbs 1:7); “but the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Corinthians 2:14). A Christian cannot divorce the spiritual nature of the battle from the battle itself. A non-Christian is not neutral. The Bible makes this very clear: “The one who is not with Me is against Me, and the one who does not gather with Me scatters” (Matthew 12:30); “And this is the condemnation, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the Light, because their deeds were evil” (John 3:19).

Agreeing to such terms of debate also implicitly accepts their proposition that the Bible’s account of the universe’s history is irrelevant to understanding that history!

Source

Sorry for the lengthy post but this excerpt ^ I think is what people on this thread and other threads need to know about Creationists and how to have a discussion concerning this topic of Evolution vs. Creation/ID

I'm going to up your ante on this one, Iams. I think what you posted shows that Creation "science" is indeed just that "science" (emphasis on the quotations). Here is why:

1. Science is not a process which can solve all kinds of problems and questions.
The realm of science is limited strictly to solving problems about the natural world. Science is not properly equipped to handle the supernatural realm (as such), nor the realm of values and
ethics.

The statement above is 100% correct. Science, at least good science, does not dabble in the supernatural. Science can neither prove nor disprove God. End of story there.

2. It's not a process which can ignore rules.
Science must follow certain rules; otherwise, it's not science (just as soccer is not soccer if its rules are not followed).

The rules that science follows can be generally understood by the scientific method. Now, forgive me for being biased, which I will admit I am, but I have yet to see Creation "Scientists" utilize the scientific method properly. In fact, I haven't even seen them try to prove creationism. Instead of actually trying to compete with evolutionary theories, all they do is try to poke holes in evolution and stuff God inside of it. That isn't science because of rule #1. But lets step back for a second. Why is it that creation "scientists" do nothing to try to prove creationism? Surely, being that they are men of "science", they understand that were they to actually disprove evolution they would also have to find evidence in support of creationism? So, why is it that they don't? Well, the only conclusions that I can come to are

• They aren't actually scientists.
• They don't actually understand science.
• They have no proof of creationism.

Someone correct me if I am wrong on this. I would love to see some proof of creationism just so that we could actually engage in a real scientific debate. Unfortunately no one seems to be able to provide any...

3. It's not a process which seeks the truth or facts.
The goal of science is to come as close as we can to understanding the cause-effect realities of the natural world. It's never "truth" or "facts". "Truth" and "facts" can mean different things to different people.

Compiling all of the evidence, for those of us that actually understand and accept scientific evidence that is, evolution is a "fact" so far as we know. Until some better theory comes forward evolution is probably mostly "correct". We may not know everything about it, but we do understand that (and this is very very much simplified) that these genetic mutations have/do/will continue to happen. Its a part of life.

4. It's not a process which attempts to prove things.
The process of science, when properly applied, actually attempts to disprove ideas (tentative explanations)... a process called "testing", or "challenging". If the idea survives testing, then it is stronger, and more likely an accurate explanation.

This is the big one. Science, or rather, good science, does not seek to prove a set agenda. Darwin did not board the Beagle with the intention of proving evolution. Thats not how science works. That is, however, how creationism works. Instead of gathering as much data as possible and adjusting the theory as need be to fit the data properly, creationists try to take information and cram it into their already preset theory. A good scientist would know it works the other way.

5. It's not a process which can produce any kind of explanation.
Scientific explanations must be potentially disprovable. Therefore, supernatural explanations cannot be used, since they can never be disproved (supernatural forces, by definition, do not predictably follow the laws of nature). Whatever results occur in any test can be attributed to those nebulous forces, effectively ending any further efforts to explain.

This should be obvious to all scientists. However, since this one has clearly gone straight over the heads of creation scientists, it leads me and many others to question just how much they actually know about science. Its ironic that often I hear the most ignorant of creationists call evolution a religion when in reality thats what creationism is exactly.

6. It's not a process which produces certainties, or absolute facts.
Science is a process which can only produce "possible" to "highly probable" explanations for natural phenomena; these are never certainties. With new information, tools, or approaches, earlier findings (theories, or even facts) can be replaced by new findings.

Again, another thing that real scientists actually recognize. Creation scientists seem to have missed the ark, I mean boat, on this one too.

7. It's not a process which can always be relied upon due to its total objectivity and internal self-correction.
Science can be done poorly, just like any other human endeavor. We are all fallible, some of us make fewer mistakes than others, some observe better than others, but we are still subjective in the end. Internal self-correction mechanisms in science merely increase the reliability of its product.

Very true. Science is constantly correcting its own errors. Yes, sometimes science is done poorly, but eventually, due to mechanisms such as peer review and lab testing etc. etc. science corrects itself. This is another example of where creationists fail to properly understand the mechanisms of science. They never try to correct themselves and they never adjust their hypothesis upon the discovery of new data (if they did, they wouldn't be creationists anymore).

8. It's not a process which is always properly used.
Unfortunately, science is all too frequently misused. Because it works so well, there are those who apply the name of science to their efforts to "prove" their favorite cause, even if the rules of science were not followed. Such causes are properly labeled "pseudosciences". Also, some scientists have been known to do fraudulent work, in order to support their pet ideas. Such work is usually exposed sooner or later, due to the peer review system, and the work of other scientists.

Yes, this too happens. This is why creationism is classified as a "pseudoscience". For those who don't have a basic background in etymology, the prefix "pseudo" means "fake". Creationism is classified as a pseudoscience for a number of reasons:

• It doesn't follow the scientific method.
• It has a preexisting agenda.
• It doesn't actually have any empirical, observable or testable evidence.

Among several others. I could prattle on for hours about this.


9. It's not a process which is free from values, opinions or bias.
Scientists are people, and although they follow certain rules and try to be as objective as possible, both in their observations and their interpretations, their biases are still there. Unconscious racial bias, gender bias, social status, source of funding, or political leanings can and do influence one's perceptions and interpretations.

This is blatantly obvious.

10. It's not a process in which the product (understanding) is based on faith or belief.
The product of science (probable explanations for natural phenomena) are always based on observations carefully analyzed and tested. The high confidence we have in science comes from the many successful applications to real-life problems (e.g. in medicine, space exploration, chemistry and technology).

Boy howdy, this sounds an AWFUL LOT LIKE creationism... don't you think?


11. It's not a process in which one solution is as good as another, or is simply a matter of opinion.
In science, there is a rigorous analysis and fair-test comparison of alternative explanations, using discriminate criteria, e.g., confirmation by multiple independent lines of evidence, leading to one "best" solution.
12. Scientific Theories are not "tentative ideas" or "hunches".
The word "theory" is often used this way in everyday conversation, but a theory in science refers to a highly probable, well-tested comprehensive explanation, usually for a large collection of observations.

These last two are ones that I think a lot of creationists need to read several times.

From Leonardo

That is of course your opinion. I happen to disagree with it completely. The New Testament is all about Jesus Christ. Since he fulfilled the law and the prophets it's not surprising to see that the "language" if you will, has changed. And thank God, because now we are under Grace! That is, those that wish to be so.

And, I believe there is some evidence. The fulfilled prophecies of Daniel, Isaiah, and others concerning Christ give a pretty solid argument for divine will and inspiration IMO.

Don't forget:

Witches should be killed (Exodus 22:17)
Homosexuals should be killed (Leviticus 20:13)
God kills off most of the population of the entire planet and then, after everyone is dead, realizes he may have overreacted (Noah and the Ark)
People who don't listen to the priests could be killed (Deuteronomy 17:12)


It's full of very violent, nasty stuff.

I once felt that way in the middle of a bunch of Southern Baptists. I know how he feels. Doug

Hi Mandrake -- as I see it, every book's contents should be read "in context".

You just made/asked a broad, derogatory statement/judgment/question concerning the books of the Bible.

To be fair, many other posters here on UM have also done this; but, may I ask you to point out one or two *specific* instances (giving chapter and verse)? I (and hopefully other Bible-believers) will try to give you answers from the Bible, explaining the reasons behind these events.

And yes, there "are" many such instances; but in my opinion the Bible gives explanations for these atrocities. Now, whether you accept or reject such explanations is up to you, of course.

Could be interesting,
Karlis

Feel free to use the chapters and verses in my reply to him, although you can probably skip over my smart-aleck description of the Noah's Ark story.

Murder, rape, and pillage at Jabesh-gilead (Judges 21:10-24 NLT)



So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. "This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin." Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.



The Israelite assembly sent a peace delegation to the little remnant of Benjamin who were living at the rock of Rimmon. Then the men of Benjamin returned to their homes, and the four hundred women of Jabesh-gilead who were spared were given to them as wives. But there were not enough women for all of them. The people felt sorry for Benjamin because the LORD had left this gap in the tribes of Israel. So the Israelite leaders asked, "How can we find wives for the few who remain, since all the women of the tribe of Benjamin are dead? There must be heirs for the survivors so that an entire tribe of Israel will not be lost forever. But we cannot give them our own daughters in marriage because we have sworn with a solemn oath that anyone who does this will fall under God's curse."



Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem. They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife! And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be understanding. Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.'" So the men of Benjamin did as they were told. They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance. Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them. So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes.

Murder, rape and pillage of the Midianites (Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)



They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.



Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.




More Murder Rape and Pillage (Deuteronomy 20:10-14)



As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

Oh sorry. Just to avoid complaints that I am plagiarising I would kindly thank the Bible for these quotes.

More to come Karlis! I'm sure you have a perfectly reasonable explanation why rape and murder can be justified in a religious context?

Laws of Rape (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)



If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.




Death to the Rape Victim (Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)



If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.




David's Punishment - Polygamy, Rape, Baby Killing, and God's "Forgiveness" (2 Samuel 12:11-14 NAB)



Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives [plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.'

Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord." Nathan answered David: "The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die."

Rape of Female Captives (Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB)



"When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion."






Rape and the Spoils of War (Judges 5:30 NAB)



They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a damsel or two for each man, Spoils of dyed cloth as Sisera's spoil, an ornate shawl or two for me in the spoil. (Judges 5:30 NAB)






Sex Slaves (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)



When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

God Assists Rape and Plunder (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)



Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)



OK. That's the bible rapes pretty much covered. I'm glad I wasn't a women back in the good old days. What were other 'religions' in these times mainly doing with their women? Oh, yeah worshipping them and letting them do pretty much what they liked. Even Bronze Age Central Europeans were paying homage to the Mother Goddess. The ancient Britons even had them as tribal leaders. Look at parts of the middle east today. Some things never change do they? I'm not pointing my finger only at Christians. Over to you my friend...

Well mandrake you've done your homework.(either that or it's copied and pasted, but either way's fine) But I do notice you are quoting the OT not the NT. That was under the Mosaic Law( Ten Commandments, etc.) But in the NT Jesus forgave the adulterous woman that the pharisees, sadduccees, etc. were going to stone, if you know the story.

John 8:3-11 (KJV)
vs.3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

vs.4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

vs.5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

vs.6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

vs.7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

vs.8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

vs.9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

vs.10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

vs.11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

I'm not denying it says those things, but that was under the Mosaic Law.

I'm sorry - you were expecting a Fingerprint? Chisel marks on DNA, perhaps? An Autograph? Blueprints? God's home video on YouTube of the creation, perhaps?

What exactly would you deem as evidence?

1. My vague information, as you call it, is just a thumbnail sketch of the strangeness of Quantum Theory. Posting the Maths underpinning it generally has a tendency to make people develop strong headaches and nosebleeds. As it appears that you seem to have mastered the ever tricky 2+2 however, I suggest you start by taking a look at the EPR Paradox, Bell's theorem and Quantum entanglement.

It's a very real phenomena, deemed to be central to Quantum Mechanics. In over 70 years, every single piece of research into Quantum Mechanics has only strengthened it's case. Calling it non-evidence, is quite frankly, laughable.

2. The lack of Cytosine and Adenine in the Earth's prebiotic atmosphere isn't a gap in knowledge. C₄H₅N₃O and C₅H₅N₅ are hardly the most complex chemical structures known to man. The fact is that there's no known mechanism for synthesising either (apart from in the most outrageous of circumstances) given the near-universally scientifically agreed conditions of the prebiotic Earth. It's not like a Biochemist is suddenly going to spring up and say "ooooh - hang on a minute - what about if we add Hydrogen?". It's hardly 2 + 2 = 17, more a case of 2 + 0 = 4, quite literally. You can't just start with a preconception and bend the facts until they fit it - Creationists hold the copyright on that one. Apparently, that's not a scientific way of doing things. The faith required that Cytosine and Adenine were abundant within the chemical make-up of a prebiotic Earth, regardless of all Scientific Evidence to the contrary, is just as great as any faith required to believe in a Deity.

Feel free to bring along some Physicists and BioChemists into the conversation. I'm sure that they'll confirm exactly what I've outlined.

Oooh! I call ripping apart TarHeelsFan's post first!
WRONG, WRONG, a wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong!
I love the radiohalos argument. It is quite easy to explain.


It is so hilarious how far behind Creationists are- A crazy Creationist theory gets disproven, and half of them still don't know it for years!

The important Facts that debunk the crazy halos argument:
1. Polonium is a decay product of radon, which in turn is a decay product of uranium. Radon, being a gas, can diffuse through cracks in the rocks. As a result, Polonium haloes are found only around the cracks in uranium minerals. What Gentry calls "assumptions" about original isotope proportions is actually a necessary consequence from the polonium generation process. Gentry's isotope proportions don't make sense.

2. To reconcile his young earth hypothesis with the fact that the decay rates of numerous elements have been used to demonstrate a very old Earth, Gentry postulates (without evidence) that decay rates were much higher in the recent past. Not only would this accelerated decay need to affect different isotopes differently, Gentry inexplicably assumes that the decay rates for isotopes of polonium were not affected. In actuality, once the idea of inconsistent decay rates (and therefore decay energies) is introduced, the whole idea that you can assign a specific halo size to a specific isotope becomes impossible.

3. If Gentry's hypothesis is correct, then haloes associated with all polonium isotopes should be present in equal abundance. However, Gentry does not report the presence of haloes corresponding to the decay of polonium-215 and polonium-211 (uranium-235 decay series); or polonium-216 and polonium-212 (thorium-232 decay series). Brawley (1992) has an explanation for this discrepancy that is wholly in keeping with current geologic theory for an ancient Earth.

4. Polonium forms from the alpha decay of radon, which is one of the decay products of uranium. Since radon is a gas, it can migrate through small cracks in the minerals. The fact that polonium haloes are found only associated with uranium (the parent mineral for producing radon) supports this conclusion, as does the fact that such haloes are commonly found along cracks (Brawley 1992; Wakefield 1998).

5. The biotite in which Gentry (1986) obtained some of his samples (Fission Mine and Silver Crater locations) was not from granite, but from a calcite dike. The biotite formed metamorphically as minerals in the walls of the dike migrated into the calcite. Biotite from the Faraday Mine came from a granite pegmatite that intruded a paragneiss that formed from highly metamorphosed sediments. Thus, all of the locations Gentry examined show evidence of an extensive history predating the formation of the micas; they show an appearance of age older than the three minutes his polonium halo theory allows. It is possible God created this appearance of age, but that reduces Gentry's argument to the omphalos argument, for which evidence is irrelevant (Wakefield 1998).

This claim contains Suppressed Evidence (the unmentioned fact that polonium is generated by uranium decay destroys the claim).

Brawley's explanation:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos.html

A rather long essay on the Halos:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html

Now listen. THESE WERE NOT WRITTEN BY TALKORIGINS FOLK. These were written by well respected scientists, and they are both FACTUALLY and SCIENTIFICALLY correct, which is what matters.

Sources:
1. Brawley, J. 1992. See above.
2. Gentry, R. V. 1988. Creation's Tiny Mystery. Knoxville, TN: Earth Science Associates.
3. Wakefield, J. R. 1998. See below.



Simple:
Because Scientists are interested in the truth, and Creationists are simply interested in supporting their 2,000 year old book of fairy tales.


I'm getting sick of this. EVOLUTIONISTS DO NOT EXIST. And, SCIENTISTS do not believe there is no God. As there is no evidence of one, the standard position of logic and science is to not accept the existence of God.
NOT ACCEPTING GOD is NOT the same as Not BELIEVING IN GOD. When one believes or doesn't believe, they must make a leap of faith.
Acceptance is simply acknowledging there COULD be a god, but there is little to no evidence to support such.
THAT is the standard position of science.

Onwards to the other posts I must reply to!

Yes, undoubtly, Jesus changed things, but, the fact remains, if one assumes that the Old Testament is (at least in part) an historical text, the things Mandrake quoted were the law.

Not to sound smart-alecky or anything, but saying that "Jesus changed it in the New Testament" doesn't explain the context behind the Old Testament quotes from Mandrake.

It gives me a headache just reading your post Tiggs!

Using that logic I can deduce since i've never seen your brain, or touched it, or heard it, or have seen an x-ray of it, then logically you don't have one. I must believe, i.e. take a leap of faith, that you happen to have one. BTW, no offense, I do believe you have one and very good one at that.

If you continue to take the scriptures out of context you can make it seem to say whatever you want. If you try hard enough you could be like Jim Jones or David Koresh.

OK EVERYBODY, LISTEN UP.

So, I've made some claims about Creationism being Science.

I was wrong. Well, I wasn't actually WRONG, but it was worded wrong.

What I meant was this:
I'm pretty sure everyone must be classified into:

-Theistic Evolution/ All non-Creationist Theists:
No to little Science involved. By this, I mean there is no to little science, besides
some dubious claims, that can support the existance of a God. Theism is mostly relatively blind faith in a God.
Theistic Evolution can never be disproven, at least for a looong time.
So. it is not Science. It is a religion that accepts scientific evidence and observation.

-Atheism:
Atheism is also little Science.
While atheists follow the strict scientific evidence found, they still take that important leap of faith to assume there is no God, just because we haven't found onbe.
Atheism can never be proven; It can only be dis proven with a found God.
So, it is not Science. It is a religion, or lack of one that accepts the found scientific evidence and observation.

-Agnosticism/Naturalism:
Agnostics do not believe or dis-believe in a God;; they are indifferent. They accept what has been found as Science as the best explanation so far of our world.
Agnosticism is almost all science; No leaps of faith are necessary.
It cannot be disproven or proven.
It is NOT a religion. No leap of faith is required for agnosticism. There is nothing wrong with I don't know. Agnosticism accepts the found scientific evidence as the best explanation for our world.

-Creationism:
The belief that a God created the world, and humans, and most animals and the universe in their present form, or very close to it.
Many Creationists also believe the world is very, very young.(Some even believe it was created AFTER Christ should have existed; In fact, all who believe AiG do!)
Creationism is a RELIGION. Obviously, it takes faith.
What I've meant by 'it is science', is that Creationism, unlike EVERY other one of these, DOES NOT accept the scientific evidence found. It CAN never be proven false, but unlike the others, strong evidence points against it, and more will come. Therefore, unlike faith, or something which is impossible to determine, Creationism belongs to the realm of reality; It can be proven 99% wrong by scientific evidence, observation, and data. Many would argue it already has been.

I personally happen to be Agnostic. That MAY be hard for some of you to believe, but I frown on strict atheism. I do not see why one must GUESS whether there is a god or not.

To Creationists:
My ultimate goal is to get as many Creationists to acknoledge that a position of Theistic Evolution is a perfectly acceptable religion. God won't hate you for it. And if the possible God happens to hate all who aren't Christian Creationists, then he's a jerk I wouldn't want to be near anyway.



EXCELLENT post Sean! Very, very good. You are a voice of reason in this madness.


Many have scared themselves into believing they will go to hell if they believe Evolution. Don't believe me? Just read some old jack chick hate.


I was going to comment on this, as I had copied it out from your post onto a Word document(which I do to mark stuff to reply to), but now I have no idea what you were talking about.
Anyway, I'm pretty sure I agreed.


You must not be getting me. You said:
We cannot trust the entire Bible, as copiers copied some stuff wrong.

And I said:
Then how can we trust any of the Bible? Copiers could have added stuff, changed stuff, made Christianity look better, etc.

Please reply to that.

Oh, and I believe the Daniel thing was mostly settled.


2 Responses:
1. See Tigg's new thread, or his old posts on this one.
2. Why does it matter? If The Illiad got something right, then does that mean all of it is right?



I stand corrected.
I WASN'T trying to say that.
I was trying to explain that parts of Creationism DEAL with Science, AKA they cannot be 'debunked', but we can get darn close to debunking them using SCIENTIFIC evidence.


Eeermmm, what he said!

More's a coming!
Cheers,
SQLserver

Thanks tarheelsfan. I confess to cutting and pasting these to save time and my fingers. I type with two fingers and it would take ages! Makes no difference anyway as it's quotes.

To allay fears that I am going off track with this thread, my reason for diverting into this area with tarheelsfan is to examine the only 'evidence' that is in front of me to support creationism (I am not so familiar with other religious books so forgive me. I am not focussing on any one group specifically here.).

Exhibit A - The Bible, OT and NT and everything that wasn't included. As with every investigation we need to examine how valuable this evidence is. It is substantial enough to be used to support a scientific premise? You can use whatever understanding of 'science' you wish here.

OK my friend, I fully understand your viewpoint. Yes, this is the OT but it's apparently the same deity running the show as in the NT so that's not really a defence. UNLESS of course it is a different deity, or we are allowed to pick and choose which parts of the bible suit us at any one time and ignore the bad stuff. I guess could make the bible say anything if I was allowed to pick and choose. I'm sure that doesn't happen though.. Very worrying if this is to be used as evidence to support a premise.

You've obviously made your mind up that Jesus was the son of this deity. I am not so convinced. That's a leap of faith supporte