Poll: Evolution and the other side

Amphoteric

New member
Jun 8, 2010
1,276
0
0
xiac79 said:
Amphoteric said:
xiac79 said:
I find the results less than believeable. Any discussion i have had involving evolution (and most other acedemic topics) involve very little knowledge beyond a basic highschool and perhaps rudimentry freshman college understanding of current trends and theories. something you learned in highschool or your 100 level biology class does not constitute a study of evolutionary theory. Both sides of the evolutionary arguement are guilty of this.
Well seeing as there is no evidence for creationism it isn't that difficult to have seen it all.
Your statement proves my point. There is also no empiracle, repeatable, or demonstrable evidence of self actuated organic evolution on the multi-celular level. What we have is a large amount evidence who's most logical expliantion we can formulate lends itself to our current views of Organic evolution. However as it is still a theoretical science, a new discovery at any time, could completly invalidate our current understanding, as has happened with many well accepted theories throughout history.

There is always that possibility that some god or space alien of vastly supierior knowledge could show up tomorrow and laugh at our meager understanding. As we do not know for sure, it is pretty presumptious of anyone on either side of the arguement to laugh and point the finger of scorn at the other. Placing more creedance in a theory than it rightly deserves is akin to dogmatic faith and places credible scientific threory directly in the realm of theology.
Evolution isn't "Theoretical". It's been proven, several thousand times and it has been accepted for almost 200 years as how speciation occured. If you refuse to believe facts then that is your problem.
 

DracoSuave

New member
Jan 26, 2009
1,685
0
0
xiac79 said:
Amphoteric said:
xiac79 said:
I find the results less than believeable. Any discussion i have had involving evolution (and most other acedemic topics) involve very little knowledge beyond a basic highschool and perhaps rudimentry freshman college understanding of current trends and theories. something you learned in highschool or your 100 level biology class does not constitute a study of evolutionary theory. Both sides of the evolutionary arguement are guilty of this.
Well seeing as there is no evidence for creationism it isn't that difficult to have seen it all.
Your statement proves my point. There is also no empiracle, repeatable, or demonstrable evidence of self actuated organic evolution on the multi-celular level.
The Peppered moth [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution], easily observable in britain, has had a couple centuries of observation of it noting that the species as a whole changes color based on its environment. Not like a chameleon, but through simple natural selection. When coal makes things sooty, the light colored ones get eaten by predators, causing the darker ones to survive. When coal goes away, and things are less sooty, the inverse happens.

It's been observed. It's empiracle evidence. And it's happened twice in that species alone.

As for further empirical evidence:

Fish in Africa's greatest lake [http://www.debatepolitics.com/archives/37481-macroevolution-observed-african-lake.html]

Wait, there's more:

Specimens of Oenothera lamarckiana evolved an extra chromosome, and were unable to mate with the original specimens, becoming the new species, O. gigas.

Primrose species Primula verticillata and P. floribunda have been observed to hybridize into a new form unable to mate with the previous, but with each other, P. kewenisis. This has been observed multiple times.

Are you aware that geneticists have been studying the fruit fly for decades? Do you know why? Because fruit flies are so adaptable on a genetic level to their environment, and their genetic code so simple, that causing macroevolution in a fruit fly population is not only possible in laboratory settings, but is, in fact, repeatable, and predictable.

Are you aware that in a laboratory setting, a monocellular species of algae has been shown to evolve into a multicellular life form, causing complete reclassification?

The evidence is so strong and prevalent [http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/02/macroevolution-examples-and-evidence.html] that your claim that it is unobservable is either ignorant, or a fucking lie.

Choose wisely.

What we have is a large amount evidence who's most logical expliantion we can formulate lends itself to our current views of Organic evolution.
Except, of course, the actual observation of evolution in progress.

We have empirical evidence of competition, feeding, reproduction, selection, death, and birth. We also have empirical evidence of the changing of species based on every single one of the above.

We have empirical evidence of evolution.

However as it is still a theoretical science, a new discovery at any time, could completly invalidate our current understanding, as has happened with many well accepted theories throughout history.
That's true. However, it is the best fit for all the empirical evidence, just as the theory of gravity observes all observed evidence.

This does not mean that just because it -can- be proven false, that we should abandon all the evidence we do have, in favor of a model for which we have absolutely none.

There is always that possibility that some god or space alien of vastly supierior knowledge could show up tomorrow and laugh at our meager understanding.
There is the possibility I could spontaneously combust at any moment. This possibility is remote enough that I'm not going to sign up for spontaneous combustion insurance.

As we do not know for sure, it is pretty presumptious of anyone on either side of the arguement to laugh and point the finger of scorn at the other.
The correct course of action is to continue study to further a more perfect understanding of the universe. Science accepts and admits it does not know everything. The difference between it and creationism is that it goes on to say 'So let's find out, shall we!'

Placing more creedance in a theory than it rightly deserves is akin to dogmatic faith and places credible scientific threory directly in the realm of theology.
However, a theory is a result of an ever increasing body of evidence, with thousands of experiments performed solely for the purpose of proving its predictions wrong. The difference between scientific theory, and religious theory, is that scientific theory is discarded the MOMENT it is proven false. There is nothing dogmatic about it. However, as Evolution has not yet been proven false, and, in fact, has been observed in both experimental AND natural settings on multiple occasions, and is repeatable, observable, and testable... it is accepted as the most likely truth.

Scientific theories require scientific rigour. Science will only hold creationist hypothesis with equal or any weight when it can demonstrate any sort of scientific rigor for its claims. 'You haven't figured it out yet' isn't a hole in science... it's the fundamental truth OF science. Science knows that, but seeks to correct holes in its knowledge.

PS: Just in case life on earth was placed here by an extraterrestrial life form (which is not relevant to evolution), science is, in fact, on the look out for evidence of extraterrestrial life forms. Cause, we don't know if they exist or not, and science goes 'This is a hole in our knowledge, so we must fix it.'

Also, just because we can't know or observe something now does not mean with increasing technology and improved techniques we cannot know or observe it in the future.
 

kidd25

New member
Jun 13, 2011
361
0
0
Monkey lord said:
kidd25 said:
Monkey lord said:
kidd25 said:
Monkey lord said:
kidd25 said:
Monkey lord said:
kidd25 said:
Monkey lord said:
what scientific evidence ?
can you please ask for what? for evolution, or for creationism?
creationism
well people seem to want science to prove somehow that their is a God, well if you take a look at all he created. Everything created can be made sense of through science, people say no its this and this, but i wonder why is it hard to say God worked logically? In another words, the proof is us, and everything in the universe says the creationist.
just because we don't have a perfict explination for evrything then it dosen't mean that the invisible wizard did it.
And have you read the bible?
if there is a god then he doesn't know the meaning of the word logic.
God are you talking about the laws of nature, if a thing did create the universe then why is it impossible for it to break the laws of nature, laws of nature and logic aren't the same thing :/

well no just because we don't have a perfect explication for something, doesn't mean that it was just God and that is it. there is somethings that are like that, for example breaking the laws of nature so far has been done by Jesus. but things like science and math, is reasoning and making thesis and hypothesis on different things.
there are no arcilogical evidence of jesue ever existing except for the bible and the bible is not hard evidence. And as far as creationism goes the only so called evidence they have is the bible says so.
http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4223639/k.567/Ancient_Evidence_for_Jesus_from_NonChristian_Sources.htm that website has outside sources talking about Jesus Christ, so either the Romans are lying about him or he actually lived. True most creationism do believe the bible on that of the creation of the world, but then do you believe the bible is one big myth or a bunch of little myths?
I actually think the bible is a big pile of crap.
and jesus beaing mentiond in other texts is not proof of his existens there are also some ancient texts discriping the origin of the universe in norse mythology if this is all the evidence you need then congratulations

the beginning of life was fire and ice, with the existence of only two worlds: Muspelheim and Niflheim. When the warm air of Muspelheim hit the cold ice of Niflheim, the jötunn Ymir and the icy cow Audhumla were created. Ymir's foot bred a son and a man and a woman emerged from his armpits, making Ymir the progenitor of the Jötnar. Whilst Ymir slept, the intense heat from Muspelheim made him sweat, and he sweated out Surtr[citation needed], a jötunn of fire. Later Ýmir woke and drank Auðhumla's milk. Whilst he drank, the cow Audhumbla licked on a salt stone. On the first day after this a man's hair appeared on the stone, on the second day a head and on the third day an entire man emerged from the stone. His name was Búri and with an unknown jövb bctunn female he fathered Borr (Bor), the father of the three gods Odin, Vili and Ve.

When the gods felt strong enough they killed Ymir. His blood flooded the world and drowned all of the jötunn, except two. But jötnar grew again in numbers and soon there were as many as before Ymir's death. Then the gods created seven more worlds using Ymir's flesh for dirt, his blood for the Oceans, rivers and lakes, his bones for stone, his brain as the clouds, his skull for the heaven. Sparks from Muspelheim flew up and became stars.

One day when the gods were walking they found two tree trunks. They transformed them into the shape of humans. Odin gave them life, Vili gave them mind and Ve gave them the ability to hear, see, and speak. The gods named them Askur and Embla and built the kingdom of Middle-earth for them; and, to keep out the jötnar, the gods placed a gigantic fence made of Ymir's eyelashes around Middle-earth.

why is this mythology but not the bible?
because there are things historians find that agree with the bible, such as towns or history describing what happen. which is also why people believe that Jews are one of the oldest race of people on earth. Also why do you believe the entire bible is crap, if history connects with it at times :/ it must carry at least some truth.
 

kidd25

New member
Jun 13, 2011
361
0
0
The-Epicly-Named-Man said:
kidd25 said:
The-Epicly-Named-Man said:
That's a very weak argument. I could just as easily say a monkey built it from the ruins of a past universe and then use your explanation as "evidence".
true, i ain't going to lie that is one way of looking at it. i should study some more before talking on this subject again, and please forgive my lack of knowledge on the subject >.<
Fair enough, we all say things we haven't fully thought through sometimes.
thank you for being so nice, and its been nice talking to you ^_^
 

DracoSuave

New member
Jan 26, 2009
1,685
0
0
kidd25 said:
because there are things historians find that agree with the bible, such as towns or history describing what happen. which is also why people believe that Jews are one of the oldest race of people on earth. Also why do you believe the entire bible is crap, if history connects with it at times :/ it must carry at least some truth.
Some historical events in the bible have been corroborated by history, and science. Some events in the bible, for example, a geneology leading back to the creation of man seven days after the universe, have been proven false by history, and science.

As the bible is proven to contain a mix of references to historical events that are corroborated, and miraculous occurances that have been disproven, it is therefore not a reliable text in terms of empirical data.

It's got some interesting things to say about how people should treat each other, and entire genres of awesome heavy metal are based on certain books inside it, but as a whole, it contains zero scientific merit.

Tho, the bible itself is an exercise in evolution.

Can the bible replicate? Absolutely. New copies of it are being made daily.
Can the bible mutate? Assuredly. Between typos and retranslations, one bible might not say the same as the next. Some have annotations, while others do not.
Can the bible be selected for? Indeed! Some versions of the bible are supported by some, and others lose adherants. Only the most popular versions stand the test of time.

With replication, mutation, and selection, the theory of evolution would predict that there will be multiple versions of the bible, both through time as small changes accumulate, and also multiple versions in the same point in time as divergent evolution takes hold.

As for the first, there are different printings of the bible, from the original versions of the books of the new testament, to the manuscripts written by monks, to the first printed bible, to the lurtheran bible, to the modern bible you read today. All are different. Indication of evolution.

Secondly, today, there are multiple versions of the bible, some even having differeing numbers of books. Protestantism uses a 66 book bible, while Eastern orthodox uses 84.

This isn't counting different versions within the same canon, like King James vs Lutheran.

The bible itself is empirical evidence that evolution will occur wherever there is reproduction, mutation, and selection.
 

LetalisK

New member
May 5, 2010
2,769
0
0
Considering the OP used the link to the jackass that's in prison for tax evasion using the astoundingly retarded line of logic "It's God's money, not mine, and thus non-taxable", I think I'll pass.

I think it was either this guy or another that was completely ripped to shreds by a biology forum he decided to start preaching on. I'll have to dig it up and see if it was him.
 

sharks9

New member
Mar 28, 2009
289
0
0
DracoSuave said:
Tho, the bible itself is an exercise in evolution.

Can the bible replicate? Absolutely. New copies of it are being made daily.
Can the bible mutate? Assuredly. Between typos and retranslations, one bible might not say the same as the next. Some have annotations, while others do not.
Can the bible be selected for? Indeed! Some versions of the bible are supported by some, and others lose adherants. Only the most popular versions stand the test of time.

With replication, mutation, and selection, the theory of evolution would predict that there will be multiple versions of the bible, both through time as small changes accumulate, and also multiple versions in the same point in time as divergent evolution takes hold.

As for the first, there are different printings of the bible, from the original versions of the books of the new testament, to the manuscripts written by monks, to the first printed bible, to the lurtheran bible, to the modern bible you read today. All are different. Indication of evolution.

Secondly, today, there are multiple versions of the bible, some even having differeing numbers of books. Protestantism uses a 66 book bible, while Eastern orthodox uses 84.

This isn't counting different versions within the same canon, like King James vs Lutheran.

The bible itself is empirical evidence that evolution will occur wherever there is reproduction, mutation, and selection.
You know the bible isn't alive, right? It can't do any of that stuff by itself, therefore it's not an example of evolution at all.

Also, the bible is essentially the same as it was when it was first put together. Obviously some words are different in different translations but the messages are mostly the same and they have ancient manuscripts that they can study and show that are similar to today's Bibles.
 

evilneko

Fall in line!
Jun 16, 2011
2,218
49
53
sharks9 said:
You know the bible isn't alive, right? It can't do any of that stuff by itself, therefore it's not an example of evolution at all.

Also, the bible is essentially the same as it was when it was first put together. Obviously some words are different in different translations but the messages are mostly the same and they have ancient manuscripts that they can study and show that are similar to today's Bibles.
Psst. [http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=define:analogy]
 

kidd25

New member
Jun 13, 2011
361
0
0
sharks9 said:
DracoSuave said:
Tho, the bible itself is an exercise in evolution.

Can the bible replicate? Absolutely. New copies of it are being made daily.
Can the bible mutate? Assuredly. Between typos and retranslations, one bible might not say the same as the next. Some have annotations, while others do not.
Can the bible be selected for? Indeed! Some versions of the bible are supported by some, and others lose adherants. Only the most popular versions stand the test of time.

With replication, mutation, and selection, the theory of evolution would predict that there will be multiple versions of the bible, both through time as small changes accumulate, and also multiple versions in the same point in time as divergent evolution takes hold.

As for the first, there are different printings of the bible, from the original versions of the books of the new testament, to the manuscripts written by monks, to the first printed bible, to the lurtheran bible, to the modern bible you read today. All are different. Indication of evolution.

Secondly, today, there are multiple versions of the bible, some even having differeing numbers of books. Protestantism uses a 66 book bible, while Eastern orthodox uses 84.

This isn't counting different versions within the same canon, like King James vs Lutheran.

The bible itself is empirical evidence that evolution will occur wherever there is reproduction, mutation, and selection.
You know the bible isn't alive, right? It can't do any of that stuff by itself, therefore it's not an example of evolution at all.

Also, the bible is essentially the same as it was when it was first put together. Obviously some words are different in different translations but the messages are mostly the same and they have ancient manuscripts that they can study and show that are similar to today's Bibles.
i believe he means to use it in the way of humans evolving while writing the book. Also saying that history disprove the bible is kinda hard to prove seeing how the bible does have historians saying that the bible was right on this and this. While other historians are saying oh no the bible is wrong this is what happen. now of course one side has to be right and the other wrong, but keep in mind that people have been wrong in science and in finding things about history.
 

DracoSuave

New member
Jan 26, 2009
1,685
0
0
sharks9 said:
DracoSuave said:
Tho, the bible itself is an exercise in evolution.

Can the bible replicate? Absolutely. New copies of it are being made daily.
Can the bible mutate? Assuredly. Between typos and retranslations, one bible might not say the same as the next. Some have annotations, while others do not.
Can the bible be selected for? Indeed! Some versions of the bible are supported by some, and others lose adherants. Only the most popular versions stand the test of time.

With replication, mutation, and selection, the theory of evolution would predict that there will be multiple versions of the bible, both through time as small changes accumulate, and also multiple versions in the same point in time as divergent evolution takes hold.

As for the first, there are different printings of the bible, from the original versions of the books of the new testament, to the manuscripts written by monks, to the first printed bible, to the lurtheran bible, to the modern bible you read today. All are different. Indication of evolution.

Secondly, today, there are multiple versions of the bible, some even having differeing numbers of books. Protestantism uses a 66 book bible, while Eastern orthodox uses 84.

This isn't counting different versions within the same canon, like King James vs Lutheran.

The bible itself is empirical evidence that evolution will occur wherever there is reproduction, mutation, and selection.
You know the bible isn't alive, right? It can't do any of that stuff by itself, therefore it's not an example of evolution at all.
Evolution is predicated on the reproduction of information, mutation of information, and selection based on that information.

Evolution has been observed in any model that is based on those three concepts. It's not just limited to life.

Also, whether or not it self replicates is currently up for discussion. Meme theory, and all that.

Also, the bible is essentially the same as it was when it was first put together.
Except of course, those that have entirely different books, or missing books, or entirely new testaments.

Where is the book of mormon in your King James Bible? The Apocrypha?

Obviously some words are different in different translations but the messages are mostly the same and they have ancient manuscripts that they can study and show that are similar to today's Bibles.
Similiar != same. Mostly the same != same.

Also, twenty extra books != the same. (Compare King James to Eastern Orthodox.)

In fact, there are bible translations created strictly for political reasons. Like... oh... King James?
 

GodofCider

New member
Nov 16, 2010
502
0
0
Cowabungaa said:
Sadly, I have. There just wasn't much science to speak off. Actually, there wasn't any, just a whole lot of bullshit. That Dr Dino crap...


Also, the amount of people in this thread who say that we involved from monkeys or apes make me sad. Just...*sigh* I give up.
Well hey, technically we did evolve from apes...since we never stopped being apes.

Mmm, word play.

That said, the original question made my brain do exactly as your picture illustrates.

Like asking: Have you studied the scientific evidence for magic?

"Brain is full of..."
 

Evidencebased

New member
Feb 28, 2011
248
0
0
xiac79 said:
Amphoteric said:
xiac79 said:
I find the results less than believeable. Any discussion i have had involving evolution (and most other acedemic topics) involve very little knowledge beyond a basic highschool and perhaps rudimentry freshman college understanding of current trends and theories. something you learned in highschool or your 100 level biology class does not constitute a study of evolutionary theory. Both sides of the evolutionary arguement are guilty of this.
Well seeing as there is no evidence for creationism it isn't that difficult to have seen it all.
Your statement proves my point. There is also no empiracle, repeatable, or demonstrable evidence of self actuated organic evolution on the multi-celular level. What we have is a large amount evidence who's most logical expliantion we can formulate lends itself to our current views of Organic evolution. However as it is still a theoretical science, a new discovery at any time, could completly invalidate our current understanding, as has happened with many well accepted theories throughout history.

There is always that possibility that some god or space alien of vastly supierior knowledge could show up tomorrow and laugh at our meager understanding. As we do not know for sure, it is pretty presumptious of anyone on either side of the arguement to laugh and point the finger of scorn at the other. Placing more creedance in a theory than it rightly deserves is akin to dogmatic faith and places credible scientific threory directly in the realm of theology.
Yes, the Theory of Evolution is falsifiable. Welcome to the world of all science ever.

However, when our main options are "evolution via natural selection explains this" or "a wizard did it!" then I'm gonna stick with the model of reality that lets us have fun stuff like cancer treatments and antibiotics and agriculture. If it's secretly all just an omnipotent alien screwing with us, then when he shows up I'll thank him for being so incredibly consistent with his magic that we've been able to develop totally incorrect but nonetheless perfectly useable and predictive scientific theories based on it. That was very kind of him. :p
 

sharks9

New member
Mar 28, 2009
289
0
0
DracoSuave said:
Also, the bible is essentially the same as it was when it was first put together.
Except of course, those that have entirely different books, or missing books, or entirely new testaments.

Where is the book of mormon in your King James Bible? The Apocrypha?

Obviously some words are different in different translations but the messages are mostly the same and they have ancient manuscripts that they can study and show that are similar to today's Bibles.
Similiar != same. Mostly the same != same.

Also, twenty extra books != the same. (Compare King James to Eastern Orthodox.)

In fact, there are bible translations created strictly for political reasons. Like... oh... King James?
My bad for not specifying the Bible I was talking about was the Protestant Bible and by the same, I meant the messages were the same. Yes there are different books that have been removed/added from the Old Testament, but the New Testament has been established for centuries and is the same as it was hundreds of years ago. The main reason for difference in words is the fact that not all the original words can be properly translated into English so if you want to read the Bible as it was originally written, simply learn Greek or Hebrew.

Also, the Book of Mormon is not considered part of the bible, it's considered a separate document.
 

DracoSuave

New member
Jan 26, 2009
1,685
0
0
sharks9 said:
DracoSuave said:
Also, the bible is essentially the same as it was when it was first put together.
Except of course, those that have entirely different books, or missing books, or entirely new testaments.

Where is the book of mormon in your King James Bible? The Apocrypha?

Obviously some words are different in different translations but the messages are mostly the same and they have ancient manuscripts that they can study and show that are similar to today's Bibles.
Similiar != same. Mostly the same != same.

Also, twenty extra books != the same. (Compare King James to Eastern Orthodox.)

In fact, there are bible translations created strictly for political reasons. Like... oh... King James?
My bad for not specifying the Bible I was talking about was the Protestant Bible and by the same, I meant the messages were the same. Yes there are different books that have been removed/added from the Old Testament, but the New Testament has been established for centuries and is the same as it was hundreds of years ago. The main reason for difference in words is the fact that not all the original words can be properly translated into English so if you want to read the Bible as it was originally written, simply learn Greek or Hebrew.

Also, the Book of Mormon is not considered part of the bible, it's considered a separate document.
So parts of the bible have been added to, or subtracted from, but that doesn't matter cause that's the Old Testament?

Protestantism took books out of the bible. It's really that simple. It doesn't matter if they were Old Testament OR New Testament... protestantism does not acknowledge the Apocrypha.

That's a change to the scripture. Nit picking about which parts were changed is irrelevant.
 

DracoSuave

New member
Jan 26, 2009
1,685
0
0
DracoSuave said:
sharks9 said:
DracoSuave said:
Also, the bible is essentially the same as it was when it was first put together.
Except of course, those that have entirely different books, or missing books, or entirely new testaments.

Where is the book of mormon in your King James Bible? The Apocrypha?

Obviously some words are different in different translations but the messages are mostly the same and they have ancient manuscripts that they can study and show that are similar to today's Bibles.
Similiar != same. Mostly the same != same.

Also, twenty extra books != the same. (Compare King James to Eastern Orthodox.)

In fact, there are bible translations created strictly for political reasons. Like... oh... King James?
My bad for not specifying the Bible I was talking about was the Protestant Bible and by the same, I meant the messages were the same. Yes there are different books that have been removed/added from the Old Testament, but the New Testament has been established for centuries and is the same as it was hundreds of years ago. The main reason for difference in words is the fact that not all the original words can be properly translated into English so if you want to read the Bible as it was originally written, simply learn Greek or Hebrew.

Also, the Book of Mormon is not considered part of the bible, it's considered a separate document.
So parts of the bible have been added to, or subtracted from, but that doesn't matter cause that's the Old Testament?

Protestantism took books out of the bible. It's really that simple. It doesn't matter if they were Old Testament OR New Testament... protestantism does not acknowledge the Apocrypha.

That's a change to the scripture. Nit picking about which parts were changed is irrelevant.
Also, you still haven't answered to the King James Bible thing. You know... how it was created so that King James could have a bible to match what the new Church of England prefered to see in a bible?

Go look it up. Political pressures forced a translation of the bible.
 

Thaliur

New member
Jan 3, 2008
617
0
0
evilneko said:
Thaliur said:
I hope you don't mind but I'm going to steal this post and quote it whenever another thread like this comes up.
Sure, go ahead. I just linked and commented a few videos, barely original work. Though if you do quote it, please remove the horrible typos. I had the Preview turned on and for some reason it seems to have caused my computer to swallow some letters.
kidd25 said:
because there are things historians find that agree with the bible, such as towns or history describing what happen. which is also why people believe that Jews are one of the oldest race of people on earth. Also why do you believe the entire bible is crap, if history connects with it at times :/ it must carry at least some truth.
The problem with this way of thinking is, that it reverses logic. If parts of history coincidentally match biblical descriptions, that does not necessarily mean that the rest of the bible is true, too.
Also, some connections are really far-fetched.

And Jews are not a race! I'm German, and I had history classes, I should know. Jews are people who follow a certain religion, NOT a race. Semites might be a race, maybe Asians, maybe Massai (as far as I remember they are physically different from other people in their area), but following a certain set of beliefs does NOT make people a race.
This is horribly off-topic though, so we should ignore this point. I just wanted to point it out. We had enough trouble with people claiming that telling school kids to drink some water if they are thirsty to the point of being unable to concentrate or effectively do anything at all during Ramadan is racist. It is not. It is just pointing out conflicts between religion and reality.
kidd25 said:
i believe he means to use it in the way of humans evolving while writing the book. Also saying that history disprove the bible is kinda hard to prove seeing how the bible does have historians saying that the bible was right on this and this. While other historians are saying oh no the bible is wrong this is what happen. now of course one side has to be right and the other wrong, but keep in mind that people have been wrong in science and in finding things about history.
Yes, people have been wrong in science and history. People have also been wrong in religion. Guess which people admitted that they were wrong?
Protestants in Germany pointed out in 1997 that witch trials were unjust and wrong. The pope waited until the year 2000 to basically say "hey, we're sorry for burning all those innocent people and destroying the medical standards of their communities".

But hey, scientists have been wrong, so the Bible must be right...
sharks9 said:
DracoSuave said:
Also, the bible is essentially the same as it was when it was first put together.
Except of course, those that have entirely different books, or missing books, or entirely new testaments.

Where is the book of mormon in your King James Bible? The Apocrypha?

Obviously some words are different in different translations but the messages are mostly the same and they have ancient manuscripts that they can study and show that are similar to today's Bibles.
Similiar != same. Mostly the same != same.

Also, twenty extra books != the same. (Compare King James to Eastern Orthodox.)

In fact, there are bible translations created strictly for political reasons. Like... oh... King James?
My bad for not specifying the Bible I was talking about was the Protestant Bible and by the same, I meant the messages were the same. Yes there are different books that have been removed/added from the Old Testament, but the New Testament has been established for centuries and is the same as it was hundreds of years ago. The main reason for difference in words is the fact that not all the original words can be properly translated into English so if you want to read the Bible as it was originally written, simply learn Greek or Hebrew.

Also, the Book of Mormon is not considered part of the bible, it's considered a separate document.
True, the book of Mormon is essentially fan fiction.

But the necessity to point out the bible version you were talking about alone shows that the bible was subject to change.
Heavy change, actually, even before it was written down, which is why it can never be considered a reliable source of history. Stories, yes. Stories with a morale, definitely, but historical fact, not.
 

sharks9

New member
Mar 28, 2009
289
0
0
DracoSuave said:
So parts of the bible have been added to, or subtracted from, but that doesn't matter cause that's the Old Testament?

Protestantism took books out of the bible. It's really that simple. It doesn't matter if they were Old Testament OR New Testament... protestantism does not acknowledge the Apocrypha.

That's a change to the scripture. Nit picking about which parts were changed is irrelevant.
Doesn't matter as much as the New Testament, which is central to Christianity and has been proven to be historically reliable.

Protestantism took out books which were not in the Masoretic Text, which defines the books of the Jewish canon and is thus used as basis for the Old Testament by Protestants and even some Catholics.

But the important thing is all the main books have been unchanged for centuries.

Yes I know about KJV of the Bible but it's hardly used anymore except by elderly people so it's not that relevant. And no one uses it as a basis for translation for new Bibles so it's changes in message won't affect any new Bibles being produced.
 

DracoSuave

New member
Jan 26, 2009
1,685
0
0
sharks9 said:
DracoSuave said:
So parts of the bible have been added to, or subtracted from, but that doesn't matter cause that's the Old Testament?

Protestantism took books out of the bible. It's really that simple. It doesn't matter if they were Old Testament OR New Testament... protestantism does not acknowledge the Apocrypha.

That's a change to the scripture. Nit picking about which parts were changed is irrelevant.
Doesn't matter as much as the New Testament, which is central to Christianity and has been proven to be historically reliable.
Except, of course, that the parts of the bible used to support Young Earth Creationism ARE in the Old Testament, thus making it completely relevant to the central point I was making.

Protestantism took out books which were not in the Masoretic Text, which defines the books of the Jewish canon and is thus used as basis for the Old Testament by Protestants and even some Catholics.
Which doesn't change the fact that the Christian canon was established well before protestantism Existed, and Protestantism decided to change the canon from centuries of Christian tradition.

And the point has NOTHING to do with why they changed it. The point is... it changed. It changes. It evolves. The exact nature of those changes is completely pointless to nitpick over. Protestantism does NOT have the original christian canon.

But the important thing is all the main books have been unchanged for centuries.
No, the main point is that the books were changed at all.

Yes I know about KJV of the Bible but it's hardly used anymore except by elderly people so it's not that relevant. And no one uses it as a basis for translation for new Bibles so it's changes in message won't affect any new Bibles being produced.
Unless you completely ignore the existance of Anglicanism, and the NKJV. The New King James Version is not at ALL influenced by the King James, right? No?

Okay.

Regardless, it doesn't alter the central point. Defending the changes specific versions made to a bible, for whatever reason, involves admitting those changes were there. Either the changes were there, or they were not. And for the central point, that being that the Bible itself evolves over time... is very relevant.

Insisting ONE version is 'unchanged' can be proven to be false anyways. Look up Exodus 22:18.

Now, if your version says 'witch' then your translation is not accurate, and you have one of the versions of the bible that has altered in meaning to represent the beliefs and fears of the ruling class of its time.
 

Thaliur

New member
Jan 3, 2008
617
0
0
DracoSuave said:
Insisting ONE version is 'unchanged' can be proven to be false anyways. Look up Exodus 22:18.

Now, if your version says 'witch' then your translation is not accurate, and you have one of the versions of the bible that has altered in meaning to represent the beliefs and fears of the ruling class of its time.
Not to mention the changes the texts went through before they were written down at all. Not necessarily on purpose. Certainly some people forgot parts of a story they didn't find all that interesting, or certain actions were attributed to people who they thought could have performed them.

I can't find the exact source right now, but there have been theories that certain characters in the bible (especially those with amazing lifespans like Noah, and other important ones like Jesus) are essentially "bundles" of multiple people.
If that was the case, it would also be an explanation how Jesus could appear in historical Roman scriptures. Early christians might have attributed the miracle stories to him, thus he was mentioned in conversations like an actual person.

This has nothing to do with evolution of course, but is interesting anyway.