Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Does Intelligent Design deny the Existence of God?

2008-04-21T03:51:06Z

Dulos:

{{debate}}

Consider the following:

Most (if not all) monotheistic religions are based on faith. Their god (or gods if taken collectively) requires followers to believe without direct evidence. The story of 'doubting' Thomas in the new Testament is typical of such requirements to believe and have faith, often in the face of adversity. In addition, these supreme being have omniscience.

However, Intelligent Design requires that there is an omniscient creator who has used his or her intelligence to underpin the creation of living things, and has left the evidence around for all to see. There is clearly a contradiction here.

Let us suppose that the premise of Intelligent Design is true: that is, that Life as we know it was created by some intelligent being, and this can be asserted from the evidence of our senses, and arguments such as: 'The creation of a living being by chance is as unlikely as a Boeing 757 to be reassembled by a whirlwind from parts in a hangar' are valid. This means that Intelligent Design becomes a 'non-negotiable' fact, which proves the existence of a creator.

However, you cannot now claim that that creator was an omniscient God, otherwise you are claiming that you an incontravertable proof of the existence of God, which denies the idea of 'faith', a cornerstone of monotheistic religion. Therefore it cannot be claimed that the Intelligent Designer is God, unless you are claiming that God created the world, then carelessly left the evidence for all to see. This would deny his omniscience.

This is OK, except that you now have an intelligent designer, whose existence you have to account for. This means that the initial problem has not been solved, merely increased; whereas before, you merely have to account for the existence of creation, you now have to account for the existence of the creation + intelligent designer.

There are only two ways out of this:

(i) By invoking an intelligent designer mark 2. This process can be seen to be impossible, as it clearly leads to infinite regress. There is no get out here, as at no point, can you claim that any of these intelligent designers IS God, because the requirement of 'faith' denies you the luxury of proof, which is precisely what you would be claiming to have.

or

(ii) By invoking a naturalistic process (such as evolution). However, we now have the contradiction that the assumption of the validity of Intelligent Design leads to the conclusion that a 'naturalistic' process created everythiong after all. This is clearly a contradiction.

At best, therefore, it seems that any claim for Intelligent Design cannot be used as evidence of the existence of an omniscient God; at worst, by claiming that Intelligent Design is true you would be asserting the non-existence of an omniscient God, because by possessing proof of the validity of ID, you are denying faith, and therefore undermining God's requirement to believe.

--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 04:03, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

This one strikes me as easy: ID is neither provable nor unprovable in the natural world. Therefore it does not provide evidence of a creator. This avoids the crisis of faith.[[User:Tom Stockton|Tom Stockton]] 22:04, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

'''Discuss:'''

'''Warning:''' Religion and logic - strange bedfellows.

It seems to me that what you say is correct up to a point. The logical way out for the [[Intelligent Designist]] must be to accept that God does not require belief without evidence. However, adopting that position has the potential to become embarrassing when, at some point in the future, science demonstrates that ID is wrong. At that point the IDist would be left utterly empty-handed. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 05:52, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

'''Warning''' Don't believe in God because Science is our true master.

Only humans (the clay) tells God (The Potter) you can't do anything for me.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:48, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
: I am obviously completely dense. That remark makes no sense to me at all. Please explain. --[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 12:56, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::[[User:Jpatt|jp]] is assuming the existence of the IDer (the Potter, notice it's capitalized), in order to utterly demolish your argument. That is, "since the universe ''was'' Intelligently Designed, you are wrong". I find your thesis to be fascinating, although I think there might be loopholes - for instance, YHWH giving some evidence for benevolent creation, but not enough on it's own to justify belief in full without faith. I don't actually think that undermines your point, though. I'm going to have to sleep on this one and come back here later. [[User:Human|Human]] 20:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

This argument sounds like Douglas Adams' "Logical proof of the non-existence of God", which caused Him to 'vanish in a puff of logic'. After all, to the folks who saw Moses, Jesus, or Elijah at work doing miracles, "faith" was no more necessary than you or I need to have 'faith' in gravity. We only need it now because big, flashy, obvious miracles are so few and far between. --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 22:32, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

From listening to what the Pope has to say, it seems as if he believes intelligent design is to narrow an explanation. When science can't explain, intelligent design is substituded. When everything is the origin of God, not just the unexplained. I may be misinterpreting the Pope, but I believe that is the crux of the answer to intelligent design he conveys to faithful.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:45, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:Notice that the Hebrews, even ''with'' the miracles and everything, in both Moses and Jesus' time the ''majority'' of people still did not believe. Faith was still an important factor, even wit all the miracles. [[User:DebateKid|DebateKid]] 13:44, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

==No==

This is a silly question. Intelligent Design says that someone or something created everything, Biblical Creationism merely extends this by saying that God is that someone, and explaining in what order He did it. I don't see that there's any doubt that nothing in "Intelligent Design" contradicts the existence of God - it merely leaves the "name" field blank. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 10:15, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
:Huh? Isn't Intelligent Design was the belief that God laid down some microbes or something on Earth, and after nudging them towards evolution by natural selection, sort of disappeared from the picture (in a [[Deism|Deistic]] sort of way.... At least, what was explained to me was that Intelligent Design only needs to be used to explain irreducably complex processes, and uses evolution to fill in the rest.... [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 12:34, 12 November 2007 (EST)

they can't contradict. intelligent design is a way of making creationism seem like science anyway, so it would be rather nonsensical if they did.
(Rowan)

Catwatcher has some good points but I think that his/her first premise is incorrect in as much as, God would not lead to an infinite regress of events because time itself was created along with matter at the same moment. God, the being, existed before creation outside of what we know as time. It is NOT like He exists forever, because our knowledge through physics of this dimension we know as "time," is limited to what we can study. God is way beyond anything we can study, except with the tools He wanted us to study Him, namely the bible. God entered into time when he created it. Time is actually probably something that is irrelevant to God, except in the sense of our relation to it because he says the first shall be last and the last shall be first. That implies that He only sees time as a human relevancy. In other words, apart from His creation, time is meaningless and pointless to Him.

I believe the study of intelligent design is an avenue to reach a scientific audience with Gods plan. I am VERY scientific, and I needed some science to point me in the right direction before I was saved. It may be more important/relevant to a strict scientific community because it IS a scientific theory that has LOTS of evidence behind it. And really, all other theories far short. The most popular, evolution, for instance is not something we can study be the scientific method; But, I.D. is something we can witness all day long every single day. Complex, information loaded "things" are over-loading our senses all the time.

-matt

Debate:Grave errors/inconsistencies in the Bible make literal translation worthless.

2008-04-21T03:21:40Z

Dulos:

The bible cannot truly be taken literally, because its facts contradict itself. Take the gospels of Luke and Matthew, for example. Matthew states that in the lineage between Jesus and David there are 42 entires, and Luke proclaims only 27, and only three of them overlap. Obviously, both cannot be right, and cannot be used with literal conviction. Also, if Jesus is truly of virgin birth, then he cannot be the Messiah. The Old Testament clearly proclaims that the messiah must be David's descendant. Since Joseph was supposedly a descendant of David, this would make sense, but if he didn't shoot his DNA at Mary, then how can Jesus be the messiah at all? Something is clearly amiss here, and removes credibility from a literal bible. Finally, Matthew chronicles a census ordered by Caesar Augustus happening during the time that Mary and Joseph settled in Bethlehem. However, there were no censi taken at this time by Caesar Augustus. The closest on was done by Qurinin, and that was in 6 AD, no sooner. I question whether any of these bible literalists have actually read the bibles they claim dictate their lives, as if they did, they'd realize how truly ridiculous some of the errors are. [[[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]] 23:17, 17 April 2007 (EDT)]]

:This is not a problem as it is far more appropriate to say that the Bible is only intended to be literarily true, as many of the comments below elaborate upon. Be careful; the Bible has withstood the test of scholarship for milenia and you are putting your scholarship (or lack thereof) on display. [[User:Qwestor|Qwestor]] 09:32, 02 January 2008 (EST)

Matthew and Luke give two different liniages. Matthew gave Joseph's, and Luke is giving Mary's. As such, Mary is also a descendant of David, and thus Jesus could still be born of a virgin and be the Messiah of David's lineage. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] March 3 2008

==No discernment==
If you are looking for the truth then you'd better start looking harder and longer. Understanding the Word of God is a little different then reading your school textbook. It sounds like you did a rudimentary scan of the Bible only to find everything not to be totally synchronic. The lineage answer is here: http://www.gracethrufaith.com/ask-a-bible-teacher/are-josephs-and-marys-lineage-incorrect
You go on from there, but it is only the same type of faulty logic used with an incomplete picture of actual history. You use selective facts in a subjective manner in order to prove your agenda that the Bible cannot be taken literally. What context are you trying to find these literal inconsistancies? The Creation, the Garden of Eden, the Flood, or the Exodus? These are the literal truths of the Bible. If you don't believe in the One that wrote the Bible then don't waste your time in finding any literal truth in it because you don't have the key.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 19:26, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:'''''Wow'''''. So, this book which you and your sort wish to hold out to me and [[Liberal|my]] [[Atheist|sort]] as being ultimate revealed truth, cannot be understood properly unless I have already accepted your worldview? You know, there are same Christians out there who love the bible, and Jesus, and God, and don't worry about literalism. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:49, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Typical response. My main argument against a literal interpretation of the Bible is that "the One" didn't write the entire bible, which includes texts that were never meant to be incorporated with others. Also, the Bible as we knew it has gone through numerous translations; it wasn't originally written in English, because it didn't exist back then. Because of the multiple translations needed to get to English, all sense of context is lost since the original Aramic or Hebrew. A crude but effective test can be done on those free translations websites. Take a slang phrase (or any other phrase) such as "All dressed up and nowhere to go", or something like that. Translate it from English to French, then French to German, then from German to English. You'll find that the new phrase has zero relationship with the original one. Admittedly, translation would be more sophisticated via the human element, but the point is the same. Nobody can accept a literal interpretation of the bible through the English version; the ONLY way to get an accurate interpretation of the Bible is through the original root languages. Otherwise, any literal interpretation is simply a fallacy. And I SINCERELY doubt that you have read the entire collected works of the Bible in its original Hebrew and Aramic. By the way, those websites do not describe how Jesus could have been the Messiah AND of virgin birth. He cannot be both, for if he is of immaculate conception, he doesn't meet the requirements of the prophecy in the Old Testament (on a side note, isn't it funny how god is much meaner and nastier in the Old Testament than in the New?). However, if he is descended from David through Joseph, making him the messiah, that denies a main tenet of Jesus being of immaculate conception. Ergo, it is silly and plain false to take a literal interpretation of the Bible, which was purely meant to describe a template for good and compassion in a world lacking those qualities.
One other point: after the Flood, God used the rainbow as a symbol to people that he was so distraught by his destruction of the world that he would never do anything cataclysmic again. So how does that hold against the claims of a coming Judgement or any of that other stuff? [[[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]] 12:19, 20 April 2007 (EDT)]]

In the eternal worlds of Homer Simpson: 'Facts, schmacts. Facts can be used to prove anything that's even remotely true.' That's exactly what you are doing: flying in the face of the facts. [[[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]] 12:25, 20 April 2007 (EDT)]]

::Typical legalism. I've heard them a thousand times. Usually a big waste of time trying to argue a point. Fine then, for you, this point is worthless. Since you won't accept what it says is the antithesis of your religious belief. Be a nihilist. You wish to slander the wisdom of a book thousands of years older then you'll ever be. You offer nothing to fill the void. By the way the rainbow was the symbol God used to show mankind He would never again destroy the entire world by flood. The Judgement day is when all of mankind will come before their Creator and be judged worthy to live or die. Then you can argue all of your legalist points and tell Him how badly he goofed everything up. That should go good for you. The final 7 year Tribulation that culminates at a little place called Har Megiddo, a.k.a. Armegedon, doesn't result in the total destruction of mankind. Just a third or two of it. But why do I wast my time here? You have no faith in Him, so His words are meaningless to you. They are foolishness to those without faith.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 22:19, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
::: You are right, do not waste any time of yours. If you are part of the establishment on this wiki, take such blasphemists off the board since they obviously do not believe in the book that holds ALL the truth and ALWAYS has. Evolution is a theory, what the Bible says about man/life is the truth. All the stuff about fossils and carbon dating and gene structure and function and the similarity between genes and proteins among humans, chimps, worms, mice and rats are all a scientific conspiracy designed to make believers in the literal truth of the Bible look bad. I mean, scientists make up things and are dishonest while men of God are honorable and are always seeking the truth as stated in the Bible. The real problem is that Gutenberg came along and made it possible not only to make copies of the Bible but blasphemies like textbooks in the sciences and humanities. Worse, Galileo was let off the hook last century for his blasphemies, the Sun does go around the Earth and we are the center of the Universe. The real enemies are not Muslims or Buddhists or Hindus or Bahais or the Jews - but teachers and professors who have the temerity of teaching students how to think and question everything. And how dare does anyone question the eternal truths in the Bible? All of it is true, and anyone who says anything else is evil. [[User:Seekcommon]]

Roo, just s simple question, "Why do you believe the bible to be true?". Really, what happened in your life for you to believe that this 2000 year old book has more validity than physical evidence that has been provided over the past 100 years? Did you know that most people are Christian, not because they studied other religions and chose one, because they were indoctrinated into it by their parents and communities? Perhaps you should ask yourself the reason why it irritates you so much when people question your beliefs. Maybe it is because you want to answer them but can not find the answers in the religion and now you are starting to doubt what you have been taught? Take the higher road and look at research or research for yourself, if you start to make things up or provide information that is misleading then you are just getting trapped.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 09:05, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

:I know the Bible to be true not only because I have studied it for decades. But because of people who know nothing about it continue to make fun of it just as little children make fun of someone they don't understand at elementary school. They are the reasons why I am, as well as others, are driven to study it. I read the simplistic little smug attacks on Judaism and Christianity and see only foolishness. Whether or not they are Humanist or Nihilist, I'd prefer them to stick to commenting on something they know something about. There are no grave errors or inconsistencies within the Bible. This is only professed by those who hate Christians and Jews that keep repeating it in the vain hope someone will believe them. Just because you don't get it doesn't make it errant. It may be your just not scholarly enough. The religious beliefs in evolutionary theories are what have well documented grave errors and inconsistencies. The theory of evolution is a delusion hatched from a fantasy that never happened and continues not to happen. It is unfalsifiable. This is all that is offered as the antithesis to Gods word. This religious belief you profess as science isn't at all scientific. It's rather called a FAITH. Of which the foundations of that faith are crumbling into dust. Its priestly class of teachers and professors have indoctrinated their faithful students only to mock and belittle those who don't believe in the religion of evolution.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:26, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::Wow, Roo, sounds harsh. I just wanted to know was what made you a Christian? I have to mention that I am a bible scholar, have read many different translations and have seen first hand some of the inconsistencies found in the bible and its chapters. I keep an open mind and look at the bible as metaphorical instead of literal so that I can keep faith in its message, however logically it does have issues. Perhaps you could study it a little bit more and try to see these things yourself? The point I made above about indoctrination still holds true, very few people actually take the time to study the Quran and other religious texts, and perhaps you should spend some time to see the difference between the bible and these texts. As for Evolution, I would have to say you seem not to be aware of the biological sciences. Many biological predictions have come about due to evolution and many observable events have roots in evolutionary theory. It is far from a delusion and fare from unfalsifiable, I have pointed these things out to you on the debate page before but you have yet to respond.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:36, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::TimS, Yeshua Messiach's death and resurrection is what makes me a Christian. How about you? I would be very interested to hear about some of your first hand inconsistencies that you've found in the bible and its chapters. Also, be careful in using the open mind or being more open adage. Being so open that you fall for anything while also standing for nothing comes to my mind. Not to infer to be close minded either. Just be mindful. Metaphorically speaking, as it were.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 13:50, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Roo, just a few things. First, how do you know that the story of Jesus is true and not embellished? Second, I am agnostic, I do not claim to be right with any religion. Third, here is a list for you <ref>http://www.cs.umd.edu/~mvz/bible/bible-inconsistencies.pdf</ref>. Forth, having an open mind does not mean you take everything at face value. Having an open mind means that you are willing to listen and try to understand the logic of something before judging it false. I have studied the bible, have you studied evolution yet? Here is a link to a wonderful book that would give you the background in evolutionary theory to better debate your position. <ref>http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/GOUSTR.html</ref> I believe it would help you understand the theory and perhaps come to accept it but if not then it will at least provide you with some background information so you do not fail when debating with someone.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:10, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Tims, the link you give is from the University of Maryland's Department of Computer Science. When using the search function input with bible I found the list of over 700 inconsistencies along with a description below it that says: "has been used by bible believers to justify all kinds of cruelty to ..." http://www.googlesyndicatedsearch.com/u/csumd?q=bible&domains=www.cs.umd.edu&sitesearch=www.cs.umd.edu
::::Your so-called list is merely 700 childish statements of ignorant mockery towards the Word of God. None of which presented any actual inconsistencies that couldn't be solved with any serious examination. I'm sure it wasn't intended to be malicious. Since you say you are an agnostic then it's a waste of time to give you directions to a place you've no intention to go to. As for the reference to the book: The Structure of Evolutionary Theory by Stephen Jay Gould, it is another good example of how the adherents to the ideology of Darwin keep changing itself. That's what makes it UNFALSIFIABLE. It is able to change itself by evolving to conform to any new hypothesis, or evidence, especially the lack of it, that comes down the road. Get it? It just keeps evolving.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:44, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::That is correct Roo, a link that was a PDF, easier to read. Did you happen to read through the list? There are many inconsistencies that can only be resolved by a liberal application of interpretation, like you mentioned above serious examination. If you take it literally, like you seem to take the creation account in the bible, then you can not explain the inconsistencies. For example how do you explain these two points 1. "The Amalekites were smitten before Amalek (from whom they descended) was born. Amalek was the grandson of Esau (Gen.36:12). 14:7" 2."Noah kills the "clean beasts" and burns their dead bodies for God. According to 7:8 this would have caused the extinction of all "clean" animals since only two of each were taken onto the ark.” Just looking on line and reading the bible you can see the other inconsistencies that stand out, when you are looking. The logic of the bible is often flawed. I believe it has some very good points about how to live with others but I think it should not be taken literally when other evidence has shown it to be false.
:::::If I understand correctly you are talking about heaven when you said direction to a place where I have no intention to go. Just a point, when you look at the logic of heaven did you ever wonder how a person could be truly satisfied? Think on it, if you are in heaven and your family is below then you would have a longing for them. If you were doing the same thing day after day then you would have a longing for something different. The only logical way for a heaven to exist is to wipe the mind and individuality away of the human. So in essence destroy the being. Does not sound like heaven to me. Perhaps I am wrong but the heaven of the bible sounds worse than any prison on earth.
:::::Roo, once again you show your lack of scientific understanding. Theories do adapt to new research but if the basic premise of the theory is not proven false it still stands. For the theory of evolution the basic premise is that organisms evolve over time in response to their environment. Has anyone provided proof to the contrary of this? That is the falsifiablity of the theory. As we learn more about molecular biology we learn more about the mechanisms that contribute to evolution. It does not change the basic premise of the theory only reinforces it. Like I said it would behoove you to read more on this subject to better educate yourself.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:02, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

::Well, that meets the definition of being unfalsifiable, doesn't it? There will never be the evidence that once and for all will prove its validity, so that neither can it be invalidated. A perfect example of its own circular logic. The only reinforcement you will ever see within the field of evolution theory is the evolution of the theory itself. Forever adapting to whatever the next great new hypothesis comes down the trail. But before you accuse me again of having a lack of scientific understanding let me say that you too also show a lack of understanding. By believing the statements made in the PDF from your link you have indeed proven your own lack of understanding of the Bible. Although as a matter of simple logic you wouldn't want to seek any truth within the Bible. It is inconsistant with your belief in evolutionary theory. You can't believe in a Creator since only creatures are acknowledged without their Creator to an evolutionist. It would be only logical to embrace evolution and reject the Bible. Yes, you are also way wrong with that Heaven thing you got there.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 15:53, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Roo, it does not meet the definition of being non-falsifiable. I gave you examples in previous conversations as to what would falsify evolution. Please read and try to understand them. I never said I believe the statements in the PDF, just that they point out some issues in the logic of the wording. You made a claim that the bible had no errors, I just showed you some of the logic errors that have been reported. I can not understand where you get that my understanding would be flawed when what I presented was black and white. Your statement about not believing in a creator is a bit far fetched, I could be some other religion besides Christian and not believe the same as you do but believe in evolution and a creator. Your logic seems to be limited based on your worldview of the situation. I would advise that you open your mind and try reading some research and come to your own conclusions.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 16:49, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::::TimS, you say you don't believe in the statements of the PDF and yet they point out issues of logic? That in itself isn't logical. The worldview of believing in a Creator while at the same time believing in a theory of Evolution that rejects a Creator is also illogical. I also believe that the kind of open mind your talking about is the kind that stands for nothing and will fall for anything. You can begin to see where this is going, don't you?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 21:53, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

I got to say, I looked through that list of inconsistencies (reference 1), hoping to find something really juicy, but most of them were nit-picky while the rest were not 100% inconsistent. I didn't read the whole thing, but that list seems pretty bogus (that is, if it were created with the intention of proving false a literal interpretation). I don't like things like that; they foster anger and not discussion.

I just wanted to say a few things here. In reference to an earlier comment made by SeekCommon, I'm a scientist, and I don't think that I make things up more than any given man of God. We are all human, and it is all of our capacities to lie and falsify.

Also, I'd like to defend evolution. Evolution is a theory. So are gravity, the jet stream, eyesight, relativity, electricity, and so on and so on. We scientists realize that we can never be sure to know that anything is completely, certainly, without-any-doubt-at-all true. So we use the word "theory." For instance, in paper I'm writing for publication (hopefully soon), I show some peculiar behavior I've observed in certain compounds then I come up with a theory to explain it. Once published, other scientists might realize that my theory helps explain phenomenon they've noticed, so they would write a paper and reference my theory. This might continue until so much work is at least slightly based on my theory that not many people question it. But we would still call it a theory because, unless God himself comes down and tells us to grab a pen because he's about to explain it to us, we will never be absolutely sure that our theories are correct. There are cases throughout history of relatively-recent theories being proven wrong (classical physics is a famous example of a theory that couldn't understand why it couldn't explain everything), but these are surprisingly rare. That's the beauty of our system; we take nothing for granted, and this makes us able to explain how the world works (and at this point we recognize that we can't be too wrong considering that we having working cars, computers, medicine, and the like).

So, I hope that helps people understand what is meant by "theory." In some sense, the concept of evolution does have to slightly change to stay recent with respect to new research. But the sort of thing that changes in the theory are the scientific details lay-folk don't understand anyway. If the crux of the argument, that slow genetic changes occur in populations over long periods of time, turns out to be wrong, then evolution will be proven false. But a new theory will take its place. So if your problem with evolution is that it contradicts the Bible (which, judging by where this argument is taking place, it probably is), let's not argue the falsifiability since 1) making up new theories could be viewed as ways of extending evolution's lifespan and 2) I could make similar arguments about your beliefs. I read a book about evolution and creation in high school, and it seems from that book that *most* (not all) of the noted inconsistencies (used loosely) can be resolved with metaphoric interpretation of the Bible and consideration of the Bible's original language being Aramaic/Hebrew. I suppose that's why we are talking about evolution on this page.--[[User:Remainder|Remainder]] 15:08, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

AdamN, you are wrong about the censi. If you care to educate yourself to the truth about this time in history, see the page
here:http://1stokiedoc.tripod.com/census/
Although it is easy to make blanket statements that you may parrot from your educators, it's quite another to engage in good scholarship. OkieDoc 17/08/07

==Two accounts of creation - the Bible contradicts itself in the first chapters of the first book==

In Genesis there are two conflicting accounts of creation that are so blatent the only logical explanation is that they are two different stories about the same thing, written at different times by different people. If the Bible is the literal word of God, this can't possibly be the case.

In Genesis 1 the animals are created on the fifth day, man and women on the sixth day (from the New American Bible):

"Evening came, and morning followed--the fifth day.
Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth all kinds of living creatures: cattle, creeping things, and wild animals of all kinds." And so it happened:
God made all kinds of wild animals, all kinds of cattle, and all kinds of creeping things of the earth. God saw how good it was.
Then God said: "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and the cattle, and over all the wild animals and all the creatures that crawl on the ground."
God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them.
God blessed them, saying: "Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on the earth."
God also said: "See, I give you every seed-bearing plant all over the earth and every tree that has seed-bearing fruit on it to be your food; and to all the animals of the land, all the birds of the air, and all the living creatures that crawl on the ground, I give all the green plants for food." And so it happened.
God looked at everything he had made, and he found it very good. Evening came, and morning followed--the sixth day.

Then in Genesis 2, the seventh day is described, where God takes a coffee break, and then he goes and creates man when the land is completely barren, and then gives man creatures to play with (again, from the New American Bible):

"Thus the heavens and the earth and all their array were completed.
Since on the seventh day God was finished with the work he had been doing, he rested on the seventh day from all the work he had undertaken.
So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work he had done in creation.
Such is the story of the heavens and the earth at their creation. At the time when the LORD God made the earth and the heavens--
while as yet there was no field shrub on earth and no grass of the field had sprouted, for the LORD God had sent no rain upon the earth and there was no man to till the soil, but a stream was welling up out of the earth and was watering all the surface of the ground--the LORD God formed man out of the clay of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and so man became a living being."

Now, I've heard from Biblical literalists that Genesis 2 is supposed to be describing the creation of Eden, but this can't be the case because of the next verse:

"Then the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and he placed there the man whom he had formed."

The accounts are written in cronological order, so there is no dispute about when things happened, to me, anyway. I challenge anyone to try to give me a convincing argument about why I should believe that the Bible is the literal word of god. Where does this idea come from anyway (let me guess, from the Bible, right? Circular reasoning...)? [stubbstarbuck] 16:24, June 28th, 2007.

:Did you ever stop to think that Genesis 1 describes the Creation, while Genesis 2 just goes into a little more detail as to what happened? Unless of course it's your opinion that it just has to contradict itself... [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:33, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

::There is only one account given of the Creation in the book of Genesis. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." -Genesis 1:1. It is literal and chronological. What apparently has confused you is the recounting of it in Genesis 2 which is merely an account from a second perspective. Which is why it gives the precondition of: "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created." -Genesis 2:4. Two perspectives of one event. Now that wasn't hard at all, was it? Why are there two pespectives given here? Well, you'll just have to read the rest of it yourself in order to fully understand that enigma.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 20:44, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

Being a Christian is bad for a person's mental health because according to the Bible, the Bible contains "leaven".
Matthew 13:33 Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.
Luke 13:21 It is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.

According to the Bible, "leaven" is to be avoided.
Matthew 16:6 Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
Mark 8:15 And he charged them, saying, Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod.

According to the Bible, "leaven" can be avoided by sorting the Bible.
Deuteronomy 19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.
Matthew 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
2 Corinthians 13:1 This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

According to the Bible, it contains "leaven", "leaven" is to be avoided, and "leaven" can be avoided by sorting the Bible. The unsorted Bible is therefore bad for a person's mental health.
heretic5 [Being a heretic is not automatically being wrong.]

The "inconsistencies" found in the bible are NOT inconsistincies at all. They are merely different points of view, its that simple. If three people went on vacation together to Disney world, then came back home and they decided to write their accounts of what happened in their journals, I can promise that they would have a few similarities; However, they would ALSO show a few different stories. They may include certain by-standers that were important to them, but maybe not important to another person who tells the same story so then left out that person. The story is still the same, with NO lies, or inconsistencies, just simply different points of view.
-matt

Debate:Why the Bible

2008-04-19T06:23:09Z

Dulos:

==Nothing==
There is no evidence that the Bible is more trustworthy than any other piece of literature. The Bible is merely a fictional novel which has traditionally been believed and baselessly seen as the infallible word of God for hundreds of generations.
-Helios

What idiot puts page-long geniologies in a novel??!! Whether the bible is true or not (as I know it is) the ''authors'' seemed to think it's true. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 07:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Agreed. I think it was made by some men wanting to show people morals and values, like Aesop fables.

While some Biblical events may be confirmable by more scientific-based types of knowledge, belief in most of the Bible is contingent on faith. Nothing more, nothing less. Take that for what it's worth. [[User:Jacobin|Jacobin]] 19:44, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

"Take that for what it's worth."-Ooooo... I get a free Bible. -Helios

I will watch this discussion and see when it gets deleted. There seems to be a concerted effort at policing even these debate areas. [[User:Seekcommon|Seekcommon]] 19:34 8 April 2007 (CDT)

Hmmm... if we consider the New Testament as Bible 2.0, then would the Koran be Bible 3.0 or Bible 2.1? And where does this leave the Book of Mormon? 4.0? 3.1? 2.2? 3.1.1? --[[User:AppalledBystander|AppalledBystander]] 07:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Well since Christianity actually branched off of Judaism the '''Old''' Testament would be v2.0 -Helios

The bible has been put together by hundreds of authors, over the course of around 900 years, and has subsequently been translated (several times), re-written and "improved" by many other hundreds of contributers and writers since. To put any kind of significance upon it at all is at best misguided and at worst plain idiotic. That is not to say that there are some good messages in there, however the majority is just plain weird. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:02, 19 April 2007

If a book was made today and was said to be the work of god, would you believe it? The world isn't as small as it used to be. Chris

You guys are right, the bible is total garbage.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 23:01, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

==2Nihilism==
I know the Bible to be the true Word of God because I have studied it for decades. They are the reasons why I am, as well as others, are driven to study it. There are no grave errors or inconsistencies within the Bible. This is only professed by those who hate Christians and Jews that keep repeating it in the vain hope someone will believe them. Just because you don't get it doesn't make it errant. It just betrays their ignorance and illiteracy. It is readily apparent that some of the ridiculous statements being made here are thinly disguised examples of religious bigotry. Every one of the statements denouncing the Bible as being the Word of God are false, out of context, and total garbage. I see no serious discussion here but only an adolescently motivated hatefest against Judeo-Christianity.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 14:31, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
::Roopilots6, you mind as well just give this up. The people you are debating with are nothing more than hard-core Christ haters.[[User:Bohdan|Sysop-Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 15:01, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I'm not writing it for them. It's for everyone else that reads it. Just so people can see the difference between nihilists and everyone else.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 22:12, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
This is a typical comment by a brainwashed Christian zealot. They always say how accepting they are of other people. Until any discussion comes into play questioning the bible or their faith. Its a silly book written by some desert nomads and has no basis guiding todays societies and norms. If Jesus could cure blind people...why are people blind? And to say the earth life was created 5K years ago has not facts to support it. Face it we all are a byproduct of algae

I would agree that this arguement is somewhat one sided. I personaly believe that the bible was written by the gretest scolars ever or by beggers, if it provides some sense moral and comfort for people then its worth a read. Even if your not a christian it still has some good morals and is probably worth a read. .[[User:Concretemuncher|Concretemuncher]]

:I personally hold to the idea of limited Biblical Inerrancy, however most of the stories in it are based on '''History''' (although frequently changed by author bias, or changes during the oral tradition). The Authors did not intend on writing a simple novel. The wrote what they believed as Truth. Even though modern science calls the historic, geographic, and scientific statements into question, it still provides what should be common sense morals and ideas. It shows a loving God who cares for us, desires us to be good, not a people hating "Volcano" god. I have gotten something out of it, ideas about life, and thanks to my Jewish friends, humor (Apparently the OT is riddled with Yiddish humor). That's my rant. I dare you to counter it. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 21:37, 7 February 2008 (EST)

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

The danger of the direction this discussion is going is for simple minded people to read this, in passing, and believe that the bible is just a collection of cute myths that were gathered together. It is far more than that based on MANY evidences. The most obvious one I would like to site is the thousands, thats right, thousands of documents we have discovered over the years from ancient history. The oldest of which, the book of Mark, was found to be dated within like a few decades of the ACTUAL events taking place. I have learned that the bible has somewhere in the neighborhood of 5,000 different manuscripts that are survived from that time period. These NUMEROUS attestations provide overwhelming evidence that the bible can be trusted as a whole as the inspired word of God, and our savior Jesus Christ. -matt