A new poll found that 51 percent of Americans have doubts about the Big Bang theory on the origin of the universe.
Several scientists voiced dismay at the results of the Associated Press poll, saying the Big Bang, an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of the universe, is a settled scientific fact.
“Science ignorance is pervasive in our society, and these attitudes are reinforced when some of our leaders are openly antagonistic to established facts,” said Randy Schekman, winner of the 2013 Nobel Prize in medicine.
“When you are putting up facts against faith, facts can’t argue against faith,” said Robert Lefkowitz of Duke University, a 2012 Nobel Prize winning biochemistry professor. Alan Leshner, head of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said “values and beliefs trump science” for many people.
At a ToledoFAVS Coffee Talk on Saturday, Kuldeep Singh said that Sikhs believe humans cannot determine the origin of the universe. “Only God knows. People can only guess,” he said.
What do you think about the Big Bang theory? Is it a settled scientific fact or is it a theory full of holes?
Oops! We could not locate your form.
It seemed to be a settled scientific fact a few decades ago during my educational years. It appears that our society is losing it’s intellectually intelligent curiosity and going along with what they are told?
There is no such thing at a scientific fact (i.e. an absolute truth). The scientific method gives us a mechanism to determine the empirical degree of probability something might be true in the material world. However, all probabilities are open to new evidence. So to ask if there is a probability that something like the big bang may have occurred as supported by evidence provided by use of the scientific method I would answer yes. But all theories are always subject to new evidence and could be blown out of the water. So the possible answer options need at least one more slot which gives someone like me a chance to indicate that according to all the scientific evidence I have seen so far that the universe is expanding the big bang theory is one explanation of that phenomena. While not an absolute thruth it has yet to be disproven. Having an answer like “yes it’s a scientific fact” is creating a straw man of sorts….unless you water down the word ‘fact’ to mean ‘probability’.
Thruth = truth ……where’s the post posting editing function?!!
The Big Bang is not a proven scientific fact. True science examines by analyzing empirical evidence by testing and repeatibility of results. God asked Job in the bible book in his name, ” Where were you Job, when I created the earth from nothing?” He knew better than to offer any smart-Alec answer to the creator God of the universe. He, Job, was not there, just like these arrogant atheist scientists were not there. If anyone shows ignorance it is their ignorance of how to define their own process. They’ve gone from science to scientism, they expect everyone to worship at their shrine. True believers in God and His Word will not bow down. Their intolerance of anyone else’s honest opinion and belief shows the spirit of this coming age. It is going to be open hostility soon and already is in many of their minds. It is the challenge to lovers of Christ not to answer in kind, but to keep entrusting themselves to their faithful Creator (quite fitting to the debate I’d say.)
From science to scientism? Please give me an example and define in detail “scientism” with at least one example.
People who use the scientific method as an epistemology do not “expect everyone to worship a their shrine” whatever that means. They do often reject ‘faith’ as an epistemology however. What they expect is for other qualified scientists to prove with empirical evidence that the initial hypothesis was wrong. That I the self correcting mechanism in science. And if you read my post just before yours I stated there are no absolute truths in science. Never will be. Absolutes are only claimed, without evidence, by various religions which resist new evidence like the plague.
What do you mean by ‘people will not bow down’? Do you mean they will not accept what valid scientific evidence shows to most probably be the case such as the germ theory of disease or evolution? That is just poking one’s head in the sand….willful ignorance at it’s worst in the face of mountains of evidence provided from multiple scientific fields.
I personally don’t consider myself to be intolerant. I do demand empirical evidence for what anyone else tells me is most probably (some people say ‘certainly’) true. That is not intolerance…that is common sense.
And what factions are going to be openly hostile Dennis? And more importantly why? Please explain in reasonable detail. And while considering your explanation please keep in mind that just because religious people have to follow the same civil laws and abide by the same Constitution as everyone else the enforcement of those laws do not constitute ‘hostility’ or ‘persecution’. They constitute equality for all law abiding citizens in our pluralistic society.
What’s also missing from this article are quotes from many other distinguished and recognized scholars and physicists who adhere to a creationist position. All we ever hear are one sided anti-God opinions, purported to be “fact”.
Dennis….I keep hearing about this vaunted ‘list’ of credible scientists whose work is published in scientific journal and is generally accepted by the majority of those scientists in the same field as the creationist scientists. Frankly I have never heard of one. If you are going to trot out Michael Behe and his ‘irreducible complexity’ claim you must understand no scientists I know of accept that there has ever been an example proffered and proven. It seems Behe made up the term and is trying to find the evidence for it after the fact. This is not the scientific method. If you have any other actual scientists, working and getting published in the field about which they are commenting or making claims I would LOVE to see it. I am open to all new evidence. Oh, and if you want to read several refutations of various claims of irreducible complexity that Behe makes (fish immune system cascade, bacterial flagellum, …I can’t remember if he said the human eye but many do….my cousin claims the woodpecker tongue is IC….anyway for refutations of the examples brought up in the trial check the Dover Trial transcripts…an easy and quick read and a base from which you can do more investigation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
By the way, before you claim ‘activist judge’ as many of my creationist friends try to do, the judge in this case, John E. Jones III was introduced to GW Bush by Rick Santorum and appointed by GW Bush himself. The creationist side thought this trial was going to be a slam dunk…….and it was.
Jim,
I’ve read some of the refutations, and they are also someone’s theorizing an interpretation of non-proof evidence. The tone of your response proves the point of the arrogant attitude put forth by those who claim “fact” for climate change, macro-evolution, success of socialism/communism, etc. They are totally not convincing to me and reserve the right to my opinions on the subjects. The bible claims that men who deny God have looked at the universe that shouts the eternal power and nature He exerted in the creation of it and closed their eyes and hearts, worshiping and serving the creation instead. This is exactly what comes out of the atheist attitude.
I’m sure that whoever’s name I put up there you would categorically deny anyway, so I’m not going to waste the time.
Scientism is the forcing by verbal and financial intimidation of those who hold a different opinion to the party line dictated by academia, to change their opinion or pack their bags. And don’t tell me it doesn’t happen.
To not bow down means that I will continue to believe God’s Word as truth in spite of sarcasm, shaming, guilt tripping and any other form of pressure to change my mind. Clear enough? And i totally agree with you that absolute truth is only claimed by various religions, one of which is scientism/humanism. I’ve heard many an atheist scientist claim fact for some theory that they have no way of proving by observation. Is that claiming absolute truth, or is a fact something else?
Dennis…you said (in quotes)
“I’ve read some of the refutations, and they are also someone’s theorizing an interpretation of non-proof evidence.”
Great…please give me the references so I can look them over as well. I will be happy to concede your point if there is valid evidence for it.
“The tone of your response proves the point of the arrogant attitude put forth by those who claim “fact” for climate change, macro-evolution, success of socialism/communism, etc.”
My attitude is not arrogant…I have NEVER claimed “fact” or absolute truth in science. Have you not read my previous posts? I never mentioned climate change and that is not the topic here. I don’t think there is any such thing as “macro evolution” either. There is only micro evolution though it has been shown by mountains of evidence in many disciplines of science to result in speciation over long periods of time. “Success of social communism”…again….not the topic here but what the heck do you even mean by that and where in my writings have you found evidence I support such a thing? Please be specific.
“They are totally not convincing to me and reserve the right to my opinions on the subjects.”
The problem is your opinion without evidence is not proven as likely factual.
“The bible claims that men who deny God have looked at the universe that shouts the eternal power and nature He exerted in the creation of it and closed their eyes and hearts, worshiping and serving the creation instead. This is exactly what comes out of the atheist attitude.”
Where in my writings have I “denied” your god or stated categorically that no god exists? Really…I would like an answer to this question. You trot out assumptions as to what I think or claim yet you have no evidence to back it up. It is like Behe trotting out irreducible complexity with no evidence for his hypothesis….it convinces no one. My position on all deities and everything supernatural, of which religion is just a subset, is this: I have seen NO empirical, testable, repeatable, falsifiable evidence for anything supernatural. I do not consider ‘faith’ a valid epistemology (a method for determining what might be true….I would not want my medicines invented on faith nor would I want airplanes designed using faith….and neither would you). I consider the scientific method the most consistent way I have ever experienced for determining what is probably true…..note here I did NOT say ‘for determining absolute truth or as you say ‘facts’. This method is always open to new evidence presented in the future unlike the epistemology of faith. And no…I don’t worship anything, especially no entities represented by the bible. Have you read the whole thing? I have and it is certainly not worthy of my worship or respect.
“I’m sure that whoever’s name I put up there you would categorically deny anyway, so I’m not going to waste the time.”
Put up a name with some credentials, some verifiable scientific achievements to his or her credit and I will look into them closely. If you put up Ken Ham or Kent Hovind or similar individuals who feed your confirmation bias and have no respectable scientific credentials I have already looked into most of them and would be glad to share the information I have found.
“Scientism is the forcing by verbal and financial intimidation of those who hold a different opinion to the party line dictated by academia, to change their opinion or pack their bags.”
Your personal definition Dennis. No one is forcing you into anything. Your claim of persecution is bogus. In your life you take advantage of science all the time….medicines and other health opportunities (please tell me you are not of the faith healing persuasion), computers (which you are using right now), virtually everything around you that makes your life more efficient and more pleasant in most cases. How is this being forced on you? How am I forcing anything on you?? I can give you empirical evidence for what I say but you can take it or leave it. Just don’t be hypocritical about it.
“To not bow down means that I will continue to believe God’s Word as truth in spite of sarcasm, shaming, guilt tripping and any other form of pressure to change my mind. Clear enough?”
I stand by your side to fight for your right to practice your beliefs as long as they are legal, constitutional and do not cause other people harm. I have not provided any “sarcasm, shaming, guilt tripping and any other form of pressure” in my comments. If I have point them out specifically please as that kind of thing is never my intention.
“And i totally agree with you that absolute truth is only claimed by various religions, one of which is scientism/humanism.”
That is just inanity Dennis. You are trying to create a straw man. Number one, religions by definition require a deity. The empirical method is just that….a method. It is a method of testing and proving WRONG various hypotheses. No hypothesis is ever proven “right”. Also, the scientific method weeds out fraud and dishonesty as every scientist watches for dubious claims and repeats those experiments to see if they can get the same results. If not they call the original scientist(s) on the carpet.
All of science would change their mind if YOU came up with a better way for exploring our material world….and you would be rich and famous to boot.
And another question I want you to answer…what claim of absolute truth have you ever seen in science?? I expect a reference I can investigate…not just one of your personal generalizations.
“I’ve heard many an atheist scientist claim fact for some theory that they have no way of proving by observation.”
Great….I only ask that you back up this claim with specific evidence. What was the particular claim of absolute truth and which scientist made the claim….and please give your references so I can look it up.
I’m afreaid that Dennis is never going to be convinced by things he doesn’t want to be convinced of. But the reason why the Big Bang gained ground in regular science (not the self-constructed happyland of Creation Science) is thart specific predictions about the observable universe were made and which were subsequently confirmed by direct observation (such as the cosmic background radiation). As Thoreau once joked, “Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk.”
The recent Ap-Gfk pol on this suggests that a lot of the Big Bang skepticism tracks the social and religious and regional demographics of YEC creationism, rather than reflecting a view strongly held conviction of younger people in the rest of the country. Dennis certainly reflects this Kulturkampf frame in lumping “climate change, macro-evolution, success of socialism/communism” together.
Jim x 2,
I’ve mentioned this before, but it bears repeating, that those who have a heart deep relationship with Jesus Christ, and trust in the bible as God’s Word, have been hated and disdained throughout the centuries and even millennia, by governments, monarchies, and religious leaders, even to the point of death. It is no different today.
The Bible changes hearts and gives strength to those who trust in the One who wrote it and gave us all the unalterable promises. Science shows one thing to be true today and tomorrow it could be totally disproven, and that also has been the case down through the ages. The Bible has never been proven wrong and continues to confound and frustrate the critics and deniers.
A couple books that have encouraged me lately, and show documentation by many quotes from the minds of men recognized for their achievements in science and physics, that also hold to a belief, or even strong faith in a Creator God. They are *The Insanity of Unbelief: A Journalist’s Journey from Belief to Skepticism, to Deep Faith.* by Max Davis, and *Against All Gods: What’s Right and Wrong about the New Atheism*, by Phillip E. Johnson & John Mark Reynolds.
However you want to characterize the lumping, I believe all of these movements spring from the same source of social manipulation that endeavors to enslave and control the masses for power and their own glory.
Dennis…first, you did not answer any of my questions about what you claimed I wrote (offensive items, arrogant statements, etc.) nor did you provide me with any concrete examples of claims of “absolute truth” in science. You stated you knew of some and I would be really interested to know about them.
The books you mentioned are both reliant on the bible and religious woo Dennis. Neither of them provide examples of “miracles” or other religious claims I can test, repeat or disprove empirically so I do not consider what they have to say ‘evidence’…..I consider what they have to say as personal experiences and feelings some choose, without evidence, to ascribe to the supernatural. Well, that is precisely what religion is….belief without evidence. No thanks.
You said: “Science shows one thing to be true today and tomorrow it could be totally disproven, and that also has been the case down through the ages. The Bible has never been proven wrong and continues to confound and frustrate the critics and deniers.”
You are finally showing me you have been listening…at least to a degree. Once again please pay close attention to this statement: Science NEVER shows anything to be true. Science, through empirical testing of hypotheses, give us a probability a hypothesis might be true. It also gives us a means to test and disprove the hypothesis. It will never get any closer to an absolute truth than that. And YES….all current scientific data is open to change or disproof due to constant scrutiny and the introduction of new evidence Dennis just as ANY discipline that makes claims of “truth” should be including your religion. What on earth do you think is wrong with that???
In fact your religion is dragged kicking and screaming into the enlightenment with such scientific observations that the earth is not flat nor is our universe geocentric. (see the Pope’s 1992 apology to Galileo)
Your bible also says you can play with snakes and drink poison with no adverse effects. Your bible says that all you need to do is pray to heal illnesses. In fact your bible says you will get EVERYTHING you pray for! Your bible makes many false claims…dangerous false claims. The latest example is that snake handling preacher that was bitten and then refused medical treatment and relied on prayer, just as the bible says to do, to heal him. His funeral was not too long ago. When you make categorical statements like “The bible has never been proven wrong” I would recommend a couple books to you: 1. Biblical Errancy by C. Dennis Mckinsey and 2. The Skeptics Annotated Bible by Steve Wells. The first book is simply a reference guide to the thousands of places in the bible that contradict each other or make statements known via today’s science to be categorically false. The second book is the King James Version bible with annotations from a skeptic’s point of view. If you have not read the bible from ‘in the beginning’ to ‘amen’ Dennis you really should before you make these claims of inerrancy.
You said “However you want to characterize the lumping, I believe all of these movements spring from the same source of social manipulation that endeavors to enslave and control the masses for power and their own glory.”
YES Dennis, you could not have characterized organized religion more succinctly!!
Jim,
I’ll try to do a little better in answering your statements and questions while making some points that I feel are relevant to the discussion.
First, I have noticed that thoughout our discussion here you have repeated stated that science does not claim absolute truth, and quite early on you equated absolute truth with even saying “proven fact”. If that’s true then why are school kids being taught evolution as fact, when it is a non-proven theory. There is no irrefutable evidence that man came from the slime, even if it supposedly took billions and billions of years. When we discuss the issues here I’m not refering just to me or to you. Specifically when you said, ““Scientism is the forcing by verbal and financial intimidation of those who hold a different opinion to the party line dictated by academia, to change their opinion or pack their bags.” Your personal definition Dennis. No one is forcing you into anything. Your claim of persecution is bogus.” , I wasn’t refering to myself, I have not experienced anything that I would term as persecution. I’m talking about scientists and astronomers who have been demoted or forced to leave universities for believing other than the Darwinian model.
Also, Jim, when I gave the two books as references, I wasn’t using those except to what was specific to our discussion. You wanted some references by distinguised scientists, physicists and others who would hold to a creationist view. I find it interesting that you would totally ignore the chapter in the “Insanity of Unbelief” book specifically devoted to quotes by men of this type. And as far as religion goes, I personally am opposed to most religion, including what most people today would refer to as “christianity”. Religion by conservative christian definition, is a system by which a person can earn the favor of God by performing certain rituals and traditions. I am repulsed by religion because it proudly thinks that we have anything of worth to offer to God. The bible clearly teaches that man in his present state has nothing to offer God, He is holy, we are corrupt and evil at heart.
At this point, without boasting, I at least need to make it clear to you that I do know what the bible says from “in the beginning to the last amen” , good set of bookends by the way. I feel that God has helped me to comprise my own bible reading plan and have held to it for at least 3 maybe 4 years now. I read 11 chapters a day, one in the Pentateuch, one in the history books, one Psalm, one proverb, two in the major and one in the minor prophets, one in the four gospels and Acts, two in the epistles, and one chapter per day in the Revelation. I’ve tried for balanced reading and estimate that I’ve read clear through at least 9 times in the last 4 years, plus other studies. I have found it to be more rewarding and insightful every year, every day.
You yourself reveal quite a bit of misunderstanding and mis-interpretation in your presentation of what you think the bible says and teaches. “My religion” does not include what many mis-guided and even flat out evil popes have taught and claimed over the years, so please don’t equate what some wrong headed men have said with what the Bible actually says. Please quote to me one instance in which the Bible mis-states something about the physical world, etc. It does not claim to be a science textbook, but neither does it contradict anything known. There have been several times in past history where bible haters have cackled saying, “Oh, yes, there’s a wrong thought” only to have real science or archeology prove it to be right after all. The Bible does not say you will get everything you pray for, only that if you pray according to God’s will you will receive it. Most christians are uninformed about what that means and think they have a cosmic Santa Claus waiting to give them their goodies. Far from it. He promises blessing but mainly, in this life, through trials and suffering, will be learn about ourselves and His faithfulness. The poor snake handler was an example of a fringe eccentrist who also mis-applied a passage that specifically refered to apostolic gifts that served to authenticate the true apostles until the canon of scripture was closed. Now we know who is true and who is false based on comparison of their message with that of scripture.
And lastly, your comment about organized religion can be answered in two ways. First, as I said, I have no love myself for “organized religion”, only for Christ and His gospel, summarized in I Cor. 15:1-4. Secondly, you diverted attention away from the fact that you refused to answer for those deceptions I mentioned, all of which are untrue, and in the case of socialism/communism, have killed more people by totalitarian, anti-christian government than any other means. Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Kim Jong-Il and now Un, have devastated humanity. The list could go on but these characterize how word games and deceit, saying one thing and actually meaning another, are evil. I believe that same, not necessarily in the physical, but in the financial and political realms to start with, are what is happening with climate change and green energy. The suffering and poverty that these are going to bring gives the lie to all the hypocritical “caring” being presented as the impetus, instead of the goal of power and control that is what it is in actuallity.
Jim,
I’ll try to do a little better in answering your statements and questions while making some points that I feel are relevant to the discussion.
Thanks Dennis…and I will keep my answers to your questions and a few of your statements as short (but accurate) as I can…I will quote a section from you and then answer as I have done previously….you said:
“First, I have noticed that thoughout our discussion here you have repeated stated that science does not claim absolute truth, and quite early on you equated absolute truth with even saying “proven fact”. If that’s true then why are school kids being taught evolution as fact, when it is a non-proven theory. There is no irrefutable evidence that man came from the slime, even if it supposedly took billions and billions of years.
My short answer is that it would be wrong to teach any science, theory of evolution, theory of gravity, germ theory of disease and so on as ‘absolute truth or fact’. All science is open to new evidence. None of science is ever considered absolutely true. If a teacher characterizes anything in science this way he or she is either lying or does not understand what science (and the scientific method) is and honestly they should not be teaching our children science or any other topic in which they demonstrate such a basic lack of understanding. Here is a very short explanation of what that teacher needs to understand before they even call something a ‘fact’.
Remember…the scientific method goes basically like this: 1. A person observes some nature of evidence or something that appears consistent in nature. 2. This person then makes a prediction (a hypothesis) based on the evidence he has seen. He then tests this prediction in order to prove it WRONG. If he or she is testing to prove it RIGHT then they are not doing proper science as he or she is just confirming their confirmation bias. Of course if this scientist does all the tests he can think of that might invalidate his hypothesis but does not then he tells others about his hypothesis and other scientists try and prove it wrong with any kind of test they can come up with. This is how the theory of evolution, the germ theory of disease and the theory of gravity have come to be considered very probably factual. They will never be considered a sure fact however as they are always open to future evidence. I hope this clarifies this business about science and how it cannot ever deal in absolutes. And one more common misconception you should be aware of….a Theory in science is not ‘just a guess’ as the term is often used in common language. A hypothesis (a guess based on some initial observed tangible evidence in nature) is much closer to a lay person’s idea of ‘just a theory’. A theory in science is as close to an actual truth claim as science can get. When something is elevated to a “theory” in science that means the evidence suggesting a very high probability of truth is very strong. And that brings me to one last thing regarding science and the scientific method. All that science provides for us is probability. That is it. Probability that something MIGHT be true. If you were standing on the roof of your house I would bet that you would not test the theory of gravity by stepping off the edge. The theory of gravity is NOT an absolute. However the probability that you will fall to the ground is very high. And you will most likely fall at 32 feet per second per second as well…not an absolute truth but again highly probable. So…I hope this helps you with the distinction between something being absolutely true and something having a high probability of being true (but still open to future evidence). The distinction as far as science goes is EVERYTHING.
YOU SAID:
“First, I have noticed that thoughout our discussion here you have repeated stated that science does not claim absolute truth, and quite early on you equated absolute truth with even saying “proven fact”. If that’s true then why are school kids being taught evolution as fact, when it is a non-proven theory. There is no irrefutable evidence that man came from the slime, even if it supposedly took billions and billions of years.”
My answers are ‘yes I have indeed said that’,
kids are not to my knowledge being taught that anything is absolute in science or that teacher should be fired,
and you are right that there is no ‘irrefutable evidence’ in your particular statement about speciation….however there is a mountain of evidence in many fields of science suggesting the high probability that speciation takes place. And THIS is what is taught in science classes. Science is a natural investigation into probabilities and evidence that something might be the case. Of course science cannot investigate anything beyond the material world (i.e. supernatural). This is why any form of creationism or other religious notions have no place in the science classroom. They cannot be tested or disproven by their non natural nature. You might be interested to know that while nearly all scientists believe that evolution is highly probable many of them fight like cats and dogs about the mechanics of it and how it takes place. Much is still to be discovered about evolution but we are making progress. And one more aside for you: Evolution has nothing to say about how life actually started….that field is abiogenesis and there are no highly probable scientific claims currently regarding how life began.
YOU SAID:
“I wasn’t refering to myself, I have not experienced anything that I would term as persecution. I’m talking about scientists and astronomers who have been demoted or forced to leave universities for believing other than the Darwinian model.”
Dennis…I would love to see the particulars about any scientist that was forced to leave a university just because of his religious beliefs. That is not only unfair but it is legally actionable. So if you have an example or two please tell me….but be forewarned…if you are going to use the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed as any of your example you should look much more carefully into the claims the movie makes and the evidence available regarding those claims. I have studied it fairly extensively. But, if you have other examples (or even want to chat about the examples in Expelled…I believe the main one was a man named Sternburg) please let me know.
YOU SAID:
“You wanted some references by distinguised scientists, physicists and others who would hold to a creationist view. I find it interesting that you would totally ignore the chapter in the “Insanity of Unbelief” book specifically devoted to quotes by men of this type.
I don’t own Insanity of Unbelief but I went to Amazon and read most of the reviews. Virtually all of them are 5 star. But many of the reviews are calling “undeniable miracles” evidence. One reviewer compared this book to Josh McDowell’s More Evidence Which Demands a Verdict which I have read. Josh McDowell’s “evidence” is not empirical. It cannot be tested. It is typically of the “revealed” variety. And from everything I read in the reviews of Unbelief that author is referring to exactly the same kind of revealed but untestable evidence I cannot accept. I have read up on the scientists of the Creation Institute and such. We could take them on a case by case basis. If they have a degree in the area they are making claims about and are currently working as a scientist in that area then I would be very interested to look into them further. Now I do know religious scientists that have multiple degrees and are working in the field and writing books for current day public science classes. Kenneth R. Miller would be a great example of a published working scientist that also strongly believes in a deity and the supernatural. He also fully supports evolution.
YOU SAID:
“And as far as religion goes, I personally am opposed to most religion, including what most people today would refer to as “christianity”.
I am not opposed to religion. I am opposed to it being imposed on others. I have not encountered a religion yet that resists the temptation to impose itself.
YOU SAID:
“we are corrupt and evil at heart.”
Dennis….you are NOT corrupt or evil. Only entities that would categorize you as such out of hand fit that description.
YOU SAID:
“At this point, without boasting, I at least need to make it clear to you that I do know what the bible…”
That is impressive. I have read the KJV 1.5 times. I have read more books in the last 5 years than I have in the prior 50 years…a shame I am only now coming to realize how amazing it is to gain knowledge.
YOU SAID:
“You yourself reveal quite a bit of misunderstanding and mis-interpretation in your presentation of what you think the bible says and teaches.”
Ah….well words do have meaning and I know what I read in that King James Bible. I have taken the time to learn about some of the mistranslations and such but generally when I read something like Joshua and see the temperment and morality of your deity on display there is only one way to interpret that. I know when I don’t keep anyone’s Sabbath day holy I should be stoned to death…and the list of rules and punishments goes on nearly in perpetuity. I know there are a few morally positive things (don’t steal, don’t kill or murder depending on whether you are Paulian or Chrisitian) are contained therein. They were the same moral precepts followed by prior civilizations and are not the singular domain of Christianity as many have claimed. But most of what I read in both testaments was not something I could either respect as accurate history or as morally acceptable. The quote mining could begin here but that is a useless endeavor.
YOU SAID:
““My religion” does not include what many mis-guided and even flat out evil popes have taught and claimed over the years, so please don’t equate what some wrong headed men have said with what the Bible actually says.”
“Wrong headed” by whose standard Dennis? I read recently that there are as many sects of Christianity as there are Christians for this very reason. Each person picks and chooses what he or she wants to believe and what they want to reject from the bible. You have done the same. Now that is pry a good thing as far as you changing a jot of the law here and a tittle of the law there because many of the laws Jesus said were to remain in place until the second coming would land you in jail were you to carry out the proscribed punishments. And of course several of them would land me dead.
YOU SAID”
“Please quote to me one instance in which the Bible mis-states something about the physical world, etc. It does not claim to be a science textbook, but neither does it contradict anything known.”
Well….you asked for it. I will mention the gist of a few obvious ones with chapter and verse but I am not going to write out every verse as such.
A huge problem for me would be the flood. One easy way to contradict it would be the evidence we have that Egypt kept perfectly good historical records all during the time the flood was to have occurred. No mention of flooding beyond the Tigris and Euphrates. BUT…on to the “contradictions of things we know”.
Bats are not birds (they were lumped together as “fowl”) as stated in Lev 11:13, 19
Our Earth indeed moves through space but it says otherwise in 1Chron 16:30, PS 93:1, PS 96:10,
Also saying the Earth does not move implies geocentricity which is also not the case.
The Earth has corners and edges implying a flat Earth. ISA 11:12, Rev 7:1, Deut 13:7, Deut 28:64
A hare does not have hooves and his foot is divided. Deut 14:7
Laying of hands does not cure the sick as claimed…studies have been done. Mark 16:18
Leprosy cannot be cured by priests as stated. Lev 13: 12-13
This is quite petty but the mustard seed is not the smallest seed…an orchid seed is smaller. Matt 13: 31-32
Unicorns exist (or existed) Num 23:22 ISA 34:7
Poison can be drunk without harm. Mark 16:18
Snake handling is wise and prudent. Mark 16: 17-18 (both poison and snake verses were not in original manuscripts so are pry bogus but people follow them anyway!)
Prayer will heal the sick. James 5:13-15 (it’s verses like this from which faith healing springs…many have died as a result)
Sun (and moon) stood still. Josh 10:13, Job 9:7, Hab 3:4
Talking ass in Num 22:28-30 ….not to mention the talking snake in Genesis
Actually it does say all prayers will be answered in several places Dennis…you just have to be a believer. But obviously they are only answered about the same rate as random chance. Matt 21:22 and other places in Matthew.
OK….that should be enough examples of the contradictions to make my point.
YOU SAID:
“There have been several times in past history where bible haters have cackled saying, “Oh, yes, there’s a wrong thought” only to have real science or archeology prove it to be right after all. The Bible does not say you will get everything you pray for, only that if you pray according to God’s will you will receive it.
Science does not care what it is supporting Dennis. It is totally neutral and follows where the empirical evidence leads. If some things are either historically or scientifically true as stated in the bible that’s great. It is the immorality that I have a problem with.
YOU SAID:
“The poor snake handler was an example of a fringe eccentrist who also mis-applied a passage that specifically refered to apostolic gifts that served to authenticate the true apostles until the canon of scripture was closed. Now we know who is true and who is false based on comparison of their message with that of scripture.”
Actually I think you will find that those verses in Mark were not in the original manuscripts. They were a later addition for whatever reason which should make them suspect I would think.
YOU SAID:
“Secondly, you diverted attention away from the fact that you refused to answer for those deceptions I mentioned, all of which are untrue, and in the case of socialism/communism, have killed more people by totalitarian, anti-christian government than any other means. Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Kim Jong-Il and now Un, have devastated humanity.”
Dennis…if we are naming off a list of psychopathic killers here you forgot one. Jealous (as he names himself in Exodus 34:14) was responsible for murdering or ordering the murder of 2,821,364 people in the bible. This does not count any estimates of deaths for flooding the entire world and other non specific death counts are not included in this figure. This is only the deaths as enumerated in each book of the bible added up. (Drunk with Blood second edition by Steve Wells) So if we are going the killer psychopath route let’s include all the players. Religion has cause it’s share of destruction to humanity as well. We can discuss that on another thread some day. I’m wore out with this one. Oh…I reread everything and I still don’t know what “deceptions” you are saying I refused to answer for…I tried to cover everything you asked of me or so I thought. Have a good night Dennis!!
Jim,
Thanks for spending so much energy on the discussion with me. It can get exhausting. I will be looking into your list of contradictions, I think some of them may go away just because of the KJV translation. The old english sometimes just doesn’t do justice to the original text, which is the only text that is inerrant.
Anyway, look forward to some other discussions some time, you have a good one too.
Oh yes….our conversation could go on forever given our positions but it is always enlightening for me to have a discussion like this because it also helps me clarify what I think…and of course I learn new things from a different point of view that sometimes alter how I think about things. Thanks for the joust Dennis~~see you on the field of ideas again one day I suspect~~Jim