Paper against Darwinism. Peer-reviewed.

[questfortruth]

Do you expect, with the knowledge that we have accumulated since, that a scientist that carried out his work 150 years ago would have gotten everything perfectly correct or had the information to do so?

I just presented a possibility, that the worldview of some people is wrong. The paper, even if not peer-reviewed, could be a support for this. But the paper is not peer-reviewed, so, please, delete the thread. I am sorry that paper was not published in a scientific journal.

 

[John53]

I misread that initially.

Well there is a hypothesis that claims they are decoys to attract us dumb males around to the front.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I just presented a possibility, that the worldview of some people is wrong. The paper, even if not peer-reviewed, could be a support for this. But the paper is not peer-reviewed, so, please, delete the thread. I am sorry that paper was not published in a scientific journal.

Finding that Darwin might not have been correct about something 150 years ago isn't what I would call significant evidence to shake the rational underpinnings of a person's view. I suspect that it is a recognition of the significance of what Darwin set in motion that causes deniers of the science to squirm and fight so hard.

I would recommend that you dig deeper into your sources before posting.

I don't have the authority to eliminate threads on a whim and I don't think you do yourself justice by wanting it gone. It has sparked some interesting discussion in my view.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well there is a hypothesis that claims they are decoys to attract us dumb males around to the front.

Sorry, I can't think right now. I'll have to revisit those points later.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I misread that initially.

Me too. I like our version better.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Me too. I like our version better.

It is a shame that we cannot give more than one rating. This deserves more.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

These Debates always end up the same.

The problem for me is this

Big bang = scientifically and theologically very probable. Most say that on the balance of things true.

Science says, matter and energy cannot be create or destroyed.

Humanism comes up with a workaround to the above dilemma because they have no god.

Creationism says there Is a God.

If we just look at the above for what it is, plain logic tells me humanists can't even agree with the fundamental belief of their own science interpretation.

1. Creationists do agree with it in principle [big bang]
2. Creationist have a historical written account that is proven to be consistent over at least 3000 years of human documented history supporting their view...its consistent with it.
3. Creation science interpretation is also consistentwith points 1 and 2 (that's 3 out of 3 btw)

So who actually is the fairytale follower in the group...its quite obviously the humanist!

Before a non Christian science interpretation can be believed, it must fix the inconsistencies in its view. Starting with the conservation problem in the big bang.

I don't see that ever happening.

 

[Subduction Zone]

These Debates always end up the same.

The problem for me is this

Big bang = scientifically and theologically very probable. Most say that on the balance of things true.

Science says, matter and energy cannot be create or destroyed.

Humanism comes up with a workaround to the above dilemma because they have no god.

Creationism says there Is a God.

If we just look at the above for what it is, plain logic tells me humanists can't even agree with the fundamental belief of their own science interpretation.

1. Creationists do agree with it in principle [big bang]
2. Creationist have a historical written account that is proven to be consistent over at least 3000 years of human documented history supporting their view...its consistent with it.
3. Creation science interpretation is also consistentwith points 1 and 2 (that's 3 out of 3 btw)

So who actually is the fairytale follower in the group...its quite obviously the humanist!

Before a non Christian science interpretation can be believed, it must fix the inconsistencies in its view. Starting with the conservation problem in the big bang.

I don't see that ever happening.

No, the account in the Bible was written much later than you think it was and has historical errors all through it. For example we knew that there never was a historical flood before Darwin's time.

What you should be trying to learn is how do others know that the Bible is not a science or a history book.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

No, the account in the Bible was written much later than you think it was and has historical errors all through it.

I again make the same comment i made on another thread...and i note from lots of your responses on other threads, you simply keep reverting back to the exact same wives tales over and over again despite all of the overwhelming evidence provided.

Subduction Zone i am going to put it very simply...

Your claim the bible is a fairytale account of world history is categorically false. It is conclusively proven (without any need for a balance of probabilities actually) that the Bible account is accurate. Minor date differences are irrelevant to the general validity of the Bible.

Additionally, the Bible is not only consistent with lots of external sources of evidence (ie evidence written by non-religious individuals/cultures) it remains very consistent across its own timeline and factual statements. Even its theology is very consistent.

Add to the above, the Dead Sea Scrolls have comprehensively proven (and i cannot emphasize this enough), they have comprehensively proven that Chinese Whispers have played no part in the corruption of the text. It has remained unchanged for more than 1900 years.

The Isaiah scroll found in Qumran Cave 1 in 1946 dates back at least 300 years earlier...thus we have well over 2000 years of writings that have remained unchanged. There are other writings and artifects that are even older such as the Black Obelisk of Sharmaneser III

a connection with the bible was made by Reverend Edward Hincks, who wrote in his diary on 21 August 1851: "Thought of an identification of one of the obelisk captives — with Jehu, king of Israel, and satisfying myself on the point wrote a letter to the Athenaeum announcing it".​

The above evidence comprehensively debunks your claims...I do not understand why you continue to spit out completely wrong statements. You are 100% wrong and those are not words I just pull out of thin air...you are absolutely 100% wrong! If it looks like a duck, has webbed feet, wings, feathers, quacks like a duck, swims on water, and has a bill like a duck...then it's obviously a flaming duck!

The point is, I am not arguing God in the above. All I am arguing is that the written tradition of the Bible is clearly representative of the history of the nation of Israel. That point is 100% obvious. It is pointless for you to attempt to separate an entire nation's history from reality in the way that you do. You are being stupid to be completely honest and you really need to realize that. If you wish to gain credibility in any of your arguments, you must accept reality where it exists. I have just given you that reality...again!

Summary,
1. the bible is the history of the Israelite nation and culture. That is indisputable fact!
2. I am not claiming God in point 1 above. You do not need to be fearful of indoctrination because you accept a country's history...I know that you are fearful of being convinced of the religion if you accept the historical account. May i suggest that it is possible for you to maintain arm's length from the religion in the same way many countries accept the oral and written history of their indigenous without being convicted of the indigenous spiritual beliefs!

Spiritual beliefs are simply a mechanism used by individuals to explain the question of existence. If you are not genuinely interested in finding comprehensive and consistent answers that explain our existence...then don't argue those points! Leave them be. Argue what you can comfortably deal with...that is what Bart Ehrman does and he gets a great deal of respect for it!

 

[Subduction Zone]

I again make the same comment i made on another thread...and i note from lots of your responses on other threads, you simply keep reverting back to the exact same wives tales over and over again despite all of the overwhelming evidence provided.

Subduction Zone i am going to put it very simply...

Your claim the bible is a fairytale account of world history is categorically false. It is conclusively proven (without any need for a balance of probabilities actually) that the Bible account is accurate. Minor date differences are irrelevant to the general validity of the Bible.

No. I do not. Some of the Bible consists of fairy tales. That is categorically proven true. Would you like to over how we know that some of the stories are fairy tales?

Additionally, the Bible is not only consistent with lots of external sources of evidence (ie evidence written by non-religious individuals/cultures) it remains very consistent across its own timeline and factual statements. Even its theology is very consistent.

No, the Bible is chuick full of inconsistencies and self contradictions. This site shows quite a few of them:

BibViz Project - Bible Contradictions, Misogyny, Violence, Inaccuracies interactively visualized

It shows the sort of inconsistencies that one would expect if it was just a work of man.

Add to the above, the Dead Sea Scrolls have comprehensively proven (and i cannot emphasize this enough), they have comprehensively proven that Chinese Whispers have played no part in the corruption of the text. It has remained unchanged for more than 1900 years.

This appears to be false as well. Plus you are using a strawman argument to boot. Can you provide any legitimate sources that support this claim of yours? I did just a little searching and found plenty of reason to doubt this claim as well. For example there is this article:

https://news.ku.edu/2020/07/09/how-dead-sea-scrolls-authors-rewrote-bible-literally

The Isaiah scroll found in Qumran Cave 1 in 1946 dates back at least 300 years earlier...thus we have well over 2000 years of writings that have remained unchanged. There are other writings and artifects that are even older such as the Black Obelisk of Sharmaneser III

a connection with the bible was made by Reverend Edward Hincks, who wrote in his diary on 21 August 1851: "Thought of an identification of one of the obelisk captives — with Jehu, king of Israel, and satisfying myself on the point wrote a letter to the Athenaeum announcing it".​

The above evidence comprehensively debunks your claims...I do not understand why you continue to spit out completely wrong statements. You are 100% wrong and those are not words I just pull out of thin air...you are absolutely 100% wrong! If it looks like a duck, has webbed feet, wings, feathers, quacks like a duck, swims on water, and has a bill like a duck...then it's obviously a flaming duck!

No, it does not. I already provided sources that refute this claim of yours. Meanwhile you have not provided one reliable source.

The point is, I am not arguing God in the above. All I am arguing is that the written tradition of the Bible is clearly representative of the history of the nation of Israel. That point is 100% obvious. It is pointless for you to attempt to separate an entire nation's history from reality in the way that you do. You are being stupid to be completely honest and you really need to realize that. If you wish to gain credibility in any of your arguments, you must accept reality where it exists. I have just given you that reality...again!

But it isn't. Source after source after source refute your clams. And all you have are claims.

Summary,
1. the bible is the history of the Israelite nation and culture. That is indisputable fact!
2. I am not claiming God in point 1 above. You do not need to be fearful of indoctrination because you accept a country's history...I know that you are fearful of being convinced of the religion if you accept the historical account. May i suggest that it is possible for you to maintain arm's length from the religion in the same way many countries accept the oral and written history of their indigenous without being convicted of the indigenous spiritual beliefs!

Spiritual beliefs are simply a mechanism used by individuals to explain the question of existence. If you are not genuinely interested in finding comprehensive and consistent answers that explain our existence...then don't argue those points! Leave them be. Argue what you can comfortably deal with...that is what Bart Ehrman does and he gets a great deal of respect for it!

Sorry, but all of your "facts" appear to be very wanting. None of them hold up so scrutiny. You are not helping your case for the Bible at all.

 

[gnostic]

2. Creationist have a historical written account that is proven to be consistent over at least 3000 years of human documented history supporting their view...its consistent with it.

Wrong. There are no evidence that any biblical texts existed beyond 3000 years.

So, no. Genesis, Exodus, Numbers & Leviticus existed in the Late Bronze Age (c 1530 - c 1050 BCE). The story of Moses may be set in earlier time, and books (including Deuteronomy) may be attributed to Moses as author, but not of these books can be found in the Late Bronze Age.

At best, the earliest literary evidence of biblical texts, point to either to the later half of the reign of Josiah of Judah (649 - 609 BCE), or to the period of Exiles in Babylon (587 or 886 BCE to 539 BCE).

The oldest evidence is the existence of amulet that contained tiny scrolls made of silver found in the cave at Ketef Hinnom. The scrolls is blackened due to oxide, but it has dated between 520 to 595 BCE. It contained passage from Numbers 6, relating to the Priestly Blessing.

No other evidence are older than this.

That Genesis and Exodus were composed sometimes in the mid-1st millennium BCE, would explain how little the authors know about the history of Mesopotamia (eg Genesis 10) and of Egypt (Genesis 10, and Abraham’s visit and migration of Jacob’s family; Exodus 1, 2 & 12).

Don’t you find it strange that when anyone is in Egypt, eg Abraham, Jacob, Joseph & Moses, none of the names of Egyptian kings were ever named. That probably because the authors of Genesis and Exodus knew nothing about them.

Abraham was supposedly guest to the king, but the king is nameless. Joseph was the second most powerful man in Egypt, appointed by the Egyptian king, and yet Genesis mention no name.

And lastly, Moses was rescued by Egyptian princess, daughter of the pharaoh, and he brought up in Egyptian royal court, and yet neither she, nor her father, were ever named. Likewise, no name to the king, during the plagues.

How do verify any stories from Abraham to Moses, when there are no names to any of the Egyptian kings?

Not only that, Genesis 10, say that Egypt or Mizraim, never existed until after the flood (Genesis 7 & 8), and yet Egyptian culture have been around as early as 4000 BCE, the first pyramid was built in Saqqara, during the reign of Djoser (c 2686 - 2649 BCE), the 1st king in the 3rd dynasty and the great pyramid of Khufu (2589 - 2566 BCE), 2nd king of the 4th dynasty was built at Giza.

Historicity of Genesis and Exodus are nonexistent. Plus, there are no Egyptian records of Abraham, Joseph or that of Moses.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Wrong. There are no evidence that any biblical texts existed beyond 3000 years.

ah isn't it amazing how badly the comprehension of some individuals actually is. That most often is the case because they don't bother to take in what their eyes see. We are all guilty of that, so i am not isolating myself from it, however, it highlights your fundamental mistake in this comment...and the entire post you spent some time composing immediately after this false premise...

If you recall my post to "the other guy who selectively reads" (i wont even bother mentioning his name because honestly, his claims are ignorant of reality presented to him with actual evidence and his usual "no it isn't" apparently this is some kind of new academic reference for all things knowledge, is time wasting to those who are interested in real references)...anyway, you will recall i mentioned the "Black Obelisk of Shalmanesar III" from 825 B.C depicting the Israelite King Jehu bowing before the Assyrian King? Well that 825 B.C represents the best part of 1000 years B.C and since were are in the year 2023, if i add 825 to it, i get 2848 years. If you want to argue about whether or not that matters against my general statement saying 3000 years go ahead...it makes little difference to the point.

Despite your best efforts to undermine facts by playing games with dates as some kind of proof of claim...might i suggest you research Yosef Garfinkel. You will be no doubt surprised to learn that in fact we have artifacts that DO date to around 3,000 B.C showing obvious evidence of Jewish religious practices at that time in history.

The point is, the Bible is clearly shown in many many internal and external references to be a legitimate account of the history of the Jewish nation. You can grumble about this all you like, however, to deny this is to deny you need to breathe in order to survive!