2016 FSTDT Awards, Final Round!!
Quotes & Others
(Voting open till Jan 31)
Site/Off-Topic Discussion Thread 3
Help Syrian War Victims
Answers in Genesis,
Answers in Genesis
[9/30/2009 11:09:12 PM]
Fundie Index: 58
Submitted By: DevilsChaplain
Where can I get this book called 'Evolution Belief', and who wrote it?
10/1/2009 6:40:31 AM
Bah. Neither of them explains how to build a good fire.
10/1/2009 7:05:46 AM
Which one do you trust?
1. It Is Written
Much of the things that are written in this book don´t fit to scientific observations or archaelogical findings. People who still believe in the literal truth of this book have to continually reinterpret the things written therein to make themselves believe, that the things written therein are correct (or alternatively, to automaticaly dismiss all scientific findings that disagree with the bible). There are also a lot of cotradictionary passages in this book. Biblical literalists avoid problems arising from them with imaginative reinterpretations, or by selective reading of the bible.
There is however no proof for most of the things within the book, that they really happened. As for Jesus, who is one important person in this book we know, that nothing within the book was written by eye witnesses. Paul, who wrote much of the content never went into specifics about Jesus and never met Jesus in person. The other 4 authors who wrote in depth stories about live and death of Jesus also never met him (or were witnesses to any of the events they described) and wrote their books beginning from ~20 years after Jesus death. We also know that Matthew and Luke copied much of their content from Mark.
Outside form these 4 booksthereis no independent historical confirmation for the existence of jesus.
2. Theory of Evolution
It is rewritten and rewritten and rewritten...
Because it tries to explain the things we observe in nature (like Fossiles and current species) and in experiments and every time a researcher finds an explantation that fits better to the things observed, or if new observations come to light which shed new light into old explanations, a small part of the theory of evolution will get changed.
The main part of the theory however (speciation due to environmental pressure) remains valid throughout these all of these changes, as it is only the finer details which change over time.
So, which one do I trust more? I think I stay with 2
10/1/2009 7:07:50 AM
10/1/2009 7:37:38 AM
Mirror mirror on the wall,
Which one is rewritten most of all?
10/1/2009 8:15:41 AM
Wait, when scientists find evidence that doesn't fit perfectly with theory they alter the theory? How dare they!
Much better to stick doggedly to yor theories even after they have been falsified.
10/1/2009 9:13:26 AM
That's like asking someone to perform 17th century medicine on you.
"But they didn't have to change it!"
They did. And it's better. Get the fuck over it.
10/1/2009 9:54:15 AM
I know I'm convinced. Why accept a theory that changes to accommodate newly discovered facts, when there's a book that we're not allowed to question even after we've counted the legs on an insect?
10/1/2009 10:13:39 AM
Don't know ancient Greek or ancient Hebrew.
Have to go with the translated form.
10/1/2009 10:15:04 AM
This is a repost, ironically enough.
10/1/2009 10:32:57 AM
Well, that explains why some inconsistencies CAN'T be solved.
10/1/2009 11:14:27 AM
In another words, which would you choose - static Dogma you are not allowed to question or self-correcting ideas that update as new evidence is discovered.
It's a false dichotomy really; it's not like you "have" to believe in either. If there was a god, I seriously doubt she would give a shit what people thought about the origins or development of life on Earth.
10/1/2009 11:22:22 AM
Lessee... should I believe that there is a "firmament" in the sky with floodgates that open up to allow rain to fall? Should I believe in a flat earth with a "dome" of a sky that the sun, moon, and stars move through? Should I believe in a worldwide flood, a guy who collected at least two of every animal & insect on the entire planet and put them on a 300 foot-long wooden boat he built himself, then floated for several months until the waters just "receded" somewhere? Should I believe that snakes can talk? Should I believe that a guy with magical powers who was his own father allowed himself to be executed, then came back to life three days later and magically flew up into the sky?
It is written and has been unchanged for thousands of years (if you can believe that), so it must be true.
Of course, don't forget that the Catholic bible has books in it that Protestant bibles don't, but they're not really Christians anyway.
10/1/2009 11:37:31 AM
Well, yeah, I'll pick the new and improved biology text book over the fallible badly written unedited bible. I mean there are parts in that book where like, 50 sentences start with And. And is a conjunction, it's meant to tie two sentences together, not start sentences with it.
10/1/2009 12:31:13 PM
The one that doesn't proclaim itself to be infallible despite all evidence to the contrary.
10/1/2009 3:21:51 PM
I'll Take Evolution with a side of playboy and a medium root beer.
10/1/2009 3:30:58 PM
Lets see if I can fix.
Holy Bible - written, translated, rewritten, translated, rewritten, translated, rewritten, rewritten - with mistakes - but given as word of God to blindly follow. Not allowed to question or acknowledge mistakes and rewrites.
Evolution SCIENCE (not a belief) - written, rewritten with new observations, peer reviewed, rewritten with new observations, peer reviewed, rewritten with new observations, peer reviewed, rewritten with new observations, peer reviewed, etc.
10/1/2009 4:42:45 PM
I've seen the same argument applied in favour of homoeopathy. I.e. that conventional medicine is obviously inferior because new medicines, treatments and diagnostic and surgical techniques come out all the time, quite often supplanting earlier ones, while homoeopaths are still pushing the same overpriced bottled water they've done for the last 200 years.
I guess when you've not come up with a single new idea in that long, "we've always done it this way" is pretty much the only argument left.
10/2/2009 5:20:37 AM
Rewritten? I'd say revised, whereas your ol' big book of fairy tales has been all the same for hundreds of years and disproved every single time it has been put up to compete with reality.
10/2/2009 5:55:07 AM
"IT IS WRITTEN"
As are humans evolving from apes, and the universe coming into being from a cataclysmic cosmic event (Big Bang) in "On the Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin, and "A Brief History of Time" by Prof. Stephen Hawking, respectively.
So according to your own logic, Answers in Genesis, the above are
. Especially so in Richard Dawkins' new book "The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution". What he says therein is fact.
Because you say so.
So as IT IS WRITTEN.
After all, anyone can go into their wardrobe and emerge out the other side and emerge into another world, where you'd meet a talking lion. As IT IS WRITTEN in CS Lewis's "The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe".
'IT IS WRITTEN' says the Bible. We Atheists have a saying:
Don't believe everything you read.
10/2/2009 8:03:40 AM
To be so ignorant of the history of what you claim to be the centerpiece of your philosophy and world outlook ... that is wilfull ignorance indeed!!
Any way we can send this guy a copy of Bart D. Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why?"
10/2/2009 11:16:10 AM
I'll take the one that has been revived and corrected over the one that has been reviewed, mistranslated, and manipulated by a group of people ith power lust.
10/2/2009 12:18:55 PM
...and the unintentional irony award goes to...
10/3/2009 2:04:22 AM
Wow. I mean, are you really that stupid? Should I even begin?
No, no you're right. A bunch of ancient people 2000 years ago just whipped up the KJV, a perfect book with modern-day English, modern-day paper and made in a modern-day printing factory. God dropped all this technology down from heaven and everything, the bibles even had a bar code printed on the back.
11/28/2009 8:00:46 PM
Should they be using this argument as Conservapedia is rewriting the Bible as we speak?
12/4/2009 3:43:16 PM