Disproving the Bible

[The Grand Nudger]

Does he? I doubt that very much.

You can't write a claim that Jesus has resurrected if he isn't even dead yet.
Jesus allegedly lived before the Bible was complete, and much longer before it was composed.

You can't? Tell that to Buffy Summers (and she did it thrice, take that jesus!).

[Jackalope]

Have any of you actually read the New Testament? And if you did, did you read it with the filter of the vitriol and hate you put into your posts?

I have. I started reading as a Christian and finished as an apostate.

[Jenny A]

Have any of you actually read the New Testament? And if you did, did you read it with the filter of the vitriol and hate you put into your posts?

I have. I started reading as a Christian and finished as an apostate.

Seems I've heard that story before. Maybe we should encourage those Gideon people.

[Esquilax]

I have been told my whole life that evolution is not true and is filled with holes. I have read books that poke at these holes. I can find hundreds if not thousands of articles that poke at these holes. I read that scientist know there are holes and either ignore them because their belief is so strong that they figure we will eventually figure it out or they are not going to question the establishment because they will look bad at one end of the spectrum or even damage their careers on the other end. I hear that intelligent design is gaining momentum.

So you started researching to disprove evolution, not to observe the facts as they stand, gotcha. Because if you were looking into straight facts, what you would see is a scientific community that knows evolution isn't one hundred percent clear and known yet, but that that doesn't matter because the weight of evidence for it is so comprehensive and staggering that it would literally turn the entirety of biological science on its head to find even one shred of evidence that it wasn't true. What you'll find is that all those evolution-denying "scientists" who are so afraid for their jobs if they speak out publicly really have other reasons for fearing for their careers, like the lack of evidence for their intelligent design, or the academic fraud they commit in order to get articles about that published. What you'd see is an intelligent design movement limping, injured since a court case in 2005 where its best advocates could not defend it on the stand, and it was ruled a religious movement.

That's why I say don't go to creationist sources, because they are outright liars who will distort the facts to keep you believing.

The bias of naturalism is a huge concern of mine. For example, no matter what science discovers, you will never ever believe in a theory that has God as part of the equation. They have no alternative than to believe in evolution. How many scientist would fit that description?

"Bias" of naturalism, is it? It's a bias to want evidence for things in science? No, as Rasetsu said, this is you equivocating because there is no evidence for god. Not that this stops religious scientists from existing, mind: there are plenty of scientists who are christians, they just happen to follow the evidence to where it leads too. Theistic evolution is a thing, you know. Just ask Francis Collins, an evangelical christian who is also a geneticist, director of the National Institute of Health, and who states, despite his christianity, that the DNA evidence alone is enough to confirm evolution by natural selection. His faith is strong enough to survive the mountains of evidence for evolution: why isn't yours?

And that's why your claim here is crap, Steve.

On the other side, you have thousands of Christian scientist (in every applicable field) that say evolution does not fit the facts.

"Thousands"? No. When the Discovery Institute- that's a creationist source- published a list of professionals who dispute evolution, they could only find 101 people willing to sign a statement saying that. And more than half of those weren't scientists. And of the 35 percent that were scientists, the majority of those requested that their names be taken off the list once their attention had been drawn to it, because they did accept evolution... which the Discovery Institute refused to do, as keeping up that appearance of dissent was more important to them than honesty.

And that level of dissent? Is less than one percent of scientists in America, anyway. In fact, the poll results are in, Steve: ninety-seven percent of scientists accept evolution to be true based on the evidence. Not only are you vastly overstating your case, you're doing so using information gleaned from liars. Does that feel good?

I thought your religion was against lying!

So who am I to believe? Those that say that God had a hand in things or those who won't consider that option?

Except you're being dishonest when you say everyone else "won't" consider that option. There are plenty of evolution accepting folk that not only would accept that option, but actively believe it. There are plenty of scientists who are christians, and even the atheist ones would accept the evidence for a god when there is some. Hell, as it stands you've even got your idea of naturalism completely wrong too: science tests what's available in reality, and so it has nothing to say about god at all. It's hard to prove a negative, and so generally speaking a properly applied scientific method leaves the possibility of god open. What you really have a problem with is the rational idea that one shouldn't accept things as true without evidence. And only then because we won't accept the one belief without evidence that you use special pleading to accept sans evidence right now.

You are wrong at literally every conceivable level of this, Steve. And you're having to construct conspiracy theories and biases among people you've never even met, let alone known, in order to sustain those wrong beliefs. What part of that sounds okay to you?

[Wyrd of Gawd]

[ide]

The whole New Testament can be summed up with these verses:

1. Matthew 10:5 (ERV) <snip>
2. Matthew 15: 24 (ERV)<snip>
3. Matthew 19:28 (ERV) <snip>
4. Matthew 13:10-13 (ERV) <snip>
5. Revelation 21:10-12 (ERV)<snip>

Simply stated: Jesus doesn't give a damn about Gentiles. He said so.

[/hide]

You seem to have picked the one Gospel of the four most blatantly addressed to Jews only and left out the Epistles.

Besides, even in Mathew, the risen Jesus says:

18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

Mathew NIV 28:18-20

@SteveII: Even an atheist can quote scripture. Doesn't make the scripture true though.

Surprise! Jesus doesn't have any dialog in the Epistles. They are mostly rambling monologues by Paul.

When Jesus told the disciple to go to all nations he was telling them to seek out the Jews living among the local yokels. The Jews were scattered from Spain to India and all around the Mediterranean Sea into Africa. The intent was to preach to them and not to the Gentiles. He told his Apostles that they would be judging the twelve tribes of Israel and not the local yokels living in India, Italy, Spain and Ethiopia.

[Baqal]

@Esquilax
-I thought your religion was against lying!
Proverbs 12:22
22 Lying lips are abomination to the Lord: but they that deal truly are his delight.
Ironic, isn't it.

[Purplundy]

When Jesus told the disciple to go to all nations he was telling them to seek out the Jews living among the local yokels. The Jews were scattered from Spain to India and all around the Mediterranean Sea into Africa. The intent was to preach to them and not to the Gentiles. He told his Apostles that they would be judging the twelve tribes of Israel and not the local yokels living in India, Italy, Spain and Ethiopia.

Proof needed.
Or not. You argue that Jesus' disciples preached exclusively to Jews, or at least were told to. So if (when) I bring up the counterexamples, like Peter baptizing a Roman family or Paul advocating for Gentiles to not need to follow Jewish law, your argument will fall apart. You might as well concede now.
I'm sorry, but if you're going to discuss the Bible, you have to go by what is written inside it.

[Esquilax]

@Esquilax
-I thought your religion was against lying!
Proverbs 12:22
22 Lying lips are abomination to the Lord: but they that deal truly are his delight.
Ironic, isn't it.

Oh, but if you interpret that correctly, it really means that the lord loves those who lie out of convenience!

[SteveII]

As you recommended, I am researching non-creationist articles and comparing them to the article I mentioned before. TOPIC: Orphaned Genes. ISSUE: 10-30% of all genes of all species can't be traced to other species. Where do they come from?

I found an article describing a study of orphaned genes by Tomislav Domazet-Loso and Diethard Tautz of the Institut für Genetik der Universität zu Köln, 50931 Köln, Germany. http://genome.cshlp.org/content/13/10/2213.full 10.1101/gr.1311003; Genome Res. 2003. 13: 2213-2219; Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press.

Near the end of the article, they have a section: There are three possible reasons why a gene can be an orphan gene.

1. The genes have newly evolved
2. The gene was an ancestrally shared gene but got lost in most evolutionary lineages.
3. The gene evolved so quickly that a similarity cannot be found in other species.

All three theories have problems. The conclusion starts with "The role of orphan genes in the evolutionary process remains enigmatic."

It seems to have been the prevailing theory that: "The probability that a functional protein would appear de novo by random association of amino acids is practically zero." Jacob, Francois. June 10 1977. Evolution and Tinkering. Science, New Series, Vol. 196, Issue 4295, pp. 1161-1166. (Nobel prize winning geneticist) until the mapping of the genome found these orphaned genes.

Here is my problem. They listed three possible reasons for orphaned genes--none of which was that the organisms did not share a common ancestor (which would fit ALL the facts). You said that there is no bias in science. Tell me why this is not bias?

[The Grand Nudger]

One orphaned gene hardly overturns the weight of the rest of the genes in the subject.