BILL NYE VS KEN HAM: TONIGHT AT 7 PM

[DeistPaladin]

Without an exterior standard to measure it by how do you know it is improving?

Because of how well science works in producing the results we want.

Changes and revisions (to the Bible) by whom and when?

Mark chapter 16, after verse 8, is one undisputed example. The ending to the original Gospel got a later rewrite. By whom is a good question. We don't even know who wrote Mark, let alone who wrote the new ending.

Remember Bart Ehrman? The guy you keep holding up on that grand pedestal as the infallible arbiter of all that is true? Yeah, that guy. He's written extensively about how the Bible was changed over time.

How do you know when something is in fact an error?

Evidence.

19th Century: “The Universe has a finite beginning!”
Early 20th Century: “Sorry, we were wrong- the Universe has always existed!”
Late 20th Century: “Sorry again, we were wrong about being wrong; the Universe definitely had a finite beginning!”

New facts = new conclusion. This is how I went from being pro-life to pro-choice. We learn new things and adjust our conclusions accordingly. What you deride as a weakness is in fact a strength.

You’re proving my point; would you expect an infallible account of history and purpose to change? I wouldn’t.

Who said science was infallible. Words like that belong with a religious ideology.

Who is more likely to be telling the truth, the child who has consistently given you the same story every time you ask him for it or the child who changes his story every time you ask him?

Who is more likely to be right? The student who starts with the data, forms a hypothesis based on the data and then tests the hypothesis and submits the testing to fellow students to see if they get the same results and then forms a theory or...
the student that starts with the conclusion, calls it an "axiom" and then looks for data to support it?

It’s not merely an assertion it’s an axiom. If the Bible were indeed infallible it’d certainly be the only infallible source we have correct? Then how could you possibly demonstrate its fallibility when all you have are fallible means?

So is an "axiom" a bare assertion "proven" by circular reasoning?

Again, it matters where you start from. Start with the Bible and the Earth is young, start somewhere else and you’ll end up with a different age.

How about starting with the data and then drawing conclusions from it instead of starting with the conclusion, calling it an "axiom" and then looking for reasons to believe it?

They are not nonsensical at all, knowledge and science presuppose that God exists.

You keep asserting that, and calling it another of your "axioms", but I have yet to see any support for that assertion.

Yes we have laws regulating adultery. It’s permitted under the law and yet there’s all sorts of regulations concerning prenuptial agreements, child custody, and so on.

Unlike Yahweh, our secular government is not (or should not be) concerned with personal lives but nonetheless, our society does not approve of adultery and an adulterer will be at a disadvantage in a civil case of divorce. Even pre-nups may be thrown out by a judge sympathetic to the mistreatment of a spouse. You've picked a bad example to make your case that Yahweh regulated polygamy while secretly despising the practice and wishing that his chosen people would knock it off.

Paradox? Certain moral truths are part of the created ordinance and obvious to all, monogamy is one of them.

Apparently not so "obvious" to the "righteous" leaders of the "chosen people". From Abraham to Solomon, I can't think of any monogamous leaders or kings from the OT. Perhaps you can cite an example for me? Surely if the virtue were so obvious, at least one king from the OT practiced monogamy.

I do (know you better), which is precisely why I get paranoid (when you cite the Bible).

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize it was painful for you when I hit you with some inconvenient verses. If there's a way I can be more gentle about it, let me know.

You skipped a step, where in the verse does it say that David only sinned once?

Re-read the verse. It does say David only strayed from Yahweh's will with Uriah and his wife.

Nope, if you are going to discuss the Bible with a Christian then the entire Bible is fair game.

But we were discussing polygamy in the OT. However, if you insist on discussing the NT, please explain why Yahweh changed his mind.

I see no contradiction in Mark 10, I do not think that word means what you think it means.

One says "never" and the other says "except in the case of...". I think this qualifies as a contradiction.

Adam and Eve. Apparently you have not read Genesis for a while.

Chapter and verse?

Well I clearly stated that I was referring to the created ordinance in Genesis 1, but this verse supports my position as well. Wife? Why does it say wife and not wives?

Where does it say you're not allowed to cleave again?

That seemed to be the ancient Hebrews' interpretation. You'll pardon me if I consider them and not you the expert on what Yahweh really meant, I hope?

The ancient Hebrews also worshipped idols so that argument is obviously a violation of Hume’s Law.

...and they got punished for it every time they did it.

Where, prey tell, did they get punished for the practice of polygamy?

Actions that lead a man’s heart astray from the worship of Yahweh sound like sins to me.

Hence their concern for FOREIGN wives.

Yup! (the same chapter regulates how polygamy is handled)

Glad we agree.
Game. Set. Match.

...or it was that way since Judea's culture changed under pagan influences and subsequently the nature of their god changed to fit the new culture.

Source?

My hypothesis based upon a plausible natural explanation, simpler than your ideas that Yahweh secretly disapproved of polygamy but only mustered the courage to say so in the NT.

The amount of stock you guys put into user-generated YouTube videos is downright appalling.

...because Bronze Age religious texts that feature talking snakes are so much more credible.