Bible contradictions?

[chi pan]

So what are fossils. Why does one type of animal die out, and a slightly different version propagate.

Rather than focus on the gaps, why are there any transitional fossils at all? How does your hypothesis of God fit into that.

To answer that you will have to define a transitional fossil for me. If your definition is any fossil then this is an easy question. Animals die out and quickly get buried and preserved. That's why they exist.

And disproven by other scientists. Self-correcting.

I would say you're right IF it weren't for the fact that this isn't a oops mistake made move on learn from it. It is fraud that happens repeatedly. Scientists are obviously not learning from mistakes if they keep falling for these frauds.

There are many elements of the bible have been conclusively disproved as lies, yet you continue to state it as fact.

Who is being more dishonest here? Catching fraud and exposing them, or Catching fraud and ignoring it.

What in the bible is proven to be lies?

Would you like to demand that practitioners of faith never lie to defend their beliefs? Would you like to discuss that, or brush it under the carpet? Turin Shroud? Letters to Pontius Pilate? The Coffin of James? etc *cough*

The shroud of Turin is to be determined in light of recent evidence of the carbon dating sample taken determined to be a medevil patch. The others are frauds but don't prove the bible wrong. I admitt church can be corrupt, can you not admitt the same for scientists?

The problem is that Evolution stands on Evidence, and Faith stands on the denial of it.

Evidence of conjecture, not facts.

[The Grand Nudger]

You put that double standard on like a talisman don't you? You also seem to think that fraud within the scientific community is a bit more widespread than it is (and by a bit, I mean by orders of magnitude). It's very difficult to perpetuate a fraud in science, as it defers completely to evidence, and if you don't have it, or if you have misinterpreted it, someone can make a career out of criticizing both it and you for presenting it (or the lack thereof).

Compare that with faith, where no evidence is offered, none is expected, and in many ways you are actually discouraged from considering it if someone does go about the dirty business of looking for it in the first place (as is plainly the case with E by NS). Just-so stories may work for you, but they don't work for me Chip.

I'm wondering, btw, why you aren't keen on claiming E by NS as part and parcel of gods superpowers. That this god was so immensely powerful that it did not have to intervene, did not have to leverage a guiding hand. That would be a superpower right there, but only if you are willing to accept that E by NS occurred. So powerful, in fact, that it could get precisely what it wanted without actually having to do anything at all. That's a more confident and competent picture of god than the tinkerer and blunderer that you present. A god that got the vast majority of it's "designs" wrong, even though it also "designed" the environment that extinguished those forms of life, and then actively engaged in the destruction of what remains in disappointment of it's own efforts. That doesn't sound like much of a god, sounds like a human being (and not a particularly pleasant or clever one, at that).

[Phil]

Animals die out and quickly get buried and preserved. That's why they exist.

Damn, you mean all that money I wasted buying that Taphonomy textbook when all I had to do was ask you?

Do I really need to say you're an asshole again?

[chi pan]

Animals die out and quickly get buried and preserved. That's why they exist.

Damn, you mean all that money I wasted buying that Taphonomy textbook when all I had to do was ask you?

Do I really need to say you're an asshole again?

You take a part of an answer I had to one question in that post to misrepresent me and call me an asshole? Really?

[Phil]

You take a part of an answer I had to one question in that post to misrepresent me and call me an asshole? Really?

How am I misrepresenting you? What you said is full of shit and so are you, that is why I called you an asshole. Another word would be ignoranus because you're stupid and an asshole.

[NoMoreFaith]

To answer that you will have to define a transitional fossil for me. If your definition is any fossil then this is an easy question. Animals die out and quickly get buried and preserved. That's why they exist.

Transitional Fossil being a fossil remains of a creature which shares traits with older and newer fossils with a pattern of variation through the ages.

I would say you're right IF it weren't for the fact that this isn't a oops mistake made move on learn from it. It is fraud that happens repeatedly. Scientists are obviously not learning from mistakes if they keep falling for these frauds.

However, it is a rare occurrence, more damning of people whether scientific or religious than of the scientific method. It is the scientific method that exposed the flaws in the first place.

For instance, Christians can commit evil acts, therefore Christianity is evil would be a similar exaggeration which is not necessarily true.

What in the bible is proven to be lies?

In order to do so, it is easier to compile a list of biblical truths;

List of Scientifically Proven Biblical Truths
1. ....

Okay, I'm done.

How about floods, plagues, miracles, contradictions. How about curing people by killing birds? How about making mountains move? Flat earth? STATIONARY earth?

By your own argument, things like a stationary earth and flat earth were accepted for hundreds of years, so who are we to say they are wrong.

Nope. You had to reinterpret to fit in with the inescapable facts.

The shroud of Turin is to be determined in light of recent evidence of the carbon dating sample taken determined to be a medevil patch. The others are frauds but don't prove the bible wrong. I admitt church can be corrupt, can you not admitt the same for scientists?

I absolutely can. People are people, and some people have motivations contrary to the truth. This is the same for religion as for science. However science has a method to catch them in their lies.
Wheres religions method to catch lies? Your frauds went for hundreds of years in some cases.. and it had to call on science to prove it.

You aren't looking for truth, you want to assert it. Searching for truth, and exposing lies... thats the scientific method.

Evidence of conjecture, not facts.

To a certain extent yes, conjecture is thought to be true and has not been disproven.
Biology, chemistry, geology, anthropology conjecture all indicating with separate evidences that the theory is accurate. It MIGHT be wrong, but its not looking that way so far.

You pick tiny bits out of all them, which is fine, but that does not excuse the weight of it all.

What do you have?

Bible.

I know where my money is going.

[Minimalist]

What in the bible is proven to be lies?

Start at "In the beginning" and go from there.

[Undeceived]

Anybody who had read even one thing would realise that "wolf-like" in appearance, does not equate to being a wolf.

The point is, the mesonychids evolve almost directly into wolves (with no transitional fossils between) and also happen to be the supposed closest ancestor of dolphins/whales (with no transitional fossils). The blue whale arose within 40 million years, a small time by any evolutionary standard, while the mesonychids remained virtually unchanged in the same time period, as did most other species. I bring up whales because they are an example of uncanny accelerated evolution, and also a digression--organisms arose from the ocean, and then they inexplicably return. The question is why.
Why it's unlikely: http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/whale.htm

Of course its prone to mistakes, when was the last time you worked out the eating habits of something that died out millions of years ago and only leaves remains in very very special circumstances?

If fossils are so rare, why do we often have dozens or hundreds of a given species... punctuated by blankness? Was there a cataclysmic event in the time of their existence but not one single event while the alleged 100 transitionary species lived? Fossils are records of when the animal died, not when it lived. It's hypocritical for a scientist to date confidently based on deaths when 99% of organisms in history aren't even on record. The Cambrian Explosion is not an explosion of mutations and development. It's when they all died, when their functions intended for survival failed them. Why did they die all around the same time? The Flood is a logical answer.

[Jackalope]

The so-called Cambrian Explosion occurred over a period of many millions of years, 500+ million years ago. Not exactly fitting the claimed timeline for the flood, you know.

Furthermore, its also worth noting that all Cambrian fauna was aquatic.

[The Grand Nudger]

The point is, the mesonychids evolve almost directly into wolves (with no transitional fossils between) and also happen to be the supposed closest ancestor of dolphins/whales (with no transitional fossils). The blue whale arose within 40 million years, a small time by any evolutionary standard, while the mesonychids remained virtually unchanged in the same time period, as did most other species. I bring up whales because they are an example of uncanny accelerated evolution, and also a digression--organisms arose from the ocean, and then they inexplicably return. The question is why.
Why it's unlikely: http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/whale.htm


If fossils are so rare, why do we often have dozens or hundreds of a given species... punctuated by blankness? Was there a cataclysmic event in the time of their existence but not one single event while the alleged 100 transitionary species lived? Fossils are records of when the animal died, not when it lived. It's hypocritical for a scientist to date confidently based on deaths when 99% of organisms in history aren't even on record. The Cambrian Explosion is not an explosion of mutations and development. It's when they all died, when their functions intended for survival failed them. Why did they die all around the same time? The Flood is a logical answer.

Whales are also an example of a creature "trying" to survive in an uncannily different environment than the others of it's evolutionary branch. Just how successful do you imagine they would have been otherwise, and just how many other creatures of the same branch occupying the same niche do you imagine might survive in the face of such an advantageous set of adaptations as the whales posess? I think what your trying to argue against now is not evolution, but punctuated equilibrium as opposed to cladogenesis. See, this is the trouble, what you find in your bullet point list has given you a false sense of confidence in the subject, and you don't seem to have considered that this list was devised with the intent to deceive you, and now here you are repeating the strawmen of others. "The question is why", really, that's the question, well, lucky for you I have an answer. There's a hell of alot of food in the ocean, and it seems like a good place to escape ones predators (especially if you're not the kind of creature that might realize that the ocean is full of predators of it's own, or if you're very very large -que The Illustrious Whale)

The flood belongs in the Cambrian....? I don't think you want to place the flood in the Cambrian amigo, because now I want you to present me with a Cambrian human, or a Cambrian mammal, A Cambrian boat etc. Last I checked they didn't find any human remains in the Burgess Shale.The Cambrian explosion is an explosion of life, and that's why they call it the Cambrian explosion, I don't know why you seem to believe otherwise. There is valid criticism of what we call "The Cambrian Explosion" btw, some contend that it is merely the explosion of life that fossilized well (for a variety of reason, and especially considering that "fossilizing well" is playing fast and loose with the word "well"), that there may have been plenty swimming about before that that simply didn't fossilize very well. I don't care what you think the logical explanation for any given thing is, I have no trust in your ability to reach a logical conclusion given your premise. What I want is evidence of your flood, what I want is evidence of your timeframe, etc etc etc.