heckofajobbrownie Posted February 1, 2012 Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 It's always good fun to debate, yes. But I can't say I think there's much modern-day use for the Old Testament. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 science >>> religion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 Come on, vape. I know it seems unlikely to have happened. I'm not even saying it did happen. I'm saying it's possible that it COULD have happened. Strange things have happened throughout the long history of the world. Hell, strange things happen everyday. Bumblebees should not be able to fly according to aerodynamics. But they do. No. No. No. NO. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumble_bee#Flight This is not the slightest bit true. This is another scientific misnomer. Bumblebees would not be able to fly if their wings were static; they aren't. They are really fucking flexible, and the physics shows that they can fly. There is a chance that one time, sonic weaponry was used to cause the walls of a town to crumble. I'm not trying to say it's factual that it happened. I'm just saying it is possible. Like I said, it's as possible as a blast from my ass causing the flooding in the Philippines. It would be nice to know if that's what might have happened. And science shows that it most bloodly likely isn't. The bible is, after all, one of the most consistent (among ancient copies) books according to textual criticism. No it isn't. It's also the most popular book in the world. This one is true, but Twilight is quickly closing in on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 So does that mean in 2,000 years there will be wars between the Edwardites and the followers of the werewolf guy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 Like I said, it's as possible as a blast from my ass causing the flooding in the Philippines. And opera singers break glasses and windows with the mere sound of their voice. Resonance. And science shows that it most bloodly likely isn't. Science has shown nothing of the sort. Show me one experiment that proves it didn't happen, then we can talk about whether or not science has shown it can't happen. No it isn't. Yes, it is. Among approximately 24,000 ancient copies of the New Testament, more than any other book of the era, there have been 150,000 errors found. 99% of these errors are missing letters. That leaves 2,500 "more serious" errors for 24,000 books, most of which are tenses and misspellings. So just over 1% of the ancient copies of the New Testament contain an error more serious than a missing letter. Consider the length of the New Testament. The New testament is far more accurate than secular books from ancient time periods, of which there are far fewer copies, as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 Isn't the whole point of God believing in a force that is greater than man? It doesn't have to be proven by today's science. Hell, spontaneous generation was once a viable theory. Science is just a way of understanding the ways of the world and universe. There's nothing to say that God didn't make them work that way. In addition, the biblical passage concerning Jericho does not say that the force of the sound caused the walls to fall, just that the walls would fall when the trumpets sounded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 2, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 Isn't the whole point of God believing in a force that is greater than man? It doesn't have to be proven by today's science. Hell, spontaneous generation was once a viable theory. Science is just a way of understanding the ways of the world and universe. There's nothing to say that God didn't make them work that way. In addition, the biblical passage concerning Jericho does not say that the force of the sound caused the walls to fall, just that the walls would fall when the trumpets sounded. PE I don't think that's the whole point. I think the whole point is whether or not that supreme being cares what we do. And it's tough to try to prove face through a book written so long ago and by so many different people. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 Hey, there are mysteries every day. Here is an amusing look at some mysteries: http://www.cracked.com/article_16871_6-insane-discoveries-that-science-cant-explain_p2.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 So does that mean in 2,000 years there will be wars between the Edwardites and the followers of the werewolf guy? God help us. And opera singers break glasses and windows with the mere sound of their voice. Resonance. Again, apples to oranges. Science has shown nothing of the sort. Show me one experiment that proves it didn't happen, then we can talk about whether or not science has shown it can't happen. Science doesn't prove negatives. I can't disprove god through science. There is a lack of scientific evidence for just about all of your examples. There is a distinct lack of evidence that the resonant frequency of trumpets can bring down a wall (maybe we can get mythbusters to do this). Your argument, more or less is like this: The TCN bridge fell due to resonant frequency, therefore the walls of Jericho fell due to resonant frequency. Science can't prove that it didn't! Do I need to explain why that doesn't scientifically jive? Yes, it is. Among approximately 24,000 ancient copies of the New Testament, more than any other book of the era, there have been 150,000 errors found. 99% of these errors are missing letters. That leaves 2,500 "more serious" errors for 24,000 books, most of which are tenses and misspellings. So just over 1% of the ancient copies of the New Testament contain an error more serious than a missing letter. Consider the length of the New Testament. The New testament is far more accurate than secular books from ancient time periods, of which there are far fewer copies, as well. Do you have a source for these numbers? I'm very skeptical of them. Do you realize how much politics played a role in the selection of books for the Bible? Do you realize that these stories were handed down orally for years? You're not taking those changes into account, and there's no way to scientifically document them. Once humans learned to write, it's not hard to transcribe a text. Consistency among books that were copied from each other isn't exactly proving much. You're equating consistency to accuracy; in this historical context, they're quite different. I don't know what secular books you're referring to, but you're going to need to tell me how you define accuracy. Isn't the whole point of God believing in a force that is greater than man? It doesn't have to be proven by today's science. Hell, spontaneous generation was once a viable theory. Science is just a way of understanding the ways of the world and universe. There's nothing to say that God didn't make them work that way. In addition, the biblical passage concerning Jericho does not say that the force of the sound caused the walls to fall, just that the walls would fall when the trumpets sounded. The difference is that spontaneous generation was a theory, and it was subject to scientific inquiry. Whereas, in the case of the Bible, you aren't subjecting it to any scrutiny whatsoever. You are taking what's mentioned in it at face value, and you are assuming it to be true, whether or not there is accompanying evidence (which there isn't in most cases). And no, the Bible didn't say that the sound brought down the walls, but you did. What you've repeatedly done in this thread is blindly reach for scientific theories that support what's said in the Bible. tl;dr You're treating the Bible as if it's historically accurate. You're referencing vaguely related science to assert the "truth" in the Bible. Your argument comes down to, "Science can't prove that god didn't do it!" This is not a legitimate argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 Do you have a source for these numbers? I'm very skeptical of them. Do you realize how much politics played a role in the selection of books for the Bible? Do you realize that these stories were handed down orally for years? You're not taking those changes into account, and there's no way to scientifically document them. Once humans learned to write, it's not hard to transcribe a text. Consistency among books that were copied from each other isn't exactly proving much. You're equating consistency to accuracy; in this historical context, they're quite different. I don't know what secular books you're referring to, but you're going to need to tell me how you define accuracy. I'm not, really. Textual criticism is basically comparing different copies of books to determine how accurate they are to each other. It doesn't really prove much of anything, nor did I say that it did. It's just interesting, and it's good to know that it wasn't fucked with until the Catholics bastardized it. The ancient copies are astoundingly accurate when compared to other ancient books, so there's no need to get into the ease of transcription in an age of limited literacy. We just know that the New Testament was transcribed better than any other book of the era. Accuracy is defined by the difference in material contained within the books, barring simple spelling errors and the like. I believe it's counted by words, the total number of "different" words divided by the total quantity of words between the different copies. It's pointless to count partially finished copies. There are 5,600 ancient finished copies of the new testament, and those are 99.5% accurate to each other. Homer's Iliad is the next most accurate ancient text, with 643 ancient copies and a 95% accuracy rate. These numbers are adapted from three sources: 1) Christian Apologetics, by Norman Geisler, 1976, p. 307; 2) the article "Archaeology and History attest to the Reliability of the Bible," by Richard M. Fales, Ph.D., in The Evidence Bible, Compiled by Ray Comfort, Bridge-Logos Publishers, Gainesville, FL, 2001, p. 163; and 3) A Ready Defense, by Josh Mcdowell, 1993, p. 45. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 You can believe in Christianity if you want, it is just not rational Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 Accuracy is defined by the difference in material contained within the books, barring simple spelling errors and the like. I believe it's counted by words, the total number of "different" words divided by the total quantity of words between the different copies. Okay, my mistake, I thought you were saying they were historically accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 I was listening to Newt's plan on cheaper energy. I agree with him and how we could have cheaper gas if the president would take action on 3 different signings. Does anyone think that just maybe Obama is pushing higher prices in gas? It may push everyone into having to buy one of those death traps they call a smart car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 26, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 I was listening to Newt's plan on cheaper energy. I agree with him and how we could have cheaper gas if the president would take action on 3 different signings. Does anyone think that just maybe Obama is pushing higher prices in gas? It may push everyone into having to buy one of those death traps they call a smart car. Well he has stated that's what he wants whether or not he's actually pulling the strings to make it happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 I hate Newt. He needs to just go home and do something else. Actually, all of the Republican candidates are looking like duds. Another boring election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.