I don't believe any of the stories about Jesus were "eye witness" accounts. I think even the eye witnesses were fiction. I suspect the entire NT was a work of fiction, (but then everyone knows what I think. LOL.)

Because they are in general, sincere in their search for information and truth as it relates to reality, logic and the laws of physics. I am not saying that they have all the answers or that I believe all of what they have declared, in fact I think they are wrong on many points. But at least they continue to seek answers through knowledge and evidence rather than putting all their faith in myth and ancient scripture. That is precisely why science is rewritten. There is a constant learning and readjustment to the knowledge base.

We grow and learn. If we do not, we remain in the dark ages steeped in fear, ignorance and superstition.

Had you said the bible has been transcribed many times, and translated into many languages - I could see your point. But rewritten. Where - do tell - are all of these modified copies so that we can investigate the innacuracies? As far as I understand - the 5,000+ copies they have from the time of their original writing have an accuracy of close to 99%. Are you refering to the 1% as "plenty of times"?

And if I'm not mistaken - those who have painstakenly investigated these documents from antiquity are themselves - scientists.

Dear me. Now what?

So what you are essentially saying - is that you have a blind faith in scientists. Yet you deem the writers of the gospels writing myth because they reported what they saw and heard?

Ummm... sure - makes sense to me. Believe what the scientists report HOW they see something - but that's nt myth, because - what, it's SCIENCE??? If that isn't a "dark age" reaction - what is?

If you don't trust the translaters of scripture, why don't you investigate the originals for yourself, rather than dismiss the whole thing as myth? I'm sure that you don't fully understand isotropic dating - how does that effect your perception that the world is 4.5 billion years old?

I agree with your suspicion that the entire NT(if not the entire bible itself) is a work of fiction.
Especially since so many of the Gods, that society today doesn't belief in today, that pre-date Jesus, share similarities, if the stories aren't carbon-copies of each other.(The Egyptian god Horus, for example)

Did you know, that the Roman-Catholic Church's Official explanation of those gods is that Satan wrote them into history to confuse man.

That is the official explanation, even to this day.

Eljay just likes to equate trust in science with blind faith because that at least puts us on even ground (with him), what he fails to realize it that its not blind when you have methodological processes in place to backtrack mistakes. Science IS that methodological process.

So what you are essentially saying - is that you have a blind faith in scientists. Yet you deem the writers of the gospels writing myth because they reported what they saw and heard?

Ummm... sure - makes sense to me. Believe what the scientists report HOW they see something - but that's nt myth, because - what, it's SCIENCE??? If that isn't a "dark age" reaction - what is?



It has been rewritten as far as I am concerned. Words have been changed that have completely different meanings. Whether this was done in transcribing or translating makes no difference. I trust not the editing of men with agendas.

It is also clear that a lot of the Bible has been either plagiarized or simply the retelling of older myths that previously had been passed down by word of mouth.

Also in the time of the writing of the New Testament, it was the elite of Rome who had the power of the pen. Governments were as corrupt back then as they are today. I don't trust them then and I don't trust them now. Very few men could read and write and scribes had to be paid hence the wealthy and influential were in control of the creation of scripture rather than men inspired by God. The common man did not have an education nor could he read or write. This was probably true of any cults and their followers.

And you know this how? You've read the original greek and aramaic? Or did you read some "expert" with a bias against scripture and figure he knew what he was talking about.

If you don't trust the translaters of scripture, why don't you investigate the originals for yourself, rather than dismiss the whole thing as myth? I'm sure that you don't fully understand isotropic dating - how does that effect your perception that the world is 4.5 billion years old?

I'm just trying to get a line on your reasoning here.

wow...the bashing continues?

wow...the bashing continues?

have at it then.

Thank you. I am forever in your debt.

The topic still is ...

'... is evolution compatible with the bible???...'

IMO this is still a fundamentalist ANSWER, uninterested in debating, and hypocrytically mascarading its undefendable dogma as a question.

Taking a closer look at a historical trial, helps to put the undefendable stance of fundamentalists in its proper perspective.

Between July 10-25, 1925, The Scopes 'Monkey Trial', captured the world's attention.

The fundamentalist-bible inerrancy-apologist world view, founded on a ‘word-for-word’ interpretation of the bible, was shown to be IGNORANT at best and DANGEROUS at worst BACK THEN. Considering these threads in 2009, it would appear that not much has EVOLVED from the ‘fundamentalist’ perspective.

The Scopes ‘Monkey trial’ was essentially the rationalists of the time challenging a Tennessee law forbidding the teaching of evolution.

THE CAST:

Clarence Darrow,
famed and brilliant lawyer specializing in defending underdogs, who volunteered for this case to help combat what many perceived at the time as FUNDAMENTALIST IGNORANCE

Versus

William Jennings Bryan,
known as "The Great Commoner," a tent-revivalist, three-time presidential candidate and former Secretary of State to Woodrow Wilson. His checkered political career over, he switched to the evangelism business.

And

John T. Scopes, a 24-year old science teacher and football coach, whom had actually defied the Tennessee law by teaching Darwin’s theory of evolution in his science class.

Reading the transcripts of the crucial part of the trial, where Darrow calls Bryan to the box as a witness, revealed to the world the degree of ignorance that the ‘fundamentalist-bible inerrant’ dogma cultivated among its otherwise well-educated, intelligent and articulate adherents.

It was a WORLD SHOCKER THEN, and I can’t understand how in 2009, ‘fundamentalists’ hold exactly the same views, and present exactly the same arguments, and somehow expect to be vindicated!!!

I invite you to read the following exchanges between ‘DARROW’ and ‘BRYAN, and while reminding yourself that this took place in 1925, noticing the incredible similitude with the fundamentalists exchanges on these threads today.

"You have given considerable study to the Bible, haven't you, Mr. Bryan?"
"Yes I have, I have studied the Bible for about fifty years."
"Do you claim that everything in the Bible should be literally interpreted?"
"I believe everything in the Bible should be accepted as it is given there ..."
"Do you believe Joshua made the sun stand still?"
"I believe what the Bible says."
"I suppose you mean that the earth stood still?"
"I don't know. I am talking about the Bible now. I accept the Bible absolutely."
More questions show that Bryan barely understands the workings of the solar system, then Darrow asks:
(Darrow)You believe the story of the flood to be a literal interpretation?
(Bryan)Yes sir.
(Darrow)When was that flood?
(Bryan)I would not attempt to fix the day.
(Darrow)But what do you think the Bible itself says? Don't you know how it was arrived at?
(Bryan)I never made a calculation.
(Darrow)What do you think?
(Bryan)I do not think about things I don't think about.
(Darrow)Do you think about the things you do think about?
(Bryan)Well sometimes.
Now, the crowd in the courtyard was laughing at Bryan instead of Darrow.
(Darrow) How long ago was the flood, Mr. Bryan?
(Bryan)Two-thousand three hundred and forty-eight years B.C.
(Darrow)You believe that all the living things that were not contained in the ark were destroyed?
(Bryan)I think the fish may have lived.
(Darrow)Don't you know there are any number of civilizations that are traced back to more than five thousand years?
(Bryan)I am not satisfied with any evidence I have seen.
(Darrow)You believe that every civilization on the earth and every living thing, except possibly the fishes, were wiped out by the flood?
(Bryan)At that time.
(Darrow)You have never had any interest in the age of the various races and peoples and civilizations and animals that exist upon the earth today?
(Bryan)I have never felt a great deal of interest in the effort that has been made to dispute the Bible by the speculations of men or the investigations of men.
(Darrow)And you never have investigated how long man has been on the earth?
(Bryan)I have never found it necessary.
(Darrow)Don't you know that the ancient civilizations of China are six thousand or seven thousand years old, at the very least?
(Bryan)No, but they would not run back beyond the creation, according to the Bible, six thousand years.
(Darrow)You don't know how old they are; is that right?
(Bryan)I don't know how old they are, but probably you do. I think you would give preference to anybody who opposed the Bible.

More questions show Bryan's lack of knowledge of world culture, history and people.
(Darrow)You have never in all your life made any attempt to find out about the other peoples of the earth - how old their civilizations are, how long they have existed on the earth - have you?
(Bryan) No sir, I have been so well satisfied with the Christian religion that I have spent no time trying to find arguments against it. I have all the information I want to live by and to die by.
(Darrow)Do you think the earth was made in six days?"
(Bryan) Not six days of 24 hours.
(Darrow)Did you ever discover where Cain got his wife?
(Bryan) No sir; I leave the agnostics to hunt for her.
(Darrow)Do you think the sun was made on the fourth day?
(Bryan)Yes.
(Darrow)And they had evening and morning without the sun?
(Bryan) I am simply saying it is a period.
(Darrow)The creation might have been going on for a very long time?
(Bryan)It might have continued for millions of years.
(Darrow)Yes, All right.

The local papers went on to report:

DAYTON, Tenn. July 25. “Darrow had exposed Bryan as a near imbecile. Darrow asked for and was granted an immediate direct verdict, thereby blocking Bryan from giving a speech he had been preparing for weeks.”

“Even today, there are people who deny the fact that all life is connected, and that humans are just part of the equation.

Fundamentalist insistence on the literal verity of scripture is grounded in a lack of faith, and inability to see a bigger picture. That being said, it seems to escape fundamentalists, that the vast majority of CHRISTIANS, of whom they claim to be part, accept the Genesis account of creation as what it is, a metaphor.

Clarence Darrow said: "Science gets to the end of its knowledge and, in effect, says, 'I do not know what I do not know,' and keeps on searching. Religion gets to the end of its knowledge, and in effect, says, 'I know what I do not know,' and stops searching.

Genesis says the world was created in six days. It also says that Adam lived 930 years (Gen 5:5), and that Noah was 600 years old when the flood happened (Gen 7:6). We can take these figures literally, believing that "people just lived longer in those days," or if we have a shred of intelligence or honesty, we can surmise that Biblical time reckoning is on a metaphoric scale. Of course, this allows Genesis to agree with observed evolution.”

Remember folks, this was in 1925!!!

Is evolution compatible with the bible???

YES!
... IF YOU’RE A CHRISTIAN.

and still NO!
... IF YOU’RE A FUNDAMENTALIST!!!

I understand Radiometric dating, althought I do not think you must have fully memorized the details to have a grasp of the idea, and understand the methods that scientists use to gain accuracy. To appreciate how each method is cross checked to insure accuracy. Scientists are human and make mistakes, thus we create proper processes to eliminate those mistakes, peer review it so that we check each other to insure that due diligence has been complete.

I think the big deal here people confuse trust and faith, in order to navigate life we must trust certain authorities. Peer review is trusted becuase its only a matter of time before frauds, or poor methods are found out.

I will be adding a youtube video on radiometric dating methods here soon to my youtube channel. It will be at least a week, I want to add graphics. I need to get some more pictures and maybe even make some myself. I was going to buy Sony Vegas to make it a nicer vid, so I may need to navigate some learning curve on a new video editor.

So maybe a few weeks, but I will post a topic to the science forum.

This video will include ALL direct dating methods not just radiometric dating methods, it will also show how multiply methods are used to insure accuracy.

Due to my understanding of how proper science is performed, and the methods used, I indeed do trust the results of proper scientific conclusions from proper scientific methods.


Ohh yea here is my channel, if anyone is interested.

http://www.youtube.com/user/QuiescentlyDangerous


Eljay just likes to equate trust in science with blind faith because that at least puts us on even ground (with him), what he fails to realize it that its not blind when you have methodological processes in place to backtrack mistakes. Science IS that methodological process.

I don't think there are very many people who have read the original Greek and Aramaic in that much detail and I don't think I need to spend my life or waste my valuable time debunking the Bible when there are thousands of experts who are doing a fine job of it. All it takes is a good overview and some common sense to make a logical decision or form a reasonable opinion.

The reason I don't investigate it myself is because people have been arguing about scripture for a long time and I'm just not all that interested in that argument, nor am I interested in what people two thousand years ago thought or wrote even if I had the original word for word scripture to study.

No I don't know anything about isotropic dating - and I don't much care about how old the world (earth) is. It is as old as it is old, what does it matter? It only matters to fundamentalists because they seem to think that the beginning of civilized humans was the beginning of the earth. One might consider that the term "world" and "earth" might mean two different things.

The modern world is not the earth. It is the modern "world." Those things are not the least bit important in my reality because I have not taken it upon myself to defend the Bible or religion, or the scientific theory of evolution. Its a waste of time to try to change other people's beliefs I think.

Now if a person can work on changing their own belief, that's really something! The magic is in the belief.

So, essentially you have chosen to believe those self proclaimed "scholars" who think they have found numerous errors in scripture, rather than those with Doctorates in the ancient languages who's reports of the accuracy of scripture are wildly supported, simply because they hold a belief in those scriptures.

I would think that you should back off a little on your assurity that the bible has been "rewritten" numerous times - until you've investigated this "fact" to support it. Just say that you'd prefer not to believe what is written and leave it at that. You're only fooing yourself if you're taking the word of someone else as authority - not having any idea what their basing that authority on other than a desire for the bible to be a myth. Wanting it to be so - doesn't make it a reality.