Sit back and enjoy Bart Ehrman’s research regarding what we know about the origin of the Bible. Ehrman is a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill . I’ve previously posted about Ehrman’s 2007 book, Misquoting Jesus.
Ehrman starts by telling the audience about a question that he asked his students recently: If the Bible is really the inerrant word of God, why aren’t all believers actually reading it? Many of Ehrman’s own students truly believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, but large numbers of them haven’t yet read the entire Bible. Ehrman asks: “If God wrote a book, wouldn’t you want to see what He said?”
Most of this lecture concerns the origin of the modern version of the Bible. Ehrman presents a fascinating history of a book based upon thousands of incomplete and conflicting earlier versions. These versions are riddled with mistakes. The oldest copy that we have of any book of the new testament is a tiny scrap from the Gospel by “John” called “P52). It is about the size of a credit card and it only contains a couple sentences. It is dated at “the first half of the second century” (minute 15 of the video). Our earliest surviving complete copy of the Gospel of “John” was created about the year 200 A.D.
Most of our manuscripts of the Bible are not anywhere near this old. Most of our manuscripts were created around the beginning of the third century (around the year 200). The earliest manuscripts of most of the books of the Bible date from the 7th or 8th century. By the time that a man named John Mill actually tracked the conflicts among the 100 manuscripts he reviewed (about 300 years ago), he noted about 30,000 differences. We now have about 7,000 manuscripts, and nobody has been able to add up all the differences among these copies (21:30). “There are more differences in our existing Greek manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.” So, then how can we really know what any of the writers really said? Ehrman characterizes this as “a problem.” Most of these differences are “completely insignificant . . . mistakes.”
I especially enjoyed Ehrman’s description of one scribe’s mistaken version of the alleged genealogy of Jesus all the way back to Adam and Eve (27:00). Many other more significant translation problems have been detected by modern scholars (32:00).
Unfortunately, this video has a glitch and it ended at the 34-minute mark. This is as far as I got tonight. I now see that there are other versions of Ehrman’s lectures available in ten-minute chunks, starting here. I’m planning on viewing the remainder of Ehrman’s lecture, and I’ll report on it in the comments.
I would add a few questions to the one Ehrman asked at the top of his lecture: If the Bible really is the inspired word of God, why aren’t more believers taking the time to understand the genesis of the Bible itself? Why aren’t they more interested in learning about the things that Ehrman has researched throughout his career. Why don’t they care more about the inaccuracies and contradictions? As Ehrman asked, don’t you need to be confident that you know the accurate version of the Bible before telling others how “important” it is? I raise these questions because, in my experience of having discussed the Bible with hundreds of Christian believers, almost none of them know about these critically important issues raised by Ehrman, and it’s a rare American Christian believer who exhibits any curiosity regarding these issues. How strange, unless, as Daniel Dennett suggested, that most believers believe in belief, rather than in the religious stories that they claim to be true.
Ehrman has also published, Jesus, Interrupted, in which he argues that “the Bible is riddled with inconsistencies and outright forgeries, but that many fundamental stories and doctrines don’t actually exist within its pages–they were later inventions by people trying to make sense of a disconnected collection of texts.” At his website, Ehrman further states:
Only 8 of the 27 books of the New Testament were actually written by the authors to whom they’re attributed. Others are likely forgeries.
The gospels provide remarkably divergent portrayals of Jesus.
The message of the Apostle Paul and the message of gospel writer Matthew are completely at odds over the question of whether a follower of Jesus also had to observe the Jewish law.
The Nicene Creed and the Trinity were constructs of the later church and are not found in the pages of the Bible.
Traditional doctrines such as the suffering Messiah, the divinity of Christ, and the notion of heaven and hell are not based on the teachings of the historical Jesus.
The commonly told story of Jesus — his birth, death, and resurrection is actually a composite of four vastly different gospel narratives.
Erich writes:—"Old Testament? No hell. New Testament? Hell. "
Hate to quibble, but not precisely true.
Numbers 16, vs 32 and 33 designates the Pit, otherwise known as Sheol, as a place where the dead go.
To quote from Asimov's Guide to the Bible:
"Sheol was visualized by the early Israelites as an underground world to which the souls of the dead departed. It was thought of at first as a dim place where there was no particular torture, but where there was an absence of joy. Nor was there any distinction between good and evil; all human beings went there upon death except those few who, like Enoch and Elijah, were taken alive into heaven.
"The picture is like that of other such places imagined by early men. The Greeks had such a world ruled by a god, Hades, and in the early Nordic myths there was such a world ruled by a goddess, Hel. Sheol is therefore replaced by "Hell" in some places in the Bible, and in the New Testament, which was originally written in Greek, it was translated as "Hades."
"The moralization of Sheol, its conversion into a place of torture for the wicked, while the good go elsewhere, came later in history, toward the end of Old Testament times."
The seeds were there all along, the NT just gave is a make-over.
To Tony, Mark and Erich, Grumpy and Samantha's husband:
Tony, you explain: That you "all care" and "give a shit about the truth…Well, then SO DO believers, who think it is important to support a book written from ancient scrolls and heard the "word from God", then, and translated from Greek, Latin, Hebrew and wonder why no one understands why Jesus had a ministry or the meanings behind His teachings/parables. Tony, try to figure those parables out on your own? You can try…sure you won't get far! 😉
The bible bashers lack what most Christians lack is the understanding that Yeshua(Jesus), whom was Jewish(line of Judah), always followed TORAH! He never taught to stop following Torah, and most Christians believe they were done away with on the cross. But really, it's the punishment from the law, that believers avoid when they commit to following the Master!
Matt22:34-40 One of them, an expert in the law(ERICH should like this), tested Him with this question, "Teacher, Which is the Greatest of all Commandments(in the Law)"? Yeshua replied, "Shema(Listen) O'Israel, YHWH is one and love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest…"And the second is 'Love your neighbor as yourself, All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments".
So most of you, do you really use everything to understand the Law, and fulfill it or do you bash others who really try to follow something they don't really unserstand themselves. It's easy for Erich, Grumpy, Tony and Mark that team up, 4 or 5 against one. Be like OJ's Lawyers against a pitiful Marsha Clark. You guys haven't really studied and followed these precepts, just like to use your education, success, and maybe status in life to pick apart details and ride them…? Try following the second best law and all good things can follow you all the days of your life. 🙂
Here's two examples where Christians and heathens lack understanding:
Why do we follow the Gregorian calender?
Why is September the ninth month? Sept=7
Why is October the 10th month? Oct=8
Why is November the 11th month? Nov=9
Why is December the 12 th month? Deci=10
Sunday=Sun-god day
Monday=Moon god worship day
Fill in the blanks:
Tuesday=?
Wednesday=?
Thursday= easy one.
Friday=?
If you no not the times, then one should study and hopefully find more truths, unveiled like an onion…
Why do they believe in hell? Hel is the daughter god of Loki, the God of Chaos? Sounds like Norse mythology to me…how did this and Hades(Greek)get intertwined in with Christian church?
All early Hebrew scripts talk of 'shoul' or "the grave". A Hebrew belief in a total separation of God, "a dust to dust belief". Yes, Christ taught of a "fire, where their torment will burn like smoke forever."
He was talking about death, like, the trash heaps burning constantly outside the city walls, where death is forever, outside the Heavenly Kingdom.
The lake of fire(the second death), was not for mankind but for the devil/satan/beast, false prophet and his minions…And so, how did pagan-mythology corrupt the early church? They got away from their Hebrew/Jewish roots!!
Torah. Christ is the living fulfillment of the Torah or Word. We Read Genesis 1: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, verse 26,"Let US make man in our image, in our likeness…Come on Mr. Tiedemann, does any of your science fiction stories deal with aliens creation?
and John 1: In the beginning was the Word and the word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.
Rabel, and Karl, and Samantha (and her husband) and any other person of faith.
Please do listen. This is important.
I'd like to share something with you regarding the stories that you believe are the word of god. It's not important, for this purpose at least, whether you think the particular stories and words are inerrant or merely inspired. It's also irrelevant whether you believe the NT to be continuing an unbroken lineage with the Torah, or breaking with the past and beginning anew with Jesus. It's also irrelevant whether you think Mohammed is the hand of Allah, or whether the afterlife includes Bardo, Limbo, Hades, Asgard, or Heaven and Hell.
This message is the same, regardless of your particular variant of faith and belief.
It. is. all. just. stories.
It's made up.
People told those tales, about gods, and demons, about great deeds, and dark happenings. People are responsible for all of the good and for all of the bad in every religion, in every philosophy, in every walk of life, and in every way that people have found to live and work and build communities and destroy communities.
There is no deus ex machina. No Deus at all. It's just us. Frail protoplasmic bags with a penchant for telling stories in the dark of the night, using our dubious powers of language and imagination to craft landscapes in our minds and the minds of our listeners.
Every miracle, every supposed religious truth and object of veneration has been proven to be false, fake, ersatz, KIRF, a 'dog and pony' for the gullible masses, a carny show without even the reality of the bearded woman or a reptile man. As the lies are uncovered, your God, and his/her/its/their supposed impact on the world, gets smaller and smaller.
Every time the gaps close, the miracles shown to be errors, every true and revealed history revised and reinterpreted as parable, the religious huddle ever closer around their little campfires, to tell themselves that their beliefs are true, their faith is strong, that they are right. But the reality crowding in shows that their truths are nothing more than lies. Lies told again and again until they gained the glimmer of authority along with their patina of age. Lies that cannot stand up to the unbiased glare of investigation, that cannot stand the light of day.
That is what you stand for. A pack of lies. A story.
We do not denigrate the human crafted philosophies from our history. Despite Karl's skepticism, Jefferson's "Bible" is actually a fairly decent manual for living. That is doesn't contain all the rules and rituals and hellfire and damnation of the source(s) is largely irrelevant – except to you believers (and even i>you can't agree on what to believe from the same documents).
The teachings of Buddha are a similar source of inspiration – although we now see many of them to be full of woo and mysticism. But still some very solid precepts for 'getting along' and 'being at one with your neighbors'.
I feel sorry for True Believers. You must think so little of the abilities of your fellow humans, to ascribe very human philosophies to a ghost.
Practically the whole of Jesus' life as recorded in the NT was already done centuries before—Horus. The similarities are remarkable.
We can go over and over and over this and get nowhere. I cannot demonstrate to you why I find your belief misplaced, you cannot demonstrate to me where the basis of your belief imbues these stories with reality for you.
It would be am impasse if we didn't have a certain amount of historical evidence that while some of what was recorded in the books of the Bible happened, much else lacks any supporting evidence at all, and some of it can be dismissed as the science fiction of its day.
I find it all ridiculous because you—Karl and Rabel and Samantha and whoever else—find other so-called holy books unsupportable and they are no different in kind than yours. You dismiss the Veda out of hand (I imagine) and certainly you wouldn't credit the Book of Mormon, nor would you accept the Bhagavad Gita as representing any kind of actual reality, any more than you would believe a single thing in the Book of Urantia and (I feel safe to say) not one word of Scientology cant. But what ultimately is the difference between all those and yours?
Only one. You believe the Bible is true. Why do you believe it is true? Because you do. Why do you NOT believe all those other books are true? Because they are not your book.
This is like arguing over home teams. Yours is always better.
I am now bored with this. Have fun.
Rabel,
Concerning the Last Supper and the Feast of unleavened bread and Jesus death.
Read Mark 14:1,2
Now the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread were only two days away, and the chief priests and the teachers of the law were looking for some sly way to arrest Jesus and kill him. 2"But not during the Feast," they said, "or the people may riot."
Read Matthew 26:17
On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Where do you want us to make preparations for you to eat the Passover?"
further in Mark 14:12-18
12On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb, Jesus' disciples asked him, "Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the Passover?"
13So he sent two of his disciples, telling them, "Go into the city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him. 14Say to the owner of the house he enters, 'The Teacher asks: Where is my guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?' 15He will show you a large upper room, furnished and ready. Make preparations for us there."
16The disciples left, went into the city and found things just as Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Passover.
17When evening came, Jesus arrived with the Twelve. 18While they were reclining at the table eating, he said, "I tell you the truth, one of you will betray me—one who is eating with me."
It must be possible customary wise (one way or another) for the actual selected date for passover (ie the 15th) to fall during the selected dates for the Feast of Unleavened Bread)
The Bible says it was customary for the passover lamb to be slain on the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread at this time in Jewish history.
I do not know if they were having a meal together during passover season (called a passover meal)- in this case also the last supper – or if they were actually observing the full "torah approved exact date" for a passover meal at the same time as the last supper.
It seems with all these folks in Jerusalem for passover it would have been like asking for a table for twelve at the best guest house in town – Jesus appears to have this planned well in advance or one of the two was Judas with a pretty sizeable purse to dispatch, which would have soured Judas even more.
Jesus' death also appears to be during the days of the Feast of Unleavened Bread because of the customary gesture offered to the people by Pilate of the release of one prisoner.
Mark 15:6-11
6Now it was the custom at the Feast to release a prisoner whom the people requested. 7A man called Barabbas was in prison with the insurrectionists who had committed murder in the uprising. 8The crowd came up and asked Pilate to do for them what he usually did.
9"Do you want me to release to you the king of the Jews?" asked Pilate, 10knowing it was out of envy that the chief priests had handed Jesus over to him. 11But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have Pilate release Barabbas instead.
Jesus was to become the ultimate Paschal Lamb for all time and eternity So I conclude he would have been crucified on the appropriate date for the torah approved passover for that year, despite whatever customs were in effect to accomodate the huge crowds that came to Jerusalem.
By what the plain sense of the Scriptures state – Jesus appears to have been crucified on the second day of the Feast of Unleavened bread that year.
Can I make this any clearer? – or have I missed something?
Tony,
Samantha isn't responding.
I too am likely going away for several months again.
I see you didn't have a response to the picture painted just so Noah story.
I hear you loud and clear.
"Please do listen. This is important."
Tony is correct about this and that's the final word!
Thank you for your time.
Thanks for the courtesies I was granted.
Mark seems to have a very good perspective and personality for a secular humanist.
God isn't needed to be reasonable and honest and considerate towards others – because that's what God is all about anyway.
Love your neighbors as yourself.
Karl, I'll be sorry to see you leave – even though we seem always to end up on diametrically opposed teams. You at least contribute to the conversation, and seem willing to engage in a dialog.
I'm like to respond to a couple of your comments:
Sorry, I don't understand the reference. Did I promise to respond to something and fail to do so? Or did I neglect to respond to a comment that already had responses from others here (perhaps I simply agreed)? I don't know. As I said, I don't understand the reference.
Snark is perfectly acceptable. I deserve it. I was being preachy (That's not just the prerogative of the religious, you know).
You are welcome.
I always try to live by the golden rule. I always try to respond as honestly as I can. I always try to understand the basis for my respondent's position. My bias as a skeptical freethinker means I may simply dismiss arguments I've heard before – and for that I apologize.
I (for one) will look forward to your return.
Well then Tony,
How many religions claim a Man/God to save the world from their own evil…How many claimed to be The Anointed One?…and lasted.
What drove Saul(Paul) to stop the executions of Jewish believers, and then start a ministry of faith?
BTW people, the first belivers were Jewish and the best and brightest evagnicals of the time were, yep, Jewish. So, the pagan-driven-christian developed after the first Messianic-Torah observant jews.
It's funny, my living of 22 years in the science field concludes the very existance of a "higher power, full of order" and not by mere chance. I guess I do not have the faith you have in your evolutionary mindset, that is unscientific, and unrational.
You and your ilk will never admit that EVOLUTION is a RELIGION! It takes faith to believe what you believe: ~that I was a knuckle dragger from a hairy monkey?
You have no bone/dna or fragmental timespan, that would concur this untruth.
I will do everything in power to make sure young minds will HAVE A CHOICE(liberals love that word) in public school, to actually let parents choose what kind of science modal they would like their children to learn from, instead of force feeding "Step Theories" stories and myths about CroMagnon(which were french, sickly tall people who could fit inside a box).
I mean really, just because you say were blind followers does not make you right. And to not give people a choice in their scientific studies is very aggressive(not progressive) and deviant to finding truth in their lives.
I would call most evolutionist teachers, "chicken-hawks".
The truth is you are "blinded by science". I love science too…I work with it everyday!
If Bible believers are afraid of living, then why are you dead in thought for the afterlife? Fear of the unknown? …better to just to distance it, so you don't have to deal with it. That is your impending death.
Evolution is a Religion, with Karl Marx and Charles Darwin being Father and Son Idols.
Rabel Fibel: I will try to be Yin to Tony's Yang on your claim that Evolution "is a religion." Although I'm trying to temper my comments more than Tony, it is apparent to me that you quite ignorant about the basic principles of natural selection and the evidence in support.
You need to go read a good book on evolution. I would recommend Ken Miller's "Only a Theory," for example. http://dangerousintersection.org/2009/04/13/kenne… Miller is a devout Roman Catholic, but he lets the evidentiary chips fall where they might and connects the dots in an immensely understandable way.
Yes, it is difficult, almost insane to believe that simple things can beget complex things; it's amazing that humans are cousins of sponges. But the evidence is overwhelmingly there–it is an incredibly tight circumstantial case that there has been an spatial-temporal branching from simple organisms to more recent complex ones. And there is loads of evidence in the genome. All of this is overwhelming, even before we get to fossils, which are simply icing on the cake. Another recent and thoroughly readable book is Richard Dawkins' Greatest Show on Earth.
At bottom, Evolution does not pit religion against science. http://dangerousintersection.org/2010/04/10/natur…
Please report back when you can state honestly that you have taken the time to really understand the many types of evidence all pointing to a unified tree of life.
I'm not saying we have all the answers. I'm not saying that evolution offers all of the answers (It doesn't tell you whether to visit your Grandma tomorrow). But I am urging you to have the courage to allow the evidence guide you.
Therefore, please go read a book (or two), then level real criticism (if you then have any) but only after you are first capable of describing the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection. And no, no real scientist claims that humans evolved from monkeys. And no, no one is "blinded by science" because if they were really good scientists, they would be, instead, changed by the evidence. Are you courageous enough to be changed by evidence?
Rabel.
You are the exception that proves the rule – for me. I am normally as pleasant as I can be, but your last post is simply outrageous.
You are obviously an unmitigated, clueless, knuckle-dragging, unthinking moron with regards to science and reality-based thought.
Perhaps your 22 years in Science should have been better spent in learning, rather than ignoring. Evolution is a fact. It is one of the most strongly supported theories, with real predictive power, that we have. There are centuries of observation and discovery, in multiple fields, but many millions of scientists who all agree that evolution happens, has happened, and continues to happen.
That you find it icky is irrelevant.
That you toss out such idiotic epithets as Evolution is a Religion, with Karl Marx and Charles Darwin being Father and Son Idols. demonstrates that while you may work in science every day, you don;t have a very good grasp of what it actually means.
You are at best a mechanic, not an engineer. I doubt you will ever have the flexibility of mind or the desire to change that would allow the label of scientist. Perhaps some reading for comprehension will help you understand that. (My 5 year old is available to provide initial lessons – my high schooler can help you with the advanced stuff in a decade or so… once you're ready for it)
I used to think that everyone was reachable, but some people are beyond redemption. You are a mental fossil in human form.
Killfiled.
An interesting phenomenon occurs within conquered population. over time they experience a merging of language and social customs.
In the same way that several religions combined to form Santeria, It appears that the concept of hell was the result of of a convergence of Roman, Jewish, and Norse influences. The old testament tells of a place called Gehenna, which may have been the Jerusalem city dump in ancient times. Most of the waste in this location would have been organic, and the source of methane gas.
The decay of plan materisl ni large piles, also produces alcohol and enough heat to spontaneously ignite. It would have been a foul places of smoke and fire.
Then there are the harsh realities that no one wants to mention. Women impregnated out of wedlock could face execution by stoning. This would not deter all premarital sex, and if an unwed pregnant woman could get married before she began to show, there were many ways of causing a miscarriage. Since an unwed mother in the family was a social stigma, the girls family would often work to cover up the pregnancy, by disposing of the fetus in the household waste.
Of course the natural assumption when finding dead babies at the city dump, was that someone was sacrificing infants to a pagan god and were blamed as the work of Molochites. This associated Gehenna with evil. As a place of evil, it also became the place to dispose of the bodies of deceased sinners.
The occupation of the near east by the Roman empire added their multi-theistic religion to the mix, bringing the trident, satyrs, and other concepts, including that of Hades, a place where people went in the afterlife. The Judeo-Christian belief systems, cast Hades as sort of an anti-heaven, and later, when the empire fell, the Roman gods were relegated to the position of generals in the demon army of Satan according to emerging church dogma.
The concept of Hell, was introduced in early English translations, often interchangeably for Gehenna and Hades, which combine attribute of both to create the concept of hell. The name Hell derives from Tuetonic beliefs. Early middle English was evolved from the melding of Old German and Celtic Languages.
This indicates another facet in the debate. Much gets changed simply through transcription and translation.
Rabel writes:—"You and your ilk will never admit that EVOLUTION is a RELIGION! It takes faith to believe what you believe: ~that I was a knuckle dragger from a hairy monkey?
You have no bone/dna or fragmental timespan, that would concur this untruth."
That's just flat wrong. Worse, it's complete bullshit.
Erich writes:—"it’s amazing that humans are cousins of sponges."
After the comments to which this is a response it is not difficult to believe at all.
(I must be channeling P.Z. Meyer.)
Erich, Mark: Y'all are being too darn nice!
When I'm nice (or not) it's always for Machiavellian reasons.
Niklaus
You remind me of much that I had once learned, but had long since relegated to the back pages of my memory.
Great contribution, and it does demonstrate how history has mangled any pretense at any particular religion being 'the inspired word of god'. If so, why did they need to borrow so much from the competitors? Plagiarist gods? (Does ASCAP know?)
humans are cousins of sponges
I live in North Georgia – some of my neighbors seem to be very close cousins! LOL
And Mark – watch out for the squiddly minions – you misspelled The name of the glorious leader of the Angry Atheist Alliance (Cephalopod division)* – you'll be banned from the meetings!
*PZ Myers — if you add the extra 'e' it makes him even more evil, apparently!
On names
I've always wanted to start an organization called the "Brights, Atheists & Agnostics League", just so that I can say, when asked, that I represent "Ba'al"
😀
I'm tempted to begin a new "policy" from today forward. Those disparaging the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection must, in order to deserve a reply (other than a copy and paste of this comment) must, in their own words, describe the basic elements of the theory and at least a few of the many types of evidence supporting the theory. They must also make it clear that they know how a scientific theory differs from pure speculation.
It is my repeated impression that those attempting to criticize the facts and theory of evolution by natural selection are actually attacking some something else, something that biologists, geo-biologists, geneticists, botanists and other scientists do not support. In short, they are attacking straw men. The only reasonable reply to such attacks is to direct the commenter to set aside a few hours and to read a good book on natural selection.
. . . and to read a good book on natural selection . . . in this blog's dungeon! HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA (evil laugh).
[Tony nods, approvingly]
Like I said, Erich, you're too nice. For such high crimes, most blogs have a dungeon.
Tony Coyle says: September 3, 2010 at 12:34 pm
Evolution is a fact. It is one of the most strongly supported theories, with real predictive power, that we have. There are centuries of observation and discovery, in multiple fields, but many millions of scientists who all agree that evolution happens, has happened, and continues to happen.
Oh really. Is that so?
Tony, this sounds like another confrontation with missing information. Evolution is an open book with the pages missing from the bind. Do you have the missing pages with these facts you claim to know or read? Below are some questions that evolutionists need to have factual proof if you want people to believe what you told Rabel in a previous response.
Evolution is positively anti-science. Science deals with things that are testable, observable and demonstratable and evolution has none of those qualities. To call evolution "science" is to confuse fairy tales with facts. Evolution has been intermingled with science for the last 140 or so years, but that does not mean that it is the same as science. Beautiful women are often advertised along side a product but the two subjects have no logical connection, and evolution has no more to do with science than the beautiful girl have to do with drinking a coke. The burden of proof is on you the evolutionist. If time were to be removed from the thousands of problems that arise in the theory of evolution, there would be no remedy for all the ills or difficulties with its claims.
Tony and the millions of scientists are on to something when they state evolution continues to happen. Some kids are evolving into young adults without morals or consciences that trigger that deep inner feeling between right and wrong. If kids are taught they are animals they will act like them.
This was Hitler's religion in the 3rd riche in Germany. Hitler was quoted as saying "let me control the textbooks and I will control the state. Evolution is based on lies. Satan is the father of lies. The evolution theory removes all morality and all ways to have morality.
Case in point.
There have been at least 60 school shootings since 1990 states Wikipedia.
Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris were the kids responsible in the Columbine shootings.
They made a video prior to the mass murder. The video quotes are: "He (a football player) does not deserve the jaw evolution gave him. Look for his jaw. It won't be on his body". Klebold's father was a Geologist who believed in evolution. Both boys followed Nazi teachings and they committed the murders on Hitler's birthday on purpose to commemorate his birthday. Eric's T-shirt read "Natural Selection" That is what evolution teaches. Klebold wore a shirt that said "serial killer" This example is an extreme case but it proves a point that the teachings in evolution (natural selection)" Can it be that teaching kids that they are animals is causing the problems in schools? Here are just a few more statistics in moral decline since evolution has been taught.
In 1959 there were very few words about evolution in text books. Between 1960 and 1965 words increased to over 30000. Then declined to about 20000 around the year 1980. In that same time frame sexually transmitted diseases rose 226%. Scholastic Aptitude test scores declined. Violent crimes rose 995%. Unwed births rates rose 325%. Divorce rates up 111%. Unmarried couples up 536%. Child abuse up 2300%. Illegal drug abuse up 6000%. The statistics are staggering. Do the math. after all, math proves all. Since evolution has been taught statistics have changed for the worst.
Evolutionists do not have facts for just a few of the following questions:
Where did the space in the universe come from?
Where did matter come from?
Where did the laws of the universe come from?
How did matter get so perfectly organized?
Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?
How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove that they had a common designer instead of a common ancestor?
Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?
How did photosynthesis evolve?
How did thoughts evolve?
How did flowering plants evolve and from what?
Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?
What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen gas becoming human?
Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?
Because chromosomes in living matter are one of the most complex bits of matter, is it logical to assume that organisms with the least number of chromosomes were first to evolve?
mutation is more harmful than helpful.
Doesn't evolution defy the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics?
Doesn't evolution defy the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum?
Why are there no new species?
The Big Bang is presumed to have produced just hydrogen & helium, only 2 of the 92 elements of the earth's crust.
These are just a few questions of topics that need answers if evolution is to be proven fact. Like I stated earlier, the burden of proof falls on the evolutionist.
I have a little challenge for anyone who is willing to turn to the book of Job in the Bible and read just 3 chapters. Chapter 38, 39, and chapter 40. Imagine that if there was a God and he was talking to you and asking question directly to you. Chapter 40 is very interesting because Dinosaurs are mentioned under other names walking with man.
Thank you all for reading.
Tony: I hate to say what I'm about to say to "Walter," because it sounds so incredibly rude. Walter has taken the time to write a long statement (I do think that it was written sincerely) assuring us that the bible has more to tell us about human origins than thousands of careful and systematic observations by modern-day highly trained scientists. The problem is that I simply don't have the time to discuss any topic with anyone who hasn't taken the time to understand the basics. It's like debating American history with someone who has never heard of Thomas Jefferson or World War II.
I would suggest this to Walter:
You addressed you comment to Tony Coyle. Tony might or might not respond to your comment.
To me, it is clear that you do not have sufficient understanding of this topic to engage in meaningful discussion or debate. Though you are attempting to criticize the facts and scientific theory of evolution by natural selection, you are actually attacking some something else, something that biologists, geobiologists, geneticists, botanists and other scientists do not support. In short, you are attacking a straw man.
In order to deserve a reply from me on the topic of the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection, your comment must be supplemented with a follow-up comment describing the basic elements of the theory and acknowledging at least a few of the many types of evidence supporting the theory. This description must be written in your own words (not a copy and paste job). You will also need to make it clear in your statement that you understand how a "scientific theory" differs from pure speculation. You need to do a whole lot better than Wendy Wright to convince me that you understand the topic. http://dangerousintersection.org/2010/09/04/how-t…
Thus, I ask that you set aside a few hours and read at least one a good book on natural selection. I would recommend Ken Miller’s Only a Theory for example. http://dangerousintersection.org/2009/04/13/kenne… Miller is a devout Roman Catholic, but he lets the evidentiary chips fall where they might and connects the dots in an immensely understandable way. Another recent and thoroughly readable book is Richard Dawkins’ Greatest Show on Earth. Consider, also, visiting Talk Reason. http://www.talkreason.org/index.cfm?category=10
After showing us that you have mastered the basics, you may place a further comment on this topic at this site. Please do report back when you can state honestly that you have taken the time to really understand at least some of the many types of evidence suggesting that there is a unified tree of life, a tree on which one can find human animals and every other type of plant or animal. I'm not asking you to agree with everything the scientists are saying, but I need to be assured that you understand the basic points they are (and are not) claiming regarding evolution.
I understand that you have a difficult time believing that simple things can beget complex things; it’s amazing, for example, that humans are cousins of sponges. But the evidence is overwhelmingly–-regardless of whether we want to believe it, the scientists have put together an incredibly tight circumstantial case that there has been an long-term spatial-temporal branching (over hundreds of millions of years) from simple organisms to more recent complex ones. There is also an immense amount of powerful evidence in the human genome to conclude that we evolved from earlier non-human life forms. These topics are discussed by Miller, Dawkins and many others. The evidence is overwhelming, even before we get to fossils, which are simply icing on the cake. Before proceeding with a discussion with you, I need to be assured that you understand that the case in favor of human evolution is strong even without considering fossils. Please note: I’m not saying that evolution offers all of the answers (It doesn’t tell you whether to visit your Grandma tomorrow). On the other hand, evolutionary theory does lead to some remarkable conclusions that would likely affect your world view, if only you would take the time to understand the theory and facts of evolution.
Keep in mind that I do not hold that evolution necessarily pits religion against science. http://dangerousintersection.org/2010/04/10/natur… Bonus points if you read the following post and comments in order to understand why I believe that citing the Bible is not persuasive on this topic. http://dangerousintersection.org/2010/08/22/if-bi… Hint: Consider how it was that the Modern "Bible" was written, changed, assembled and translated. Also keep in mind that I have no interest in debating guilt by association. The fact that some people who are convinced by the theory of natural selection have done bone-headed or violent things doesn't reflect on the theory, it reflects on their own dysfunctions.
I am urging you to have the courage to allow the evidence guide you. Go hence to understand the basics of evolution, then return for a meaningful conversation.
Walter,
In the second half of your long and rather bloviated comment, you posted a long list of questions, the anwer to all of them you seem to expect to be a resounding No.
Science has answered them all, if not concretely, then with supportable models and sound extrapolation from evidence.
You're not paying attention.
Erich thinks he is being rude. He's not. This is rude.
You're wrong, at almost every point. You're just not paying attention.
But you either know that and don't care or you've been convinced not to look. Either way, it's in the sack for you.
Walter
regarding your long statement:
As Neils Bohr said many years ago regarding another slice of idiocy – Not only is it not right, it's not even wrong!
Do as Erich suggests. Actually read some sound science books on evolution (not just AiG or the DI), gain an understanding of what the terms mean, then get back to us.
Until then – it's the sack for you.
Erich
I read and re-read your comment. You are not rude. Walter is a different matter. Walter is exceedingly rude.
Tony: The feeling of rudeness comes from my refusal to engage in conversation with someone. I'm declaring it not productive, in advance. This is the opposite of Buber's I-Thou. It is a great affront when someone treats me like I've decided to treat Walter. But I didn't shut him out completely. If he comes back educated such that he understands (and this doesn't mean that he needs to agree with) the basics of natural selection, I would think that we then have a meaningful conversation.
The claim that evolution is a random occurrence whereby monkeys change into people is not a basis for a meaningful conversation.
Erich: a conversation is, by definition, a dialog between two (or more) people. To have a dialog there needs to be, at the least, a tacit understanding that each party will 'play by the rules'. That might be the formal rules in a college debate, or the informal rules in social discourse (it's rude to interrupt, don't hog the conversation, and so on), or the (very few) rules at this blog. The onus is on those joining an existing conversation to recognize the extant rules – by context or reference.
Walter came in here without thought of conversation, ignoring any rules or even good manners. Instead, he came in with a dump: (1) y'all are wrong! (2) Evilution is a LIE; (3) refudiate these, you spineless evil atheists. Ha! You can't!
He executed a near perfect Gish Gallop in his first post.
I can only assume he did not read any of the previous commentary (or other posts), or he would be aware of the revised site rules regarding attacks on 'strongly supported science'.
That he failed in this, makes Walter the rude one. He did not engage in a conversation, so you should not feel rude in the slightest when you inform him of the proper etiquette. Which you do with a great deal more poise and equanimity than I could muster.
Once again, Bravo!
Tony: You're going to start thinking less of my manners. My patience is running thinner these days. I'm going to start copying and pasting the "Walter" response on a regular basis. I'll be flinging buckets of it, if need be.
And now, what to do about Karl. That guy tip-toes down the line, comment after comment. Karl, we love you, but you drive us batty.
I'll take that as a momentary willing suspension of potential dis-belief.
How's that for a literary "Fait accompli."