A SERIES OF LETTERS FROM A PLAGIARIST
Writer's First Comments Appear in Bold
My First Comments Appear In Bold
Writer's Second Comments Appear In Black
My Second Comments Appear In Blue
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Note: The following is the first two rounds of discussion on this topic
before the writer abandoned the issue and switched subjects.]
Sir,
I
find your book on biblical nonsense to be so full of holes as to be almost
comical.
Let
us see if it is for good reason.
Sir,
I would prefer
that we discuss these matters privately, via email, as some of it may prove to
be embarrassing to either or both of us.
Identities from
all emails are removed, and links to letters are posted from the main page so
there are no surprises. I will remove
any letter written by someone who sends a specific request to do so. I'm not afraid of being embarrassed at all by
anything written here, especially considering the lack of substance such
disapproval letters usually contain. I
like being corrected when I'm wrong. My
position is not dogmatic, or else it would be a religion. If my position is as inaccurate as you claim,
perhaps you would like the readers to see how you can demonstrate this.
BUT - If you are going to post my replies and
answers on the internet, then I truly hope that you will be honest and
courageous enough to post everything as I write them, even if they tend to put
you in an unfavorable light. Are we in agreement here?
Again, if I'm
proven wrong, I'm proven wrong. I don't
mind.
HERE GOES!
Your first
mistake is in assuming that the Bible was written for all humanity when in
truth and fact it was not. The laws and regulations in what you call the
"old testament" was strictly for the Jewish people, the ones who
entered into a covenant with their God, up to the time of Christ. The rest is
for only those who are willing to accept it.
No, Jesus
specifically said he came to uphold the law and not change it in Matthew 5.
Big mistake!
Hole # 1. I said nothing about changing the Law and Jesus never said that
either.
Where did I say
that you said the law was going to be changed?
Nowhere. Right off the bat, we
have a straw man. I was pointing out
what Jesus said, with the hopes that you would gain what was of particular
interest: he came to uphold the law.
Thus, nothing Jesus does (unless "everything is accomplished"
or "all things take place") is going to invalidate the law because
Jesus specifically said that the law was going to be upheld. Your assertion that the OT was strictly for
the Jews before Christ goes unsupported.
You can’t fool me - didn’t you think I would
be familiar with this?
First of all, I'm
not going to respond further if I'm going to be accused of trying to fool
people with my responses. Second, I'm
well aware that this argument has been used before and that you might have
heard it. I likewise know forthcoming
apologetic responses, and I know why the ones I've heard before aren't valid.
If you are going to refer to the Bible for justification of your conclusion
regarding the enduring nature of the Law Covenant, then I will appeal to that
same source to prove that you are misquoting and mistaken.
What do you mean
"if we're going to refer to the Bible"? What else could we refer to when discussing
what the Bible itself says? We will see
if I misquote or if I am mistaken.
I JUST HAVE TO WONDER WHY YOU WOULD MISQUOTE
LIKE THAT!
Here we go.
TAKE NOTE:-
After their delivery from
All of which has
nothing to do with whether or not the Old Testament becomes invalid. I'll suspend comment on people being the
property of a God since it's not on topic.
The law code
itself even provided for an eventual dynasty of kings that would represent
Jehovah in civil matters. These kings, however, ….sat on “Jehovah’s throne” as
his representatives, subject to his directives and discipline.— They were
instructed to take time from the everyday affairs of life to give serious and
prayerful consideration to the recorded Word of God. “And it must occur that
when he takes his seat on the throne of his kingdom, he must write in a book
for himself a copy of this law from that which is in the charge of the priests,
the Levites. . And it must continue with him, and he must read in it all the
days of his life, in order that he may learn to fear Jehovah his God so as to keep
all the words of this law and these regulations by doing them; that his
heart may not exalt itself above his brothers and that he may not turn aside
from the commandment to the right or to the left, in order that he may lengthen
his days upon his kingdom, he and his sons in the midst of Israel. (De
17:14-20; 1Ch 29:23; 2Ch 26:16-21.
All of which has
nothing to do with whether or not the Old Testament becomes invalid.
WHEN THEY OBEYED, THEY ENJOYED PEACE , as in the reigns of Solomon and Josiah -
but frequent rebellions led to their being attacked and defeated before their
enemies. Because of their covenant, Jehovah ALWAYS came to their rescue,
granting them victories against tremendous odds. NO OTHER NATION WAS
INVOLVED IN THIS RULERSHIP BY GOD, NOR WERE THEY SUBJECT TO THESE LAWS.
Aside from
begging the question of God's involvement, all of this has nothing to do with
whether or not the Old Testament becomes invalid.
BUT THEY WENT
TOO FAR AND HE ALLOWED THEM TO BE DESTROYED BY NEBUCHADNEZZAR, ushering in the
“Gentile Times” under which they lost their independence and suffered
oppression by successive world powers, and under which condition the Messiah
Christ was born. They expected him to restore them to their former glory and
when he refused, they turned on him.
All of which has
nothing to do with whether or not the Old Testament becomes invalid.
JESUS’ ACTUAL
WORDS ABOUT THE LAW:- “Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets.
I came, not to destroy, but to fulfill; for truly I say to YOU that
sooner would heaven and earth pass away than for one smallest letter or one
particle of a letter to pass away from the Law by any means and not all things
take place…..” (Matthew 5:17-18)
Agreed.
Note that Jesus did NOT say that the Law would never pass away or would always
be binding, but that it would not pass away until it was all fulfilled.
Agreed.
With his death and with the fulfillment of its
prophetic patterns or shadows, it DID come to an end.
No, sorry. Jesus said nothing about his death
accomplishing everything or being the event that means all things have taken
place. He only speaks on the subject
that he is to die and resurrect according to the prophets. Not only is Jesus wrong by saying that the
prophets spoke of him, which they did not, but even if he dies, all things have
not taken place. Jesus clarifies in
verse 19, spoken after verse 18, which puts this "ending" in context,
by stating that the many commandments are not to be broken. Furthermore, all of the prophecy of the Old
Testament is not fulfilled, and you stumble greatly by admitting so below.
The Law, with its ritualistic practices and regulations including animal
sacrifices in the appointed temple sanctuary and with its anointed priesthood,
was pointing forward to the one-time sacrifice of Jesus.
Wrong again. The animal sacrifices are to be continued
forever – not up until Jesus dies, obviously, since there is no mention of
Jesus in the Old Testament. I suggest
reading Numbers 18:19. Assertions like
this will not go unnoticed.
Following the destruction of
There were stipulations
in the Old Testament for those too distant to perform sacrifices at the
temple. One would reasonably assume that
such exceptions should also be made for those who have no temple to perform the
sacrifices. Instead of saying that they
should be an everlasting covenant, God could have said that his followers
should do them for as long as the temple stands. Being omniscient, he knew this day would
arise. He also knew a day would arise
when someone would claim that Jesus ended all of this. Even so, he inspired the authors to say that
it was everlasting or forever.
That is still the case. And so we read
regarding the Law of Moses, that God has taken it out of the way ”by nailing it
to a torture stake.” (Col. 2:14) It therefore follows, that Jesus’ subsequent
words of censure to those breaking the law and teaching others to do the same
would apply only while that Law was in force.
Except that we
now have a contradiction among several sources.
The Pentateuch says that it should be done forever, Colossians says that
the sacrifices were removed by the crucifixion, and Jesus says the laws won't
be abolished before everything is finished.
If Jesus' words only applied until a certain point declared by a New
Testament author, he could have very easily said so. He did not.
He said that not one stroke of the pen would disappear from the law
until the law and prophets were fulfilled.
Many prophecies are unfulfilled, as you have admitted yourself, and many
prophecies are incorrect. Further, Jesus
gives specific instruction to obey the commandments handed down, after he says
that the law and prophets can be invalidated once until "everything is
accomplished" or "all things have taken place."
The New
Testament does not render the Old Testament obsolete.
Those are YOUR
words, not mine.
You stated that
the laws and regulations of the Old Testament do not apply to followers of
Jesus, yet I have shown that they do.
Jesus says that
anyone who breaks the least of the commandments will be the least in heaven. If
we are to assume that he is only speaking to his audience, when do we begin to
assume he speaks to everyone?
Hole # 2! Here,
you can only make an assumption and it would be incorrect. God has never spoken
his laws to everyone. . “The sacred secret of God according to the good
news which he declared to his own slaves the prophets is indeed brought to a
finish.”—(Rev. 10:7)
Except that you
do not show where my assumption is incorrect.
The problem with your off-topic line of reasoning here is that people
are forced to follow God or spend eternity in agony. It is irrelevant whether or not God speaks
his laws to everyone because no one can claim exemption from them.
JESUS NEVER
SPOKE TO EVERYONE! Jesus spent his entire ministry in the region of
It is agreed that
Jesus never spoke to everyone. The
problem is that you cannot say for certain what applies to the Jews, his
audience, or humanity in general.
Whichever you declare, many Christians are going to disagree with
you. If you cannot settle among
yourselves which one it is, why should non-Christians be expected to accept
such an answer?
It was 3 years AFTER his death, and after the Jews
had proved beyond a doubt that they totally and unequivocally rejected his
message, his messengers and his messiahship, that
Peter used the first of the “keys of the Kingdom” by preaching to Cornelius the
centurion, thus opening up the way for Gentiles to have a part in his Kingdom
arrangement. Read the account for yourself in Acts 10: 1-48 with particular
emphasis on verses 34, 35, 44 and 45.The apostle Paul was later sent to
take the message to people of the nations.
It is agreed that
the teaching of Jesus were to be withheld from the Gentiles until after this
death.
You must admit - he did a tremendous job.
He did a
tremendous job at spreading the word indeed.
I therefore maintain that the Bible was
not intended for observance by unbelievers. Its regulations are only for
those who wish to accept it.
Sorry, no matter
how large and bold your words are [referring to the text of the original
email], it does not make them more true.
The Bible was definitely intended for observance by unbelievers. The whole point is to spread the word among
all the nations, most of which are unbelievers.
One does not gain immunity from God and his punishments simply because
one wants to be exempt.
The imposing of
Biblical rules on the rest of the world is not of God’s doing so your
unrelenting raving against him and his book is unwarranted.
His imposing of
Biblical rules is only a small part of the deity's immorality. Even if your line of reasoning discredited
what I stated, the book cannot be deemed unwarranted since it addresses much
more than the imposition of rules.
Furthermore, I have stated repeatedly that one cannot gain exception
from God's rules simply because he wants exception.
THIS POINT ALONE RENDERS MUCH OF YOUR BOOK
ELIGIBLE FOR THE RUBBISH HEAP.
I have
demonstrated otherwise, so let the reader decide for himself.
I could provide
several more examples of why the writer's reasoning fails, but since the
remainder of this letter is full of assertions without much substance, I hope
this will be sufficient.
You’re not even
close! Now I would like you to provide those examples of “why the writer’s
reasoning fails.”
Despite your
objections to the contrary, I have demonstrated to my satisfaction that the
single example I provided is sufficient.
When this point has been proven insufficient, I will elaborate. As of now, I will not belabor on a point that
I have already defended appropriately.
If an
individual finds the Bible acceptable, who in the world is truly authorized to
tell him that it is not?
If an
individual finds that murder is acceptable, who in the world is truly
authorized to tell him that it is not?
I FIND
YOUR “ANSWER” WOEFULLY INADEQUATE AND IRRELEVANT!
An answer? I'm trying to show you how illogical it is to
say something of that nature by giving an applicable analogy. If one can be answered, so can the other.
But I will deal with it:- Millions of
people already do! The simple answer is: - The law of the land: and they can do
much more than just tell him. That is why governments have a judiciary and
enforcement capabilities.
You agreed, and
in doing so, invalidated your line of reasoning without even realizing it. The law of the land is based on a system of
morality designed to enforce justice. If
murder, per my example, is immoral, those who are in charge of enforcing
morality and justice are authorized to tell him that it is. One well versed in the law, morality, ethics
and justice is "authorized" or qualified to explain to the murderer
why the act is not permitted. As I have
demonstrated by analogy, the same can be said for the Bible. One well versed in law, morality, ethics, and
justice is "authorized" or qualified to explain why the Bible is
morally bankrupt. If an idea is harmful,
such as murder or a certain book, one with a great understanding of morality
can speak on the subject. One does not
have the ethical right to a practice based solely on the fact that he finds it
"acceptable." Do you now understand
where you went wrong by asking the question?
Logic like this
just does not fly.
Well, SOMETHING
has taken wings.
Since this is
irrelevant, I'll move on.
If a book
promotes moral bankruptcy, anyone with superior morals is
"authorized" to educate those who believe otherwise.
I can see
clearly what is NOT “flying.“ Two things here:- 1. There are thousands of books
that do just that! Which of those do you condemn or even attempt to censor?
Who, of their authors, have you tried to censure?
I condone no book
that attempts to enforce such regulations as the Bible, and this irrelevant red
herring has no bearing on whether I am justified for condemning the Bible. The thousands of books that promote moral bankruptcy
are irrelevant to whether or not the Bible does the same. I do not have the time and resources to
condemn all the books that do so, nor would I be inclined to do so if I had
such resources. I have chosen the Bible
because it has the biggest impact on my society.
2. Who do you know that is “morally superior?”
I know of a great
number of people who realize that there are no absolute rights and wrongs. They know that something is not right or
wrong just because a god or someone else has said so. Having advanced moral codes, realizing for
instance that what is for the greater good is most likely the right thing to
do, usually clues me in that someone is morally superior to someone who
believes it's okay to do something because it's written in a book. I could go on forever regarding this issue,
but I feel I've sufficiently made my point.
You
consistently condemn the judgmental attitude of the God of the Bible by soundly
judging and condemning Him. Are you truly competent enough to do that?
Yes, I am more
than competent enough to evaluate the morality of a number of gods in
mythology.
That was not my
question and I won’t let it pass.
That more than
answers your question. I am more than
competent enough to evaluate the morality of a number of gods in mythology. I will expand further and say that I am also
more than competent enough to judge the god of the Bible. Whether that is a clarification or a
redundancy, I will leave for the reader to decide.
I said nothing about the morality of
mythological gods, which would be nothing more that the morality of the
ones inventing them.
It's amazing how
dead on Christians can be with their understanding, yet commit special pleading
for an exception of their god of choice.
You're exactly right in that the morality of mythological gods is
nothing more than the morality of the ones inventing them.
Take another look at my question and then try
to come up a better answer than that.
I have done so
above.
BTW - Who do you
know is morally superior? Hmmmmm….something comes to
mind here: You seem to presume to know what is morally right for society.
I do not claim to
be an authority on morality, but I would say I have a better appreciation than
the vast majority of our society.
Now I want you to tell me which of the
following is morally and socially unacceptable:-
This is way off
topic and tries to place dichotomies on important issues, but I'll answer
briefly.
abortion, adultery, academic fraud, arms sales, arson, cheating,
conscientious objection, deceit, drug abuse, exotic dancing, ethnic cleansing,
fornication, gangbanging, greed, haughtiness, human organ selling, lying,
lobbying, litigiousness, child molestation, nuclear proliferation, selling of
blood, obscene language, physical fighting, pollution, premarital sex, racial
pride, stem cell research, pornography, scientific fraud, smoking, rioting, tax
evasion, deceit, union organizing, unfaithfulness, weapons manufacturing,
military service, plagiarism, domestic violence, child abuse, insurance fraud,
gambling, welfare fraud.
As stated before,
I do not place issues as being right or wrong.
They are decided on a case by case basis, of which many of the facts are
unknown. For instance, adultery is usually
okay if the partner does not care, but it is usually immoral if the partners
agreed on abstaining from it. Even acts
like arson, which are almost always immoral in real world purposes, might be
morally okay if the building is used for purposes that are far more immoral
than the arson itself, considering that there is no suitable alternative. There is no black and white on these
issues. If I were to adequately address
my opinions on each subject, I would have to dedicate more time than I’m
currently willing.
A god that
promotes murder, rape, slavery, and cruelty to women does not behave morally.
Gods of that
type are mentioned in the Bible, but they are soundly condemned by the God OF
the Bible. Draw your own logical conclusion.
I have
demonstrated otherwise in the book. I
feel no need to elaborate here.
The writer will
probably agree with this as long as I don't judge his god of choice, but he
apparently wants special exception for his own.
An assertion
unworthy of comment.
Except that
you've already commented. You believe
that the god of the Bible is the one that is not mythological, and you believe
that the god of the Bible does not behave immorally.
In what way
are you offering something better?
Why does it
seem that every other letter I receive demand that I provide something better?
What does this have to do with evaluating the Bible?
The answer
to that is quite simple: The Bible builds up. You tear down without any plan or
form of restoration. You’ll soon be left with a shambles. If you keep making
withdrawals from a bank account, it will all be gone. Isn’t that logical?
This is a false
analogy for more reason than I care to elaborate on. Whether or not I have a framework of morality
is irrelevant to whether or not the Bible has a framework of morality. I do not mind you repeating this question
because it will show critically thinking readers that you do no grasp the
concept. I am not required to show that
"B" must be a satisfactory answer before disproving "A". Whether or not society is left in shambles is
irrelevant to whether or not the Bible is incorrect. This is a clear attempt to shift the burden
of proof onto the disbeliever. If one
wants society to accept certain rules as moral, one must demonstrate their
morality. Christianity does not gain
exemption simply because it was here before it was first criticized. This is terrible reasoning.
I believe I
can do that.
Let us see.
The Bible is
incredibly accurate in so many ways that time and space limit my response at
this juncture. BUT - I AM IN A POSITION TO DROWN YOU WITH FACTS.
To this point, I
see nothing. I have demonstrated that it
is woefully inaccurate, yet I only see assertions that it is accurate. I do not doubt that the Bible is accurate on
a number of issues. The problem is trying
to attach it to a perfect being when it is inaccurate for reasons I have
covered in the book.
I believe I
can establish such a link.
Let us see.
We will get to
that.
Okay, I'm
standing by.
IS IT POSSIBLE THAT YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND
THE BIBLE?
Yes.
That is good
enough for me!
But it really
shouldn't be. If you had asked me how
likely it was that I misunderstand the Bible, I would say that it was equally
likely that I don't understand simple logic.
I leave open the possibility because I am fallible. One should always consider the possibility,
no matter how remote, that one is wrong.
Will the writer
admit that it is possible the Bible is false? No.
Thanks - but I
can answer for myself. NOT A CHANCE!!!
Thanks for being
honest. It's quite pointless to speak to
someone who admits that he is not going to change his mind no matter what
evidence is presented, but I do so for the benefit of my readers. Otherwise, I wouldn't waste my time. Your statement here really speaks volumes. It is perfect evidence for my stance that
people are conditioned to accept what society tells them is critically
important. How many Hindus, Jews,
Muslims, and Mormons would offer the same exact reply had I asked them if they
were willing to admit that it is possible that their holy books are wrong? A great number. Religion strives with such stubborn behavior
implemented by years of conditioning.
It's not the perceived quality of evidence offered against the Bible
that makes you say this, because after all, you will not change your mind under
any circumstance. One could offer
perfect evidence if it existed, yet you wouldn't believe it because your mind
is made up.
Is it possible
that the writer does not understand the Qur'an, Vedas,
or Book of Mormon?
No! I have
looked into them. But then, I am not trying to tear them down. Even though I
could!
Again, this
speaks volumes. I was using the analogy
of other books to show that you would not understand why they might be right and
the Bible might be wrong. You have your
mind made up, as I stated before and as you have demonstrated here. You admit that you have not looked into them,
yet you could tear them down if you tried.
This is a tremendous example of the conditioning I explain in the
book. You know nothing of other
evidences that could bring the Bible into question, yet you are certain that
they are invalid because you use the notion that the Bible is correct as a
premise instead of a conclusion. If it
were not for other readers who might benefit from this exchange, I would not
waste any more time here.
This line of
questioning is hardly worthy of comment,
You’re right! I
did not establish a LINE of questioning - You did!
Would it make you
feel better if I replaced "This line of questioning" with "This
method of questioning"? Will that
make you feel as though you've won an argument?
If so, I'll happily agree that I should have used a more appropriate
word.
but the writer
acts as though someone who has studied the issue for years dispassionately has
no clue what apologists assert.
I don’t know
what apologists assert so how can I respond to that?
You repeatedly
speak as though I have no comprehension of the Bible and persist to give
explanations that I've heard many times before.
I will maintain
that you have no clue as to what the Bible is all about, since you treat it
like mythological literature.
I don't know how
many more talking donkeys, talking snakes, global floods, heavenly towers, 6000
year old creations, bets between deities, etc. one would need before they are
comfortable calling it mythological literature.
You do not see it as mythology because you begin with the premise that
it is not. Give up your premise and read
critically. While that is the best
advice I can offer, I know it will not be heeded.
And - judging from your bio, I am sure I have
more years behind MY studies of the Scriptures than you have - only it wasn’t
dispassionate. It was awe-inspiring and enlightening.
I'm not going to
get into the issues of how people come into the study of Christianity as
Christians. The issue of bias and how it
affects judgment on issues in which individuals have made emotional investments
is well covered in previous letters.
What is clear thus
far from the writer's statement about the Old Testament is that I'm not the one
with a lack of understanding.
I am , by no
means, suggesting that the Hebrew Scriptures should be discarded. The
principles contained therein are of immense value to Christians today.
Then perhaps you
should do everyone a favor and explain how you know what should be discarded as
no longer applicable and what should be kept as being of immense value to
Christianity today. No one can agree on
what is applicable and what is not, so I would be most interested in hearing
this.
There are many prophecies there yet to
be fulfilled.
I will now refer
readers back to the discussion of Matthew 5 above.
I am in total agreement with Paul’s assessment
that “ALL Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for
reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in
righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely
equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17) The key word here is “righteousness.”
I'm not
interested in opinions – only what can be demonstrated as it is relevant to the
discussion.
What Gentile
nation was ever interested in that aspect?
While Jewish
nations were interested in aspects like righteousness during the period, Gentile
nations like
What I would like you to show me is what part
of the Hebrew Scriptures was ever directed to or even possessed by people of
the nations or Gentiles. ALL of them were steeped in idolatry. They had no idea
of what the motivating force behind the successes of the Israelites was except
that they served an invisible God. HANDWRITTEN COPIES OF THE SCROLLS WERE
ALWAYS IN THE POSSESSION OF THE HEBREW PEOPLE UP UNTIL THE TIME OF CHRIST.
I agree with you
here for the most part, but it does not have any bearing on whether or not
Jesus said the commandments should be kept and whom this statement should apply
to. The objections you raise (and to
which you declare a sweeping victory over unrelated issues) is whether or not
the Old Testament applies to Gentiles and unbelievers.
You will find
out that you, Sir, know absolutely nothing about the Bible, yet you find it
feasible to condemn as nonsense a book that you so obviously do not understand.
Yet another assertion
unworthy of comment.
Or a
demonstration of failure, or lack, of an adequate response. It is quite easy
for me to find out how well you understand the Bible.
Yet another
assertion unworthy of comment.
Rules set by
science and reason? Are those the sole basis for your rejection of the Bible?
Well, since
reason encompasses intelligence, rational thought, analysis, sound judgment,
and logic, I'd say that pretty much sums it up.
Not true!
Science falls flat on its face, violating its own rules, when it comes to the
subject of human evolution. And, on the same subject, reason is also discarded
in the light of prevailing scientific facts.
Wow. This statement is so inaccurate that I really
don't even know where to begin here. We
shouldn't trust science because you think it "[violates] its own
rules"? Isn't it amazing how
Christians will support any type of science, such as medicine, especially when
it supports the Bible, up until it starts contradicting the Bible? Please elaborate how science "falls flat
on its face…when it comes to the subject of human evolution." After that, please explain how a method of
empirical study that is willing to change when disproven
should not be applied to further study.
After that, please explain how your study of the Bible (aside from your
presupposition) by gathering information and forming explanations on the
material is not the scientific method itself.
Reasons shows
me the absurdity, contradictory nature, evil, incompetence, moral bankruptcy, and
historical inaccuracy of the Bible.
An imperfect
mind can see absurdity, contradictory nature, evil, incompetence, moral
bankruptcy, and historical inaccuracy when there is none.
Agreed. Also, an imperfect mind can miss absurdity,
contradictory nature, evil, incompetence, moral bankruptcy, and historical
inaccuracy when there is some. What does
this statement prove? Nothing. Any statement that can be turned to
demonstrate the exact opposite is of little value. This is not the first time you've offered
such a statement.
On reason:- Kids who shoot up their schools
have their reasons. Dahmer had “reasons” for eating
certain his victims. Personal reasons for accepting certain concepts are
clearly not enough, especially when they can be logically and Scripturally
dismantled.
"Reasons"
is a typo in my sentence. It should have
said "reason." Reason is
different than reasons, as I hope you should know. I also do not declare that one who reaches a
conclusion on the basis of reasoning is justified for the actions carried out
on that reason. Your example appeals to
emotion have little to do with how I arrived at my conclusion. Reason, like humanity, is imperfect. One can use reason, as they perceive it, to
arrive at any conclusion. If a reason
can be logically dismantled, so be it.
This does not invalidate the process of reasoning. Your statement that a reason is not enough if
it can be scripturally dismantled is a wonderful example of question
begging. One must first demonstrate that
orders in a book are a better tool than human reasoning before we can say that
reason is inferior to scripture. You
simply assume what you should first prove, and the readers are going to see
this.
You MUST
realize that both are too seriously flawed to serve as an ample foundation for
a stable society.
This is a huge
non sequitur. What does a foundation of a society have to do with whether or
not a book is true?
It’s a pity that
you can’t see it. In today’s society, books form the lines on the roadmap
through life. Teaching children erroneous information from those books can
endanger the future of any nation. There is a lot of truth in “The Terrorists’
Cookbook.“ If you look at the
No, the pity is
that you can't see it's a gross non sequitur.
Whether or not the Bible is true is irrelevant to whether or not science
and reason can be foundations for a society.
The two issues could not be any more distinct. You're arguing that erroneous information can
endanger a nation, which is a fine argument, but it is irrelevant to the issue
at hand. Let us assume that science and
reason are not able to uphold a society.
Now, how does that demonstrate that a certain book should take their
place? It does not do so, thus the non
sequitur. You're trying to derail
science and reason on the basis that they can't serve as ample foundations for
a society (without expanding beyond the assertion, mind you), which is a
patently absurd way of doing so.
How are science
and reason flawed?
I already dealt
with reason. Now let’s deal with science.
Let us see.
How can we not
trust knowledge gained through observation?
Because of the
huge propensity for error!
So, we shouldn't
use science because the conclusions might be wrong? A field that encourages correction of errors
shouldn't be used because errors might be made in the conclusions of study? I feel no need to elaborate here since this
topic has been covered in many previous letters and pretty much speaks for
itself.
Mortal man has a
history of misusing things that can be beneficial.
It seems to me
that you have problems with disingenuous conclusions made by study, and not the
process of science itself.
Knowledge gained through observation led to
the splitting of the atom and the subsequent nuclear threat to all life on
earth.
An often used
appeal to emotion. Knowledge gained
through observation led to the curing of a great number of diseases, which
improves life on earth. Remember what I
said about statements that can be turned?
In addition, your dislike of science because it can lead to discoveries
with the potential for harm shows a great inability to think critically.
Science does not have all the answers.
Again, this is
another absurd justification for choosing other methods of acquiring knowledge
that has been used so many times before that we've all lost count. Science is the pursuit of answers – not a
dogma of predefined ones. I may as well
just invent a religion myself, have it explain all possible answers by
inserting an all-powerful entity into the mix, and declare it superior to the
process of gathering data since all the answers are already explained by my
religion. This is so absurd that I'm not
going to elaborate further.
There are essential truths beyond the reach of
science.
This is an
assertion you need to back up. What
"truths" can we not reach through study, observation, and experimentation? How do we know these "truths" are
"truths" without study, observation, and experimentation? I'm predicting nothing but question begging
coming in the future.
Erwin Chargaff,
biochemist at
What Chargaff is saying is that science is the study of the
natural and does not extend into the supernatural. Science does not disprove the existence of
God in the supernatural realm, but it demonstrates scientific errors in a book
that is supposed to be inspired by and representative of a certain god. We may as well just say that natural science
is not an instrument to investigate Supergod, the
entity that is more powerful than God.
If you are going to presume entities in the supernatural realm that
cannot be falsified by science (and thus declare science as unfit), I should be
allowed to presume the existence of one as well. Do you see how hiding behind the cloud of the
supernatural does nothing to help your case?
Science only explains things in the natural realm, some of which are
biblical claims.
This is a
mistake you have obviously made.
No, I do not
claim science disproves the existence of the supernatural. Science does not extend into the
supernatural. One can imagine infinite
aspects of the supernatural and claim that each one is superior to science
because science can't touch it. One
should have a reason for believing in an aspect of the supernatural. The god of the Bible leaves the supernatural
realm and enters into the natural one when he does stuff like flooding the
world. Science demonstrates that no such
thing happened. If one wishes to appeal
to supernatural explanations, I should be allowed to say that Supergod killed God and made the flood herself. This is quite absurd to say the least.
Science cannot foresee the future.
This is
irrelevant to whether or not science is a legitimate tool. Quantum physics cannot explain how to build a
ship, but this doesn't mean the field has no applicability in gathering
data. Despite your claim, science can
help predict certain aspects of the future with reasonable certainty. The study of weather patterns will predict
that more hurricanes will arrive in the summer than winter, for example.
It cannot even foresee the results of its own
discoveries. Barely ten years after the Wrights’ first flight, soldiers were
dropping deadly missiles from the skies. When DDT was developed, for example,
it was hoped that this new weapon would forever solve the problem of insect
pests. It would provide protection for plants and keep in check those insects
that spread diseases such as malaria. However, the German newspaper Frankfurter
Allgemeine Zeitung said
that this “blessing for mankind . . . an undreamed-of achievement for
chemistry” later became “a rather questionable blessing. . . . DDT’s victory
march through
Remember thalidomide? Narcotics, meant for relieving pain, has become a
nightmare! Gunpowder has become the basis for unprecedented violence. The
internal combustion engine and air pollution.
Remember, too, Alfred Nobel, after whom the Nobel peace prize is named. He was
a man of peace, yet he invented dynamite. Why? He wrote to a friend: “I should
like to invent a substance or machine with such terrible power of mass
destruction that war would thereby be made impossible for ever.” Two world wars
and hundreds of smaller territorial wars and insurrections since Nobel’s death
have proved that his invention failed to have the effect he hoped for. I could
go on to relate the history of failure written in misery and blood.
Again, these are
just appeals to emotion that I could easily turn and show the benefit that
scientific discovery has given mankind.
I really expected more than fallacious logic like this considering the
length of your reply and the choice to actually answer point by point, unlike
many other writers.
How can we not
trust knowledge gained through observation?
For the stated
reasons above. There are many others, the details of which I am in possession.
I've already
dealt with your reasons and have demonstrated them as erroneous for the reasons
I've discussed above.
Why can we not
apply this knowledge when making decisions?
Men have tried. The
problem is the decision-making process. Seeing some advantage,
Again, more
appeals to emotion that I have previously demonstrated are erroneous. I could easily turn them by saying thing like
FDR "DECIDED" to help stop Hitler, but I demonstrate nothing. No one is saying that decision-making is
perfect. As stated before, one cannot
simply say that one is justified because he has reasoned. We must let those with the greatest
understanding of morality decide what is for the greater good.
Practical wisdom
from the Bible, had it been implemented, could have prevented ALL this tragedy
and waste by the very simple advice:-YOU MUST LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.
Men just have to keep knocking their heads against a wall and never fully
realizing their own inadequacy.
Practical wisdom
from the Bible? This must be a
joke. Not only did Confucius point this
out long before Jesus, but this one quote is very selective of biblical
material. How about "kill everyone
who worships a different God?" I
could provide several more examples, but I hope this will be sufficient. It seems to me that one must not simply heed
advice given in the Bible, but instead, decide on what is the more appropriate
course of action through inductive reasoning.
Just because something is in the Bible does not self-demonstrate that it
should be followed.
Furthermore, what
if FDR decided to love Hitler as he loved himself? What if FDR decided that he should turn the
other cheek once Hitler conquered most of
This statement
is patently absurd.
That’s only
because nobody has brought it to your attention before.
Not quite. I've demonstrated the absurdity to my
satisfaction, aside from whether or not it was brought to my attention before.
What happened
to reason during the last two world wars? What agency has supplied mankind with
the means to destroy all life on earth, a phenomenon unseen in all of human
history?
What happened
to faith when finding a cure for Polio?
You are being
evasive. WHY?
I'm not being
evasive. I'm demonstrating through
analogy that a question capable of being turned to show the opposite aspect is
not a valid method of argumentation.
Reasoning has caused harm, and reasoning has created good. Just because you can point out the harm does
not demonstrate that we should abandon reason.
AND - on faith -
I wouldn’t advise you to go there. YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT FAITH IS. Your
question makes that clear.
Sigh. Faith is the belief in a principle despite a
presence of evidence or evidence to the contrary. However you want to elaborate on the
definition of faith, that is a definition with which society will agree.
What agency has
supplied humankind with the means to double the human lifespan, a phenomenon
unseen in all of human history? These questions are absurd and demonstrate
nothing.
Look! I asked 2
questions - YOU added the rest and then frustrates yourself.
What? That doesn't even make sense. For what must be the tenth time by now, I
turned the question to demonstrate how it cannot be submitted as a valid method
of argumentation. If you will not take
my word for it, perhaps you should seek Christian assistance. Most apologists will be more than willing to
explain to you how this line of discussion is bankrupt.
The questions, far from being absurd,
demonstrate that men are incapable of governing themselves correctly,
This is your opinion. You show that self-government has resulted in
many negative ideas. I can show that
self-government has resulted in many positive ideas. You can show that biblical law has resulted
in many positive ideas. I can show that
biblical law has resulted in many negative ideas. This all demonstrates nothing, especially as
it pertains to whether or not the Bible is an authentic divine work.
proved by the rivers of blood resulting from
their efforts. Did I have to point that out to you?
I'll allow this
to speak for itself. I'm not going to go
into what man has done in the name of the Bible.
BTW, the human lifespan has not been doubled,
regardless of what you think. I have the facts to prove that.
Sorry, I'm not
impressed with assertions. "I have the
facts that disprove the Bible, regardless of what you think. I have the facts to prove that." What good did that statement do? None.
I'm not even
going to get into the issue of the impact that religion and faith have had on
human history. When the writer displays elaborate reasoned arguments, so will
I.
There is nothing
that you can say to me on those subjects that I don’t already know.
This sounds more
and more like simple "My mind is already made up, so you can't teach me
anything" talk. I'm not going to
belabor the matter further.
I truly believe that I can supply you with
more information on those than you can supply me.
...
But you are
talking about religion PROVEN to be false and, from your standpoint, an unknown
entity called “faith.”
No, I am talking
about overwhelming evidence against the Bible and the impracticableness of
applying natural methods to the supernatural.
You want elaborate? That I can supply. Present your case.
I feel no need to
demonstrate that religion has caused harm beyond what I've already discussed in
the book. If I heard at least one well
reasoned argument from you, I might be inclined to change my mind.
The Bible was
written by 40 different individuals over a period of 1500 years, persons so
widely separted by time and distance that there was
no possibility of collusion. Yet, the Bible contains a singular theme from
beginning to end. How do you explain that, and just what could that theme be?
This argument,
popularized by Josh McDowell, is a favorite among apologists. Since it's the
first time to pop up in these letters, I'll take some time to address it
adequately. The Bible does not contain a singular theme, as there is much
disagreement among authors, particularly the prophets. Jeremiah 23 is often cited
as one example. Another thing we have to consider is that we don't know exactly
how many works were eligible for inclusion in the Old Testament. We often hear
names of such books, but they are nowhere to be found. History often shows that
minority opinion gets suppressed. Furthermore, of the books that were eligible
for inclusion in the Bible, only a select few were canonized by the vote of a
committee in 325CE. Ironically, the very reason for the committee was to
eliminate all the books that were deemed inconsistent with what they already
believed. Submitting this argument is a little like opening a box of crayons,
carefully selecting a handful, and bragging about how harmonious the colors
are.
First off, I
never heard of Josh Mcdowell.
Then this speaks
volumes of your experience in apologetics.
Second - a theme: If there is a particular
subject, important and unavoidable, mentioned by ALL the writers of the 66
“books” of the Bible, sans collusion, then that is its theme. I can prove that
such a theme exists, regardless of what you may see as “disagreements.”
I'm not denying
the existence of a theme, but let me get this straight. We should consider a series of books credible
if the authors carry the same theme, and all of these books are combined into
one volume on the basis that they have the same theme? If so, this is quite possibly the dumbest
idea I've ever heard. I could collect a
series of books with the same theme, especially where latter authors had access
to works of the previous ones, and claim that it is more important? Millions of medical textbooks have been
written for thousands of years all with the "theme" of improving
patient health, yet why do I not try to claim that something is special about
this?
Hence,
your references to canonical history of the Bible, although incorrect, is
irrelevant.
It is not
incorrect or irrelevant. Here's a
suggestion – stop asserting. If it is
incorrect, demonstrate why. I can easily
relay the history of the canon, but this is something that is not in doubt
among scholars on either side. I took
the time to elaborate on the selection process above, yet you disappoint me by
not addressing it point by point. It is
also not irrelevant because you were the one who raised the issue of a singular
theme and how this somehow lends credibility to the veracity of the Bible. I pointed out that the whole point of forming
an authoritative collection of writings was to keep the singular theme. Why you cannot comprehend this, I'll never
know.
Your comments on this topic tells me that you
have never searched for a theme, but I have, and I found it (with some help, of
course).
Again, I do not
doubt that there is a theme. What I want
you to do is demonstrate how this collection of books assembled due to their
similarities should be considered more veracious due to their similarities.
Since I've
already stated that I began with an objective analysis, I'm not going to
belabor this point. Whether or not I was looking for complications is irrelevant
to whether or not the complications are there. The attempted explanations to
these apparent complications should be the focus of conversation.
Listen! One’s
objective in reading and studying the Bible is important to what one perceives
it to be saying.
I could not agree
more. If one studies the Bible
determined for it to be true, one will come away believing it is true. If one studies the Bible determined for it to
be false, one will come away believing it is false. This goes for any book, any field, any
belief, any discipline. It's human
nature. One should study issues without
bias to reach unbiased conclusions.
Since you don't believe in the legitimacy of study and observation, I'm
not going to delve into the issue of persuasive psychology here and how such
observations demonstrate the inability for religious people to be objective
about their religion.
Let’s just say that I find no “apparent
complications.” I have, like you, searched the internet, noted the perceived
disharmony, and proceeded to research and dismantle them. So, take your swing.
I stand ready.
I'm not foolish
enough to think that you can't find a "resolution" to any problem I
mention. It's been done a million times
before. The issue is the likelihood of
the explanation, and how unbiased a person is when delivering the
explanation. You've already mentioned
that nothing is going to change your mind, so what's the point? I point out an error, you begin with the
premise that it's not an error, and you use apologetics to defend what you
already believe is the truth. Again,
I've spent too much time already to delve into a lecture on persuasive
psychology.
One thing is
certain - one cannot intellectualize the Bible. It is not any ordinary book,
one that can be the subject of a literary critique that is based on some
self-appointed standards of logic.
This is a
variation of the special pleading fallacy. Why can the Bible not be
intellectualized, yet the same practice tells us that other works of ancient
mythology are bunk? Otherwise, we can just say that one cannot intellectualize
any other religious book for the same reason. I'll let the writer's statement
on "self-appointed standards of logic" speak for itself.
Pleading? Boy -
are you off!! I, too, have gone through the listed “fallacies” on the Internet
and have junked them - many of them being written by a 20-year-old boy anyway.
This is
hilarious. Explanations of fallacious
logic are junk, because we can't trust logic itself! How do you expect people to take your positions
seriously when you make such statements?
I have books on logic that I doubt are written by 20-year-old boys. Try Copi and Cohen
for instance.
Why can
the Bible not be intellectualized? 1. Because of its source.
Yet, you beg the question
that God is the source. If you are going
to beg the question that it came from God, why not just beg the question that
it's right and be done with it? Wait, I
forgot. Logical fallacies are okay with
you because they're junk written by a 20-year-old boy.
and 2. Because most of it is far beyond the
unaided comprehension of mere humans. “For YOU know this first, that no
prophecy of Scripture springs from any private interpretation. For prophecy was
at no time brought by man’s will, but men spoke from God as they were borne
along by holy spirit.” (2 Peter 1:20-21) You wouldn’t happen to know what that
is - would you?
I know what more
question begging is, which is what I see here.
As a human
you have to admit that nobody's perfect. Have you ever wondered why? HOW DID WE
ARRIVE AT THIS STATE?
This is a pure
attempt to introduce irrelevant material into a discussion in order to increase
the perceived reliability of an argument. What does the writer want us to
believe? That our understanding must be wrong because we're fallible?
Therefore, we just have to believe in a book because it claims to be written by
a higher authority? He must be right because humans aren't perfect? To answer
the irrelevant questions, I would say that we're not perfect because we're
complex beings that evolved to our present state.
Nobody asks nor
forces you to believe anything. The conclusions you have drawn have not yet
been adequately challenged and subsequently debunked. I am prepared to do that.
From what I've
seen, you believe logic, science, and reason are bankrupt. This sounds like presuppositionalist
nonsense to me. I'm not going to indulge
your response further. I will let the
reader decide for himself.
Fallibility
brings liabilities and dangers.
Agreed that it
can, and not necessarily will.
The truly wise student leaves room for the
possibility of error in his own comprehension unless backed up by reliable
sources and accurate knowledge.
No, the truly
wise student leaves room for the possibility of error in his own comprehension
(period). If he is backed up by reliable
sources and accurate knowledge, then he is more likely to be correct. If he simply states that it is not possible
he is wrong because he is backed up by authority, which is what you essentially
state when I asked if you would consider that the Bible might be false, the
student makes a fool of himself. Since
you've demonstrated your unwillingness to accept concepts like logic and
reason, I don't see much point in discussing this further.
Evolution is unscientific, unproved and unprovable.
Challenging this statement would be your biggest mistake. Don’t say I didn’t
warn you.
Why the petty
intimidation? Your statement is wrong,
partially wrong, and wrong. I will deal
with each one at a time.
Evolution is
scientific, by definition, because it is a field that makes hypotheses, gathers
data through observation and experimentation, forms tentative explanations on
the data, and suggestions conclusions that can be falsified by further
testing. Besides, why do you care that
it is unscientific if science itself is flawed?
You're being greatly hypocritical here.
Evolution is not
proved in the sense that it is a final explanation of our origins. Evolution is, however, demonstrated to being
an ongoing process that has taken place much longer than the period offered by
the Bible. Furthermore, if evolution is
disproved, creation does not win by default.
I would expect you to realize that this is a false dichotomy, but since
you think logical fallacies are junk, I don't know how to convince you.
Evolution is not unprovable. It is
not logically impossible, so one cannot say that it is impossible. If one cannot say that it is impossible, one
can not say that it is impossible to prove.
Again, this is deductive reasoning, which I know you do not believe in,
but I don't know any other way to explain it.
Only the
Bible explains adequately.
This is yet
another assertion that I imagine the writer does not have a chance in the world
to back up.
That would only
be the case if you pack up and run.
Here's another
suggestion. Stop asserting if you want
me to respond again. If the next letter
contains assertions, you will not receive a response.
How in the
world can you be sure that certain incidents did not happen, based just on the
fact that you do not believe them?
This is a
malicious straw man to say the least.
Back to your
list of fallacies, I see.
Sorry, I did not
realize that, in addition to science and reason, you considered logic bankrupt
as well. It's my understanding that one
must address the argument raised to defeat that argument. It's also my understanding that if one
defeats an argument that wasn't raised, one doesn't defeat the argument
actually raised. Some logicians
somewhere along the line agreed with me and called it a straw man.
Where do I
claim that certain incidents did not happen solely that I don't
"believe" in them? I apologize for being blunt, but this letter is
simply pathetic. What we see here is the writer completely inventing statements
in order to accuse me of making arguments from silence. I don't claim to be
sure about any incident not happening, but I can be reasonably certain that a
particular incident did not take place based on a lack of evidence that would
be expected to remain.
Well! What have
we here? Righteous indignation? You should be much more care about what you
write.
I feel no need to
comment on this line and will let the reader decide for himself what to make of
the previous statements.
This is where insight comes in. There is much
more in your own statements than you intended. What you said about evolution
tells me that you do not believe Genesis chapter 1 happened;
No, evidence to
the contrary leads me to think that Genesis 1 did not happen as described.
that animals and
plants produce only their own kind;
Your statement
assumes that there has always been this distinction between plants and animals
and that they do not have a common ancestor.
Attempting to shift the burden of proof (another logical fallacy, sorry)
will get you nowhere. One need not
demonstrate the veracity of evolution to demonstrate the lack of veracity in
the Bible. My belief on evolution is
irrelevant to the veracity of the Bible.
that Genesis chapter 2 happened; that sin does
exist and that we die because of it.
Evidence to the
contrary leads me to think otherwise.
Sir, I am
going to pose some questions to you that will force you to admit that you do
not know the answers –
I can only
imagine. Whether or not I know the answers to these questions (and whether or
not they are actually relevant) has no basis on the veracity of the Bible. Why
am I becoming suspicious that the writer is going to start creeping in on the
god of the gaps fallacy?
You are becoming
more predictable by the minute. Why don’t you wait and find out?
This is not
worthy of comment.
questions
that are satisfactorily answered by the Bible itself.
This is yet another
assertion that I imagine the writer does not have a chance in the world to back
up.
Like I said -
not unless you skip out.
This is not
worthy of comment.
Your
rejection of the Bible logically means that you reject the story of our origin
No, it means
that I reject the story of our origin according to the Bible.
That is obvious.
But it's not what
you said, and I have no idea where a person who won't reject fallacious logic
is going. Your statement presupposes
that the Bible is the story of our origin.
Exercise more care with your wording.
This is fallacious.
and, I
assume, you have a satisfactory alternative.
I should
encourage people to read previous letters so that they don't repeat these
embarrassing statements.
I don’t care
about the others. Like my drill sergeant used to say:- “Don’t anticipate!“
It should be
clear that I'm not discussing the matter for your benefit or mine. Again, whether or not I have an alternative
is irrelevant because I will not allow you to make this into a false dichotomy
(logical fallacy again, I'm sorry, but some readers respect the rules of
logic).
You have not yet met anyone like me and I
prefer to stand on my own merits. I have discovered that most defenders of the
Bible usually ask the wrong questions.
Someone is going to be embarrassed but it will not be me.
I will let this
speak for itself.
One need not
have the answer a question in order to begin eliminating possibilities. It is
not a false dichotomy of Christian Theism versus one's opinion.
I don’t know
what you view as “Christian Theism” - I do not dabble in the folly of
Christendom, am not a fundamentalist nor a crusader of any sort. I can only
advise you to wait and see.
Sorry, I'm not
impressed. Present your case or you
won't receive a response.
I will
severely question and examine that alternative, whatever it is, in the light of
certain undeniable physiological observations.
Physiological
observations? The writer is going to examine the origin of humankind by
studying the functions of the human body? After this, is he going to award the
Bible a title of veracity under false dichotomy?
[ ]
Well, just when I
bragged on you for responding point by point, you did this again. Are you or are you not going to examine the
origin of humankind by studying the functions of the human body? I can't image how you will, but in doing so,
is this not the utilization of science?
Now you're going to use science to back up your claims? Science falls flat on its face,
remember? I'll just assert that your
science is unreliable and that evolution must be true because the experts say
so. See how absurd your argument has
become?
Remember
this: THE BIBLE WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR UNBELIEVERS. The writers did not expect
everyone to live by its standards, which is something that you obviously
assume.
Quite the
contrary. Matthew 13 is quite clear that Jesus taught only for believers.
For believers? I
think you made a mistake here, but I will not capitalize on it. I WILL GIVE YOU
A CHANCE TO EXPLAIN. Besides, the Bible is far more than just the teachings of
Jesus.
I would encourage
you to capitalize on any mistake I make.
I was merely offering supporting evidence for the notion that some
messages of the Bible were not written for the sake of unbelievers. The message in the parable is that the word
wouldn't be understood by many. I'm not
attempting to prove anything here; I'm just showing that what you assume about
my position is incorrect since I don't subscribe to the opinion that you placed
upon me.
Since any book
can make the claim that it is immune from skeptical analysis as the Bible does,
Maybe you would like
to tell me where the Bible makes such a claim. I could leave it there but I
will add this:- “…you should remember the sayings previously spoken
by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your
apostles. For you know this first, that in the last days there will come
ridiculers with their ridicule, proceeding according to their own desires…(2
Peter 3:2, 3)
How about
Proverbs 3:5 for starters? "Trust
in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not into thine own understanding." How about 1 Corinthians 2:2-5 and Colossians
2:8? It seems obvious that the authors
are saying to put faith above reason, yet do not explain why we know where one
should place faith without the utilization of reason in making that decision.
perhaps the writer would like to
elaborate on how one particular book should be regarded as from a higher
authority than another book.
Just look at the
names of the authors. A book by SJ Gould is definitely of more serious content
than one by Rodney Dangerfield.
Except that the
vast majority of the Bible, like other ancient religious/mythological texts,
are anonymous. Do we then just base
their veracity of the authority in which they purport to gain their
inspiration? Remember, I have a book
inspired by Supergod.
Why should one
make a decision to just believe in book A and not book B once he has abandoned
reason?
Its an
individual choice. Don’t be daft.
It is not up to
individual choice as to whether something is true or false. Something is true or false independent of
whether or not an individual believes it.
An individual does not change whether or not the Bible is true when he
decides whether or not it is true. If
one cannot trust reason, how can we expect one to make what you perceive to be
the reasonable choice?
Once a person
has abandoned reason he is rendered unreasonable and thus incapable of making
decisions worth anything. He should avoid such books.
This is exactly
my point, but you said earlier that reason cannot be trusted so we must submit
to a particular divine authority without explaining why, outside of your
question begging and special pleading.
“As regards anything besides these, my son,
take a warning: To the making of many books there is no end, and much devotion
[to them] is wearisome to the flesh.” (Ecclesiastes 12:12)
Wow, you mean the
Bible has some good sayings in it, like speak not into the ears of a fool? I didn't know.
Over to you.
I'm going to be
straight with you and let you know that you're probably not going to receive a
response if you decide to write back. I
will, however, post your response and note that I did not answer it, letting my
previous responses speak for themselves.
To me, it is clearly a waste of time to form responses that point out
repeatedly fallacious logic when you admit that you don't trust science,
reason, and logic in some instances, but invoke them in your defense in
others. Your mind won't be changed about
the Bible.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Note: The
following is his response to the rebuttal above. Note that even though I take the time to
address his objections point-by-point, he ignores 95% of them and starts on a
new topic.]
Sir,
HERE IS ANOTHER OF YOUR
MISTAKES:-
Again, this speaks volumes. I
was using the analogy of other books to show that you would not understand why
they might be right and the Bible might be wrong. You have your mind made
up, as I stated before, and you have demonstrated here. You admit that
you have not looked into them, yet you could tear them down if you tried.
That is not at all what I
said. Take another good look.
Yes, I mistakenly
read that he had not read into them, which was a footnote of the actual
argument.
This is a tremendous example of the
conditioning I explain in the book. You know nothing of other evidences
that could bring the Bible into question, yet you are certain that they are
invalid because you use the notion that the Bible is correct as a premise
instead of a conclusion. If it were not for other readers who might
benefit from this exchange, I would not waste any more time here.
This unwarranted barrage is
based on your misunderstanding of my answer. You are wrong! I have
examined and researched the claims made by men like Dan Barker, Dennis
McKinsey, Johnny Skeptic and a host of others, even engaging in lively
discussions with them. Barker was the one most angry with me when, after I was
able to prove that there are no contradictions in the Bible, asked what my
"formula" was. I told him that I had none and he blew up.
I stand by
statement that anyone unwilling to change his mind based upon new evidence does
not truly consider other evidence.
Thanks for being honest. It's
quite pointless to speak to someone who admits that he is not going to change
his mind no matter what evidence is presented, but I do so for the benefit of
my readers.
You are making the
mistake of believing that an argument is evidence - not a shred of
"evidence" proving the Bible to be false has so far been presented by
you.
As stated before, I do
not place issues as being right or wrong.
This statement is
so absurd that it doesn't warrant further comment.
You are being evasive again. I did not
state nor question whether these activities are right or wrong. I would like
you to tell me which of them are morally and socially unacceptable.
They are decided on a case by case basis,
of which many of the facts are unknown. For instance, adultery is usually
okay if the partner does not care, but it is usually immoral if the partners
agreed on abstaining from it.
You just proved that you
are far more morally bankrupt than the book you condemn. You
have nothing good to offer anyone. Following the Bible's moral code has kept me
out of trouble all my life.
Assertions,
anecdotes, and a straw man, which deserve no further comment.
Even acts like arson, which are
almost always immoral in real world purposes, might be morally okay if the
building is used for purposes that are far more immoral than the arson itself,
considering that there is no suitable alternative. There is no black and
white on these issues. If I were to adequately address my opinions on
each subject, I would have to dedicate more time than I’m currently willing.
Following advice like this
can lead to nothing but trouble. You are blazing a trail to anarchy. Seeing as
how I don't believe there is a place called hell, I can only say that you will
never know real peace.
Over to you.
More of the same.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Note: Here is
his next letter, which again fails to respond point-by-point and fails to
address my statements.]
Sir,
Your observation on adultery reflects the thinking of persons who blindly
follow the trends of laxity on morals in modern times. Yet you claim to
be a person of superior morality who is qualified to judge the God of the
Bible.
Here’s what you wrote on the subject:-
“For instance,
adultery is usually okay if the partner does not care, but it is usually
immoral if the partners agreed on abstaining from it.”
The writer's
accusation that I blindly follow a certain trend speaks for itself. I will not address it.
To have sexual
connection with anyone other that your marriage mate is known worldwide as
adultery. If one partner knows of, or even consensually witnesses, sexual
connection with a third party, does that mean that the act was not immoral and
adultery was not committed, thereby making it "okay"?
I have already
answered this. In some situations, yes,
it does not necessarily make the act immoral.
As to whether or not it is considered adultery depends on a strict or
loose interpretation of the definition.
Do you know of
any situation where pupils and teachers have ever agreed that cheating on exams
is "okay?" Can a cheating pupil ever claim that he did not cheat -
really?
This is probably
the worst false analogy offered to this point, which is indicative of the lack
of comprehension displayed by this individual who cannot step outside of a
singular line of thought. Couples who
mutually agree to have extramarital affairs are not cheating. If there is no external harm, or the benefit
outweighs the harm, it is for the greater good.
Pupils and teachers must abide by a set of regulations set by a
governing body who acts in the best interest of those involved. The body does not leave it up to the pupils
and teachers to decide if they should arbitrarily cheat. Still, I will not say that cheating is an
absolute wrong. It is wrong in the vast
majority of cases (as are the vast majority of adultery cases), hence the need
to enforce a sweeping rule with the opportunity for the cheaters to appeal to a
governing body in order to see if the act can be justified. This does not make it an absolute wrong. One should also consider the unfairness to
other students who might be competing against a cheating student for a position
in college and how there is no correlative to this in the example of a couple
who mutually agree to have outside sexual relations. If cheating on one test in high school makes
a student pass a class so that he can get into college and later go on to cure
cancer, then cheating was for the greater good.
When one cannot know such outcomes, one is best to serve what appears to
be the immediate good by not cheating.
There are no absolutes in morality.
I tire of explaining this. The
writers simply sees a commonality in the word "cheating" and thinks
he is making a good argument.
WHAT IS WRONG
CANNOT BE RIGHT IN ANY WAY.
Again, this is an
absurd assertion of absolute morality that deserves no further comment.
A WRONG ACT,
DELIBERATELY CARRIED OUT, IS STILL A WRONG ACT.
Agreed, but one
must first demonstrate that it is a wrong act.
Is the
breaking of a vow morally "okay?" And how about an active conscience
when it comes to the betrayal of vows?
If both parties
agree that it's okay for a vow to be broken, and the breaking of this vow will
bring no harm, then, it is okay. It's
absurd that I keep having to repeat myself on this matter. Asking the same questions does not
demonstrate a point.
What about the effect on children and the rest
of the family and friends?
It is clear that
the writer still does not grasp the concept that one must weight the benefit
against the harm.
WHAT IS WRONG
WITH ADULTERY?
“I’ve left,”
said the voice on the telephone—likely the most devastating words Pat’s husband
had ever said to her. “I just couldn’t believe the betrayal,” she says. “What
I’d always feared most—that my husband would leave me for someone else—became
an awful reality.”
<snip>
Yes, of all
things, the writer offers a pages-long anecdote that demonstrates what harm
adultery can bring. If the writer
considered logic important, I would point out the fallacy of offering anecdotes
as arguments. No one is arguing that
adultery is okay in every instance.
The reactions of
people who have been betrayed cannot be anticipated. Some have resorted to violence
and sometimes murder.
Sigh. No one is arguing that adultery is okay in
every instance, much less that it's okay to do in secret.
Is this the kind
of situation you desire or even expect in your very glib endorsement of
adultery? In your attitude of “superior morality” you have not demonstrated
that you have even the slightest idea of the devastation that can be, and
has been, caused by your type of “advice.”
Sigh. No one is arguing that adultery is okay in
every instance, much less that it's okay to do in secret.
I know your
point is not about innocent partners, but the act is still wrong because vows
were broken and therefore reprehensible before those witnessing them, proving
that neither partner can be trusted. What is morally acceptable about
a lack of trust, and what do you have when trust is absent?
The writer should
have just as well said that he abandons his entire "it can bring
harm" argument because he apparently realizes now that harm doesn't apply
to all agreeing partners. This is a
great step forward. However, the writer
still believes that it is wrong for two people to mutually dissolve an
agreement that they no longer wish to abide by.
I will let this speak for itself.
Not even
mentioning the possible transmission of STDs.
Not even
mentioning the possible non-transmission of STDs. The writer has no concept of true justice,
only the notion that what is written in a book should be considered justice
without thinking critically on the issue.
He may as well just say, "If something bad might happen due to an
action, the action is wrong and should be avoided."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Note: The
following is the first of two letters from a discussion regarding Noah's Flood,
in which the plagiarism really begins, but I have yet to call him on it. He has abandoned the previous topic. Italicized quotes have been taken from the
book.]
Let’s
begin by looking at this highly questionable account from a common sense point
of view. Within the story, we have a god who has to modify virtually all of his
creations for the solely expressed reason of the people having become wicked
and evil (Genesis 6:5), yet wicked and evil people continue to exist throughout
the Bible.
Talk about a failure to comprehend!!
Very well.
Let us see…
Apart from the man Noah and his immediate family, ALL of humanity had become
corrupted by the influences of evil.
I will allow begging the question of the
Bible's authenticity for the sake of argument for the time being, but it is
worth reminding the reader that infants and children can hardly be considered
corrupted by the influence of evil. God,
being omnipotent, had a choice of rescuing them from evil or murdering
them. He chose murder. No matter how one twists the text, this fact
remains.
That righteous family’s chances for
survival in that wicked world was practically nil. God saw the need to rescue
that family from complete assimilation or annihilation. Hence the flood.
This is pure speculation, and it does
nothing to address the ethical ramifications mentioned in the book.
It was not for the purpose of removing
evil or the possibility of evil from the earth, but for the purpose of
preserving the progenitors of the Messiah who was to come and rescue mankind
from the curse of sin and death as a result of the first man’s rebellion.
This is ad-hoc reasoning, but if you
recall from the expanded version of the previous letter, the writer believes
fallacious logic is okay because the list of logical fallacies was
"written by a 20-year-old boy."
The idea that the flood was carried out to protect Jesus is absurd since
that claim is not made in the Bible, the idea of Jesus was not known to the Old
Testament authors, and it is directly contradictory to what the Bible plainly
says. It is simply a way of explaining
one thing in one era by the occurrence of new information that cannot apply to
the thinking of an old era. God drowned
the world because he saw man was evil.
The Bible tells us so. We don't
need to look for reasons to fit predetermined beliefs when the reasons are
already given.
If
you follow the genealogical records of the man Jesus, the one called Christ,
you will find that every one of them were persons of faith in the God of
Heaven. Since the issue of universal sovereignty or rulership
by God was raised in
And this somehow supports the irrelevant
point how?
"Right
off the bat, the foundation for the story fails to make sense."
Sure it does - to you.
Since this does not warrant comment, I'll
move on.
Why
would an omniscient god have to destroy all of his work for a specific quality
that he knew would continue to exist even unto this very day? The flood was for
naught, yet God carried out his horrific genocide anyway. I find this to be the
most disturbing and perhaps the most ridiculous premise ever conjured by the
human mind.
This is a redundancy.
There are lots of thgings
relating to the flood that you have not even considered and which I can deal
with individually. But, instead of dealing with every one of your objections to
the flood story, the matter can be neatly summed up this way:-
Was There an Earthwide
Flood?
THE Bible book of Genesis says that God
used an earthwide flood to destroy the wicked people
in Noah’s day.
<snip>
At this point, the author simply relays an
article that doesn't address the ethical issues raised, much less actually
offer a point by point rebuttal to the arguments I raise, despite the fact that
he says "every one of [my] objections to the flood story…can be neatly
summed up [by the article]." It
argues that the flood must be global (to which I agree), offers the incredible
vapor canopy how-it-could-have-been-scenario, references opinions of Christian
scientists from as far back as the 1940s, and explains the water amount by
offering the Noachian explanation for decreased mountain ranges in the
past. Since there are infinitely better
defenses of the flood than this article, I have to wonder why it was offered. I will not repost it due to probable
copyright issues and due to the fact that anyone can just copy and paste a
volume of material that doesn't apply.
If the writer wants the reader to view it, he should provide a link,
which I will post. However, the
conclusion of the article is worth repeating in its entirety.
"But the Christian’s reason for
believing that the Flood occurred does not depend upon geological or scientific
evidence. He accepts it because this account is part of the inspired Word of
God, and because Jesus Christ and his disciples cited it as a warning example
for us.—2 Tim.
I will let this statement speak for
itself.
Appallingly,
God drowned unborn children in the flood. This indisputably necessary
consequence of his actions should ironically put a huge kink in the pro-life arguments
from the church. God aborts countless unborn children for the questionable sins
of their parents, yet the church expects society not to do the same? Infants
and young children who do not possess the intellectual capacity to tell right
from wrong were also casualties of the flood!
Let me just say that there was nothing in
the world to prevent the children of wicked people, born and unborn, from
becoming just like their parents.
Let me just say that there was nothing in
the world to prevent the children of wicked people, born and unborn, from not
becoming just like their parents. The
writers offers his suggestion as an argument, yet the exact opposite can be
said, and he still considers it part of a valid reason for a god to murder
children. Astounding.
No
one has ever found the enormous ark even though we know its final resting place
is among the mountains of Ararat located around present-day
To an unbeliever, NOTHING would suffice.
No.
To a person unwilling to believe, nothing would suffice. Just as to a person unwilling to disbelieve,
nothing would suffice. To a person who
believes or disbelieves but is willing to entertain the idea that he might be
mistaken, sufficient arguments exist.
Purported "evidences" of finding Noah's ark are so absurd that
most apologists know better than to vouch for them. They do not suffice because they are
unreliable.
Millions of people SAW Rodney King being
brutalized, yet the law said that he wasn't, and lawless men were legally set
free.
Horribly false analogy with an obvious
appeal to emotion. Sufficient evidence
is all one needs if asked to subscribe to a certain school of thought. The evidence of Noah's ark miserably fails
objective scientific analysis. The
brutalization of Rodney King requires subjective interpretation by a jury. Apples and oranges.
The words of Jesus is quite appropriate here
when he said:- " ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets
(Scriptures), neither will they be persuaded if someone rises from the dead.’ ”
(Luke 16:31)
Jesus' statement here is absurd. He should have just as well said, "If
they do not listen to hearsay without evidence written centuries before the age
of critical analysis, neither will they be persuaded by witnessing an objective
display open to critical scrutiny."
Genesis,
the only known source of Noah’s story, has several hundred additional problems
in need of answers before we can consider it a reliable historical source. No
known individuals recorded this particular version of the global flood myth
until nearly 2000 years after the floodwaters vanished. Since oral accounts of
an event can obviously undergo drastic changes even over a few generations,
there’s really no telling how much alteration the story incorporated before
existing in its present form. In short, as we have seen and will continue to
see, the book of Genesis is not a reliable source of historical information by
any stretch of the imagination.
And yet, Jesus Christ believed every word
of it, quoting from it frequently in his teachings. Check out this quote:-
"For just as the days of Noah were,
so the presence of the Son of man will be. For as they were in those days
before the flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in
marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark; and they took no
note until the flood came and swept them all away, so the presence of the Son
of man will be." (Matthew 24:37-39)
This is by far the most common Christian
combo of appealing to authority and begging the question. "Jesus said it happened, so it
happened." If Jesus is merely
assumed to be right about everything, then there is no point in discussing the
matter further because it happened. No
further comment is warranted here.
the
extremely similar Epic of Gilgamesh in the Sumerian legend predates Noah’s
story by at least one thousand years in the written form and at least five
hundred years for the setting.
However your dating of the epic is
incorrect.
Okay, let us see…
The only writings regarding a
flood found in the ruins of Ashurbanipal’s palace
were those of the Babylonian flood account, containing much mythology.
This demonstrates that scholarly dating of
the epic is incorrect how? The mythology
of the Babylonian flood account differs from the mythology of the Noachian
flood account how? The fact that a
Sumerian version of the flood wasn't found in a tomb demonstrates that it
didn't exist how?
Whether any genuine accounts or writings
actually from before the global Flood were possessed by the pagan Assyrians
cannot be determined now.(Light From the Ancient Past, by J. Finegan, pp. 216, 217
The fact that the Sumerian Gilgamesh Epic
(estimated at 2750 BCE) was already written during the third Ur dynasty of
approximately 2119-1940 BCE is not in dispute because other texts from the era
specifically mention characters in the tale.
Since Noah did not even have children until 2448 BCE, the fact that the
biblical flood myth takes place well after Gilgamesh is not in dispute. The fact that the Gilgamesh epic was widely
known in 2000 BCE, five hundred years before the traditional dating of the
Pentateuch and one thousand years before the scholarly dating of the
Pentateuch, is not in dispute. Whether
or not Assyrians possessed texts about the flood is irrelevant to whether the
story already existed.
Going back in history possibly some 4,000
years, we encounter the famous Akkadian myth
called the Epic of Gilgamesh.
Which is irrelevant since the Sumerian
version predates the Akkadian one.
Our knowledge of this is
based mainly on a cuneiform text that came from the library of Ashurbanipal, who reigned 668-627 B.C.E., in ancient
Arguing about the oldest complete
surviving extant copy would be a red herring.
The source of our primary knowledge and the age of extant copies are
irrelevant to how far back we can definitively say the story was known.
This very old legend is somewhat similar
to the Biblical account of the Flood.
Very much agreed.
However, it lacks the graphic details and
simplicity of the Bible account,
Just as the Bible lacks the vague details
and complexity of the Sumerian account.
What does this prove?
Nothing. How does the inclusion of
what one person arbitrarily considers graphic details and simplicity make one
story true over another? The writer
simply declares the biblical story true and attempts to discredit other stories
based on how they differ from the one that he arbitrarily declares to be the
winner. Why does the writer not want to
address the issue that the Bible has no less than five major parallels
(provided dimensions, family and animals boarding, landing on a mountain,
release dove and raven, and offering sacrifice) with an older story? If the biblical flood is true, how is it that
the Sumerians knew exact details of the future centuries before it
happened? Why does the writer not want
to address written records from other civilizations straight through the flood
era? Why does the writer not want to
address logistical problems with the voyage?
and it does not give reasonable dimensions for the ark
It is absurd that the writer would bring
this point up, as if I were trying to claim that the Sumerian Epic is
true. The Bible also fails to provide
reasonable dimensions for the ark, at least according to every expert in
shipbuilding. This issue has already
been addressed in the chapter. If the
writer can demonstrate how a seaworthy craft 450 feet long can be built without
metal, let him present it to the reader.
nor supply the time period indicated in the Scriptures.
Perfect example. "The epic disagrees with the Bible, so
the epic is wrong." Not only do we
see the continuing absurdity of holding the Bible as a standard to which the
epic must be compared, the writer admits that the time period differs between
the two.
For instance, the Epic of Gilgamesh said that
the storm lasted six days and six nights, whereas the Bible says that “the
downpour upon the earth went on for forty days and forty nights”—a continuing heavy
rain that finally covered the entire globe with water.—Genesis 7:12.
Again, we see further absurdity in trying
to discredit the existence of Noachian elements in pre-existing myths by
showing differences in the two tales.
OVER TO YOU.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Note: The following is a two-round
continuation of the Noah's
You let
your imagination run amok by thinking in terms of modern shipbuilding
techniques. The ark was not intended as a seaworthy vessel. No sophisticated
mechanisms were necessary.
What
do sophisticated mechanisms have to do with the seaworthiness of a craft? Nothing.
If you weren’t so quick to jump on percieved inaccuracies, you’d realize that reference to
"sophisticated mechanisms" has to do with proper utilization, or wise
use of, limited SPACE.
How can I be the least bit guilty of
"[jumping] on [perceived] inaccuracies" when I review the letter and
discover that no elaboration is given on the relationship between sophisticated
mechanisms and the preservation of space?
Your statements are a perfectly natural progression of a single idea:
the ark was not intended as a seaworthy vessel, thus no sophisticated
mechanisms were necessary. Your entire
line of upcoming argument is based on some notion that my arguments are false
because I think in terms of "ships" and "boats" instead of
"boxes," which can only lead me to believe it has to do with the
steering, not the shape, since I already know that the ark was basically an
empty box. I would say that it appears
as though you wanted to change what you wanted to say when it became clear to
you that I was not going to argue in favor of sophisticated mechanisms as they
relate to the ark's ability to survive at sea, but given your demonstrated
tendency to jump from one idea to the next when asked to back up your
assertions, I find it equally like that you are correct for telling me that I
should not assume your progressive statements will epistemologically follow as
a cohesive topic. Even so, this is an
irrelevant quibble, and I will waste no further time on it.
The
ark must be seaworthy because it is out at sea.
A simple look at a dictionary for the definition of seaworthy would have
prevented this blunder. The ark must be
capable of surviving at sea, nothing more and nothing less.
Sorry - the blunder is yours! It is quite clear that
YOU did not check one!
Let us see.
Webster/thesaurus
says: "Fitted for a voyage." Webster/
I imagine that you still do not see where you
erred with this quibble. It helps if you
consider how the definition relates to the issue at hand. The ark must only be seaworthy, in other
words, worthy of the sea. Voyaging is a
necessary quality for a ship (and if you point out that the ark is not a ship,
you miss the whole discussion here, which I will explain in a minute). One cannot separate the very utility of an
object from its description. If a ship
cannot ship, it cannot be a ship. In the
same manner, one can safely argue that a "desertworthy"
pack mule need only be capable of surviving in the desert because it should be
understand that the voyage is a necessary component of being a pack mule. A pack mule that cannot voyage not only fails
to be "desertworthy," it fails to be a pack
mule. A ship must be able to make a
voyage in order to be seaworthy because it must be able to make a voyage before
it can be considered a ship, much less a seaworthy ship. Likewise, the ark must be seaworthy, to the
necessity of what is required of a floating box at sea. Those definitions you provide are for
voyaging crafts. Looking up the
definition in a dictionary and determining how this relates to the point of
discussion (the latter of which I mistakenly omitted because I thought it was
understood) will show exactly what I wanted to convey. Perhaps I should not have confused you by
suggesting that you look it up in a dictionary.
Break the word down into its basic components if you don't believe me.
Even worse, the ark must indeed be able to
make a voyage (despite your objection that it was not "intended" to
be a seaworthy vessel), which is clearly understood from the text and
consequently not belabored in my point.
The question is not whether the ark could survive and stay afloat; it is
whether the story of Noah's ark happened as depicted in Genesis. Either the ark made it from
You continue to insist on the ark being
"seaworthy" implying travel by sea. Since the Bible,
when referring to the sea or travel by sea, is quite specific in naming the
bodies of water involved, (see Ex 10:21; Deut 3:17; 11:24; 1 Kings 5:9; Jonah
1:3,4,9; Mark 1:16; John 6:1 etc, etc, etc.) perhaps you can tell me which
"sea" it was that was traversed by the Ark.
You must be joking. What does the name of the sea have to do with
anything other than to create a straw man?
What do you want me to call the sea?
Since you lay
such great store by your "seaworthy" argument, this is an important
point.
My argument is that the craft could not
remain afloat. The "travel"
component, although necessary for the story, is therefore irrelevant since the latter
is a component of the former and I deny that the former is possible all
together. Would it make you feel better
if I said the ark wasn't "floatworthy"? Would you respond to my arguments instead of
quibbling over definitions? I will
readily admit that the ark did not need to go in any specific direction, and it
was never my intention to make anyone think it was my claim. I fear that you have read too much into what
I said (or wanted to say).
The
writer plagiarizes the balance of this letter presumably from Insight to the Scriptures, but since the
references are short, I will address them.
The material submitted contains certain facts that
needs to be addressed by you.
The material submitted contains an entire
argument copied and pasted, uncritically mind you, from what someone else wrote
without proper credit. This is
fraud. It is dishonest, unethical, and
unacceptable in the academic community, especially since you knew ahead of time
that these exchanges were going to be posted publicly, per your own
request. It takes very little time to
attribute proper credit when "borrowing" someone else's
argument. Instead, the reasonable
conclusion is that you attempted to pass it off as your own work. There is no excuse for this, especially since
this is the second time I've found you committing such practices. I think it's clear that you don't even
understand the arguments you are offering, otherwise you would do the minimally
honest thing and summarize the article in your own words. I think this speaks volumes about your
honesty, academic integrity, and intellectual laziness. I would go as far as to say that I personally
believe that you don't really even understand the arguments. After all, it's easier to just plagiarize and
pretend you do.
Instead of
griping about the source of the material,
Where do I gripe about the source of the
material? I am critical of your decision
to plagiarize someone else's work. I
would love to see you hand in a plagiarized paper to a college professor, get
busted for it, and tell him that he needs to grade the paper instead of griping
about the source of the material. Public
exchanges about scientific arguments are part of the academic community, which
is exactly what English classes prepare students for. I realize that a lot of religious people
don't put much creed in science and rules of academics, but I don't tolerate
plagiarism in emails I read. The least
you can do in the future is cite the article before making your appeals to
authority.
why don’t you
proceed to refute it if you think it is in error?
I refute arguments that need refuting, but
I force the writer to support assertions when assertions are made. I don't refute assertions because assertions
don't need refuting. This is an attempt
to shift the burden of proof onto the listener.
One does not just write, I mean plagiarize, assertions for a position
and claim that the position is equally attainable since the assertions go
undefeated. He who asserts must
prove. There's a good reason why I don't
just refer you to Mark Issak's "Problems with a
Global Flood" and tell you that you need to read it in order to understand
how ridiculous your position is. How
would you feel if I just responded to your plagiarism with my own plagiarized
argument and said, "Instead of griping about the source of the material,
why don't you proceed to refute it if you think it is in error"? From now on, that's going to be my method of
responding to plagarisms. You desperately need to learn the difference
between assertions and arguments.
The ark
(Heb., te·vah´; Gr., ki·bo·tos´)
was a rectangular chestlike vessel presumably having
square corners and a flat bottom. It needed no rounded bottom or sharp bow to
cut rapidly through the water; it required no steering; its only functions were
to be watertight and to stay afloat. A vessel so shaped is very stable, cannot
be easily capsized, and contains about one third more storage space than ships
of conventional design. There was a door provided in the side of the ark for loading
and unloading the cargo.
No
one is arguing that the craft must be steered, so why is the objection raised?
There you go again - what "objection," Sir?
I don’t see one at all!
It is either an objection or a fallacious introduction
of irrelevant material. I was giving you
the benefit of the doubt. The ark having
square corners, a flat bottom, more storage space, a door on the side, and no
steering, as well as being more stable than a typically-shaped boat, is not in
dispute. There is no reason to say that
it required no steering because it was not assumed, asserted, or argued to have
steering. You uncritically copied,
pasted, and plagiarized material that is not relevant to the discussion. The next time you elect to plagiarize
material, the least you can do is remove the bits and pieces that are not
relevant to the argument.
What
it would take to capsize a non-metal craft like this that "cannot be
easily capsized?" How about a
forty-day storm that drops sixty times more rain than a category five
hurricane? If such a force is unable to
capsize the ship, would we still just say that it "cannot be easily
capsized?" The increase in
stability due to the box shape is not going to solve the issue at hand. This much is obvious.
Why do you continue to refer to the chestlike ark as a "ship?" The flood account in
the Bible contains no "ship!"
Now your argument is reduced to quibbling
over diction. You can call it what you
like: ship, boat, box, ark, vessel, flurblex, etc. It makes no difference to the argument
offered. The question was (and I realize
that this is not your argument, but one your plagiarized) why say "cannot
be easily capsized" if a rainfall sixty times more powerful than a
category five hurricane doesn't capsize it?
One should just as well say that it is unsinkable.
Besides, how
do you know that the prevailing conditions during the flood included
wind and tidal forces that matched any hurricane?
I don't know what took place in a
fictional story, but I must assume that it was like any other weather pattern
capable of enormous output. Are you
going to argue that rainfall sixty times the amount of a category five
hurricane had negligible winds? Is that
because I cannot defeat the unsupported assertion that this was a special type
of storm? Sixty times more rainfall than
a category five hurricane, yet void of appreciable winds? This is a fallback to a miraculous claim. Why not just assert the presence of miracles
as the reason for keeping the ark afloat and be done with it? I will go so far as to say that you cannot
produce a working model of how a weather system can become this powerful
without relying on a miraculous claim.
Furthermore, why do you assume that wind
is the only problem created by the storm?
Why do you not deal with the undulation, hydroforces,
and debris that the ark would face? Why
do you not deal with the boiling seas caused by surface tension? (Or the countless other reasons to which you
offer no objection?) It is not simply a matter
of wind. I cannot belabor enough how
silly it is for me to discuss the ramifications of a rainfall of this
magnitude. You want it to be true, so
you're going to continue to offer, or plagiarize, how-it-could-have-been
scenarios that maintain it.
This is all
arrogant assumption on your part. You really have nothing to compare
Noah’s flood with.
How is it "arrogant" to assume
that a rainfall of this magnitude had accompanying winds at least 2% of that
exponentially comparable to the only known system capable of such an
output? Of course I have nothing
scientific to compare Noah's flood with because it is not scientifically
plausible. I could compare it to other
pre-existing flood legends from which the story was copied, but that is beside
the point. The exercise is to offer
reasonable explanations and hypotheses of what occurred and to derive
conclusions from those occurrences.
Otherwise, you can just assert that it's a miracle and be done with it.
In size the
ark was 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high. Conservatively
calculating the cubit as 44.5 cm (17.5 in.) (some think the ancient cubit was
nearer 56 or 61 cm), the ark measured 133.5 m by 22.3 m by 13.4 m (437 ft 6 in.
× 72 ft 11 in. × 43 ft 9 in.), less than half the length of the ocean liner
Queen Elizabeth 2.
And
what does the size of a steel cruise liner have to do with the seaworthiness of
Noah's ark? Nothing.
Since I’ve already dispatched your
"seaworthy" argument, no comment is neccessary
here.
No, my point has nothing to do with
seaworthy, floatworthy, or anything else you want to
call it. You offered, or plagiarized,
material that has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the ark can
float. Would it appease you if I said
"What does the size of a steel cruise liner have to do with the floatworthiness of Noah's ark?" You know that was the intent, but you cannot
answer such a question because you hopefully now know that the size of a steel
cruise liner is irrelevant to the stability of a wooden vessel. No one is arguing that a vessel can't be
built the size of the ark. The argument
is that a wooden vessel can't be built, especially one without metal bracings,
and be expected to survive at sea. The
size of a steel cruise liner is irrelevant, but you copied and pasted it
anyway. Either you copied and pasted
uncritically, or you demonstrated how weak your position is when you tried to
trump up the reliability of your claims by offering evidence that an uncritical
reader would find impressive. So, I ask
again, how is the size of a steel cruise liner relevant to how large of a
wooden vessel can survive at sea? Answer
the question, or admit you uncritically plagiarized irrelevant material.
The writer commits the irrelevant material
fallacy by merely offering, or plagiarizing rather, irrelevant information in
an attempt to make his argument seem more valid. No one is arguing that a ship can't be built
as long as the ark. The discussion is
whether such a stable ship can be built without the use of metal.
Ship? what ship? And is that what the discussion is
about? How is it that I was not aware of that? Talk about irrelevant! Please
refer me to the section that introduced that topic.
I'm not surprised you choose to quibble
over the word used. Call it a vessel,
box, or whatever you like. No one is
arguing that ships or boxes can't be built the size of the ark. The argument is that a wooden vessel can't be
built, especially one without metal bracings, and be expected to survive at
sea. There is a three hundred foot limit
that any naval architect with knowledge on the matter will attest to. Do you need a reference for this basic
principle of shipbuilding? Do you want
to argue that the physical limitations of ship lengths somehow don't apply if
you square the bottom? If you have
evidence to support this, present it. A
steel cruise liner is not evidence. It
is irrelevant material that you plagiarized uncritically.
This
proportion of length to width (6 to 1) is used by modern naval architects.
Modern
naval architects build ships to sail, not float. The writer just got through saying how the
ark was not meant for sailing, but when a tidbit of information is offered to
show it is a good match for a sailing vessel, it is somehow supposed to
strengthen the case.
Again, you’re too quick to jump! That remark has
nothing to do with being a good match for modern vessels, just to comparable
size - that’s all!
No, it's not. The point is clearly offered (by the original
author, not by you, obviously, since you plagiarized it) as evidence for the
reliability of the story. The argument
is that there must be some credibility to the size of the ark since those are
the very same dimensions shipbuilders use today. Otherwise, why even say so? I explained how the point was moot since
shipbuilders build ships to sail, not just to float. The optimal dimensions for a floating box are
1:1. If the ark were 1:1, then that
would support the notion that the ark was designed by someone with shipbuilding
knowledge. It was not, so the argument
that the ship being 6:1 hurts, if anything, not helps, the credibility of the
story. Even worse, anyone with a small
amount of geometrical knowledge would have realized that a 1:1 ratio not only
maximizes stability, it maximizes area as well.
We have no reason to believe that the Hebrews had such relatively
advanced mathematical understanding, therefore their imaginary deity failed to
provide them with it. Do I need to
geometrically demonstrate that I could use less material than Noah, yet provide
a more spacious and more stable vessel?
If not, do you mind explaining how I'm able to give plans for a better
ark than the omnipotent creator of the universe? Since there were all these space constraints
you purport, why not do the job better with what you have? Your story reeks of human fallibility.
The writer obviously does not understand the
argument, or he did not read it before he copied and pasted it. Let the writer demonstrate how a 6:1
rectangular box, or any rectangular box for that matter, is a better floater
than a cubic box.
You have here clearly demonstrated who it is that
does not understand the argument! I mentioned no cubic box. Who said which one
is the better floater? Certainly not me! So, there is not need for me to
demonstrate anything in an argument proffered by you.
I understand the argument perfectly well
and am demonstrating this much to the readers.
I know you do not mention a cubic box.
The person offering the typical irrelevant tidbit (not you, obviously,
since you plagiarized it) is using the commonality of the ark's dimensions with
a modern ship's dimensions to strengthen the argument that there was
appreciable intelligence in the ship's design.
He is not just spouting random facts as you would like us to believe,
otherwise he would just say that the proportion of length to width is 6:1 and
not attempt to compare it to modern ships.
We already know the dimensions of the ark are 6:1 because they are
previously provided as 300 cubits to 50 cubits.
Will you at least agree that the 6:1 proportion is not supporting
evidence for the ark staying afloat? If
so, why is the argument offered since a 1:1 dimension is what is instead
required for increasing the story's veracity?
The person you plagiarized did not understand the ramifications of the
dimensions. The next time you plagiarize
something, I would suggest thinking critically before copying and pasting.
This gave
the ark approximately 40,000 cu m (1,400,000 cu ft) in gross volume. It is
estimated that such a vessel would have a displacement nearly equal to that of
the mighty 269-m (883 ft) Titanic of this 20th century.
More
irrelevant copy and paste material.
No! You just don’t get it. This, again, is just
comparing sizes.
No, you just don't get the idea that
copying and pasting material that is irrelevant to the discussion is a waste of
space and time. I will not comment on
irrelevant material other than to say that it is irrelevant. Again, the next time you elect to plagiarize
someone else's work, the least you can do is remove bits and pieces that do
nothing to support your position. I care
nothing about the displacement of the ark since it is not in dispute.
No cargo vessel of ancient times even slightly
resembled the ark in its colossal size.
Is
the writer attempting to help or hurt his case?
Why would there be no ancient vessel of ancient times that even slightly
resembled the ark in its colossal size?
Is it possibly due to the fact that none would survive at sea?
You just continue to demonstrate your lack of
comprehension.
I hardly doubt that unbiased readers are
going to agree with this summation.
Once again, it
is a reference to size.
I know perfectly well that the plagiarized
statement is referring to size. I was
pointing out the irony of the writer's statement (not your statement,
obviously, since you plagiarized it).
There's a lot to be said about the statement that no ancient vessel even
slightly resembled the ark in its colossal size.
You have not made any connection to show how size
would affect survivability, so how can that be deemed a "fact?"
What?
Do you doubt that it is a statistical certainty that a wooden ship/box
450 feet long is less likely to float on the sea than an otherwise identical
150-foot long wooden ship/box? Not only
is this a long established rule of shipbuilding, it's common sense. Due to increasing weakness at the joints,
wooden vessels over three hundred feet long need metal bracings and advanced
pump systems (which we have no reason to believe were on the ark) to keep from
sinking. Do you really need me to offer
you references of such common shipbuilding knowledge? If so, would you think critically about
them? I will take the time to locate them
if you will think critically.
Internally strengthened by adding two floors,
Internally
strengthened enough? Let the writer
demonstrate how the addition of two decks in the monstrous boat is going have
to any significant impact on stability?
Boat? what boat? I never mentioned any boat! Nor to
"stability" for that matter! So I do not have to demonstrate
anything! Your inserted remarks only serve to demonstrate your pitiful attempts
at sidetracking.
Boat, box, ark, ship, vessel, call it what
you want, the point I wish to convey is clear.
Since you chose to plagiarize the paragraph, please demonstrate how two
internal floors will significantly stabilize or "internally
strengthen" the ark. Otherwise,
admit it is irrelevant and move on.
Don't quibble over diction.
"You
will make a tso´har [roof; or, window] for the
ark," Noah was told. (Ge 6:16) Just what this
was or how it was constructed is not altogether clear. Some scholars think tso´har is related to light and so they translate it
"window" (KJ, Mo), "light" (AS, JP), "a place for
light" (Ro). Others, however, associate tso´har
with a later Arabic root meaning "back (of the hand)," "back (of
a beast)," "deck (of a ship)," that is, the part away from the
ground or water, and for this reason translate it "roof." (AT, RS,
JB) This tso´har, Noah was told, was to be completed
"to the extent of a cubit upward."—Ge 6:16.
This
does not address the issue.
You do not seem to know what the "issue"
really is!
I will let the readers decide for
themselves. It is clear that you do not
understand the concept that you should not use, much less plagiarize,
irrelevant material. My suspicion is
that you just wanted to appear to have some in depth understanding of Hebrew
when, in fact, you plagiarized someone else's work. I do not doubt that the text is rendered
appropriately, nor did I raise any such objection. There is no point for you to have offered, or
plagiarized, this paragraph.
On the
other hand, while still allowing an ample opening for ventilation under the
roof or elsewhere, the roof could have had slightly angled sides.
This
still does not provide adequate ventilation to the lower decks.
How would you know? You
can say that quite easily without bothering to demonstrate it.
I need to
demonstrate very little since Genesis 6:14-16 clearly states that the ark had
separately divided rooms and decks. Do
you honestly need me to demonstrate how an isolated room containing countless
organisms is catastrophic to the survival of those organisms? Do you also need me to demonstrate that
animals need oxygen to survive? We have
no reason to believe that the Hebrews had an appreciation of decreased oxygen
levels in recycled air, thus the problem exists with the story.
How can hundreds of thousands of organisms
stored in shut-off compartments survive with a lone opening around the top of
the ship? Let the writer present a naval
architectural expert who would agree with him.
I can cite plenty who do not.
Where did you get your
figures? This you cannot prove! The word "organisms" is too large a
blanket. "Lone opening?" Try to be more specific.
This is quite
ironic. You question where I "get
[my] figures," yet you plagiarize yours.
I get my figures from the unanimous conclusion of geneticists who state
that mutations do not happen fast enough to create the diversity of species we
see today. The "kinds"
argument will explain the space problem, but it does not address this issue. Unless people who back this story can offer a
plausible, non-miraculous suggestion for how our present number of species can
derive from the number of organisms that could fit on the ark (no more than
25,000 in luggage fashion according to Woodmorappe),
there are necessarily two for each known land-dwelling species (far more than 100,000)
to keep the story plausible. The lone
opening is the one cubit tall opening on the side of the ship or going
completely around the ship.
Regarding
this possibility James F. Armstrong wrote in Vetus Testamentum (Leiden, 1960, p.
333): "‘Unto a cubit upward you shall finish it’ is difficult to
understand when sohar is translated either ‘light (=
window)’ or even ‘(flat) roof’. If, however, a gable-type roof be postulated,
the ‘one cubit upward’ can refer to the elevation of the crease of the roof above
the level of the tops of the walls. In modern architectural terms, the ‘one
cubit’ would be the height of the kingposts between which the ridgepiece is laid.
This
does not address the issue.
Again, you do not seem to know what is the issue is!
What do you think it is?
The issue is
whether the ark could survive the flood.
The paragraph above is irrelevant plagiarized material that does not
address the issue. The size of the hole
is not in dispute. I will allow the
readers to decide for themselves who does not understand and attempts to avoid
the issue.
According
to the argument that has been presented, the roof of Noah’s ark was conceived
as having a four per-cent pitch (1 cubit elevation — 25 cubits from wall to ridge),
quite adequate to permit the water of the rains to flow off."
No
one is arguing that the ship would sink due to water getting in the window,
even though water would have definitely been taken on in such a storm since the
ark would hardly sit flat. Pumps are
needed to remove water that gets in through the presumably wooden building
material (and one would assume the pitch as well in such a storm). Let the writer present a naval architectural
expert who would claim otherwise. I can
cite plenty who would not.
What storm? Claim what?
This is all strictly conjecture on your part. Here, your argument is very weak.
Your evasion is
obvious. You can call it a storm,
rainfall, deluge, downpour, blurfulrex, etc. It does not matter what you want to call it
because the intent of my argument is clear.
Demonstrate how a wooden vessel 450 feet long would be impervious to
water while at sea, especially consider the rainfall is sixty times that of a
category five hurricane. Don't quibble
over diction.
Of what
this huge ark was to be built was made plain by Jehovah: "Make for
yourself an ark out of wood of a resinous tree [literally, trees of
gopher]." (Ge 6:14)
Since
the topic of building material is a major discussion among apologists, I highly
doubt it was "made plain by Jehovah."
This is irrelevant, however, so I'll move on.
This
resinous wood here prescribed is thought by some to be cypress or a similar
tree.
What
a minute. "Of what this huge ark
was to be built was made plain by Jehovah," yet it is "thought by
some to be a cypress or a similar tree?"
Did the writer bother to read what he was cutting in pasting, or can he
not see the problem here?
You are trying to create a
problem where one does not exist. This is all for the sake of comparison.
The problem is
that you (well not you, but the person you plagiarized) contradicted yourself
when you said that it was plain yet we don't know what it was. The question I proposed to you is how you are
able to support such a positive assertion that it was "made plain by
Jehovah" when we do not even know for certain what it is? You can't.
You can only assert. The reader
will see your mistake no matter how you try to brush it off.
In that part of the world what today is called
cypress was in abundant supply; it was particularly favored for shipbuilding by
the Phoenicians and by Alexander the Great, as it is even down to the present
time;
For
the sake of argument, I'll assume it was cypress.
and it is especially resistant to water and
decay.
Resistant? The writer wants to use resistant wood as an explanation for not needing a pump system in a
storm with sixty times more rainfall than a category five hurricane?
You continue to prance
around in your imaginary storm.
If you want to continue the discussion,
please show some maturity. The burden of
proof is on you to demonstrate how such a rainfall can occur with less than 2%
of the wind we would expect from a system capable of this amount of
rainfall. The burden of proof is on you
to demonstrate how a ship can be waterproofed using pitch and resistant
wood. He who asserts must prove. Call it a storm, deluge, downpour, or
rainfall. It does not matter. If you want to use a miraculous explanation
for the rainfall, just use a miraculous explanation for the ark remaining
afloat so we can end the discussion how it always ends.
Doors and posts made of cypress are reported
to have lasted 1,100 years. In addition, Noah was told not merely to caulk the
seams but to "cover [the ark] inside and outside with tar."
Let
the writer demonstrate what type of pitch is impervious to water from a storm
with sixty times more rainfall than a category five hurricane. Let the writer also demonstrate how the text
should be rendered as covering the entire ship rather than pitching the seams,
as it is universally done.
Demonstrate? How does one
"demonstrate" pitch? And since when does the amount of water
neutralize the waterproofing ability of tar? Your silly argumentation
demonstrates a certain desperation.
Another quibble
over diction. Why does this not surprise
me? You "demonstrate" that a
pitch is impervious to water by showing reports or evidence that it can
withstand such conditions. We have no
reason to believe so. I realize science
isn't your strong point, based on previous exchanges, but this is the
scientific method. The one who asserts
that something extraordinary happened must explain how it happened. I will also point out to the readers that you
have yet to explain why we should render the text in such an unprecedented
fashion, that is to say that everything should be pitched when such a
method was not practiced to our knowledge.
Ignoring this request to support your assertion will not deter me from
pointing it out to the readers. To
answer your question, pitch does not neutralize water when it is boiling hot
from the various necessities of the flood (e.g. surface impacts, limestone
formation).
As you can plainly see, there was no need for
metal.
This
assertion hardly deserves comment, particularly since the writer offers a metal
ship to help make his point.
Good!
What?
Are you admitting that you did not make your case (or the author's
case)?
The
"kinds" of animals selected had reference to the clear-cut and
unalterable boundaries or limits set by the Creator, within which boundaries
creatures are capable of breeding "according to their kinds." It has
been estimated by some that the hundreds of thousands of species of animals
today could be reduced to a comparatively few family "kinds"—the
horse kind and the cow kind, to mention but two. The breeding boundaries
according to "kind" established by Jehovah were not and could not be
crossed. With this in mind some investigators have said that, had there been as
few as 43 "kinds" of mammals, 74 "kinds" of birds, and 10
"kinds" of reptiles in the ark, they could have produced the variety
of species known today. Others have been more liberal in estimating that 72
"kinds" of quadrupeds and less than 200 bird "kinds" were
all that were required.
This
assertion is ridiculous.
What assertion? There is
no "assertion" here! Just because you don’t believe it does not mean
that it is not so.
What do you
mean "what assertion?" Whether
or not I believe it to be true does not mean it is or isn't an assertion. The assertion, which you plagiarized and thus
have the duty to support, is that we can derive our present species from these
numbers of "kinds." That is an
assertion that is overwhelmingly rejected by geneticists. How do "some investigators" know
that this is possible despite the conclusion of the scientific community? Who are these "investigators," and
what are their qualifications?
You have no monopoly on
truth.
Nor do I need a
monopoly on truth. Only the truth has a
monopoly on truth. Assertions do not
make truths. Arguments with evidence
tend to point toward the truth. Wild
assertions, even with lacking refutations, do not invalidate what can be
empirically demonstrated.
There are breeding "boundaries according
to "kind" established by Jehovah were not and could not be
crossed." If you know of any animals that breed with and produces anything
other than its own kind, then, by all means, let me, or the world, know what
they are.
This is a
typical non-answer that is an attempt to derail the argument into a debate on
the plausibility of evolution. What does
the supposed establishment of "kinds" have to do with the feasibility
of these "kinds" developing into the required number of present-day
species? The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that two of each present
species can fit onto the ark or that the number actually capable of fitting on
the ark can become our present number of species.
Besides, it is
clear from your challenge that you, like the vast majority of other
creationists, literally do not understand the first thing about
evolution. Genetic mutation is
responsible for the transformation and subsequent adaptation of species. Once enough mutations take place and pass
through an indefinite number of generations, organisms that can be traced back
to the same line are no longer capable of breeding. Thus, they are different species. This process began with simple organisms and
continued through billions of mutations and generations until large numbers of
species separated from one another. This
very separation has been observed in nature more times than I care to
recall. I will suggest some reading
material if you care to learn. Your
challenge to name something that produces something other than its own
"kind" is utterly ridiculous since there is no such objective
scientific designation as a "kind."
Creationists have never been able to decide what constitutes a discrete "kind"
and how the immediate outliers are objectively disqualified from belonging to
the kind. The boundaries are always
arbitrary. Furthermore, this is not how
evolution works. One need not demonstrate
that two different species can create something. One need only demonstrate that two different
species are the product of a common ancestor, separated by genetic mutation
some point in the past.
Let
the writer demonstrate how these "kinds" could have become 1.3
million species in a few thousand years.
I’ll do my best, but this statement
indicates that you are making the mistake of thinking that "kinds"
and "species" are one and the same thing. One does "become"
the other.
Please back up
your statement that I'm confusing "kinds" with
"species." Based on my past
display of understanding, I suspect you now know that quite the opposite is
true.
There are no transitional
forms among living things and that is simply because they are not in
transition!
What are you
arguing here? That there are no
transitional species between other species?
That there are no transitional fossils between primitive and modern
species? That species are in discrete
species groups with no apparent continuity among other species? Any of these three arguments has long been
debunked and subsequently abandoned even by most apologists, so clarify what
you mean if you need me to needlessly rehash the same tired explanation.
They are not changing from one kind to another
kind, but remain within their kinds, although many species exist within some
"kinds."
Please back up
this statement be defining what constitutes one "kind" and how such a
designation can be objectively made.
This can be illustrated by the human
"kind." Among humans we see a vast variety of sizes, shapes, colors
and abilities. Hardly any two persons look the same. Why, of the 6.3 billion
people on earth now, few, if any, even have the same set of fingerprints! Yet,
no matter how different they are, people everywhere are easily recognized as
being of the human family. All people
can intermarry and produce children regardless of the variations that exist.
But humans cannot mate with any animal and produce offspring. They can only
reproduce if they stay within their kind, humankind. If they try to step
outside that boundary, outside their kind, they cannot reproduce with any other
living thing. There is no exception to this rule.xxxWhile
there is much variety, or changing, going on within each kind, the various
kinds are kept separate. And they are kept that way by a barrier that no
scientist has ever been able to overcome. What is that? The barrier of
sterility between basic kinds.
I could not hope
for a better paragraph that would demonstrate your inability to understand
evolution. Name one component of
evolution that requires the possibility that two different species can breed
with one another. Believing that species
should be able to produce other species is a straw man of the worst kind. After that, please explain how this is in any
way relevant to how "kinds" become species so quickly. Humans can only mate with other humans, so we
designate ourselves as one species.
Here, your arbitrary "kind," is no different than the
scientific designation of species. Your
example is utterly foolish.
Basically, there are
"43 "kinds" of mammals, 74 "kinds" of birds, and 10
"kinds" of reptiles in the ark, that could have produced the variety
of species known today."
In breeding experiments
scientists have tried to keep changing various animals and plants indefinitely.
They wanted to see if in time they could develop new forms of life. With what
result? The English medical publication On Call reports:"In
breeding procedures, breeders usually find that after a few generations, an
optimum is reached beyond which further improvement is impossible, and there
has been no new species formed which is infertile with its ancestral form, and
fertile with other individuals of the same species. Breeding procedures,
therefore, would seem to refute, rather than support Evolution."
In his own extensive
research on this matter, lawyer Norman Macbeth reached that same conclusion. He
said: "Although the subject is seldom discussed [by evolutionists], my
view is shared by reputable scientists. Thus [Loren] Eiseley
says: ‘It would appear that careful domestic breeding, whatever it may do to
improve the quality of race horses or cabbages, is not actually in itself the
road to the endless biological deviation which is evolution. There is great
irony in this situation, for more than almost any other single factor, domestic
breeding has been used as an argument for the reality of evolution’ . . .
"Professor [Edward] Deevey supplies terse phrases such as ‘the species barrier’
. . . then confesses bankruptcy: ‘Some remarkable things have been done by
crossbreeding and selection inside the species barrier, or within a larger
circle of closely related species, such as the wheats.
But wheat is still wheat, and not, for instance, grapefruit; and we can no more
grow wings on pigs than hens can make cylindrical eggs.’
Thus, basic kinds of living
things are found to be remarkably stable. The most intensive breeding
experiments cannot push them beyond a certain point. When they go too far, they
reach the boundary of sterility. An example of this is the mule, produced by
mating a donkey and a horse. But the mule has evidently reached the outer limit
of the horse kind, for the mule is ordinarily sterile.
So while experiments, and
observations of what goes on in the natural state, show great variety and
adaptability within basic kinds, plants or animals never change so much that
they begin transforming into something else.
All of that just to use the same old
"an orange will always be an orange" argument? The quotes about wheat and mules could not be
better examples of a complete lack of understanding of evolution. Tell me, were those studies carried out over
enough generations to accurately reflect how long the evolutionary process
requires to make the expected changes? I
thought not. Besides, there are plenty
of examples where new species have arisen from a pre-existing species in
natural, unprovoked, real world situations.
You can find such documentation under section CB910 at the talk.origins creationist index claim. I feel no need to elaborate on what is
collected there. Please read them and
try to understand them. As a matter of
fact, you can find answers to most of your objections there as well. Since
forcing an organism to undergo changes to make it in incompatible with
organisms higher up the hierarchy is not how evolution works, this example is
pointless.
That
is not what you would expect if evolution were true. However, it is precisely
what you would expect if the Bible is true, if living things were created and
reproduce only "according to their kinds."
Again, you only demonstrate your ignorance of evolution by trying to
make it necessary for different species to interbreed or for organisms to leave
these arbitrary "kinds." I
feel no need to elaborate on your foolishness.
That the great variety of animal life known today
could have come from inbreeding within so few "kinds" following the
Flood is proved by the endless variety of humankind—short, tall, fat, thin,
with countless variations in the color of hair, eyes, and skin—all of whom
sprang from the one family of Noah.
This
is a tremendous example of question begging.
The writer wants to assume that the part about Noah is true to show that
the "kinds" theory is feasible.
I don’t want to assume
anything! I’ve already proved that one part of the Genesis account is true, the
part about creatures producing only according to their kind. You have given no
evidence to the contrary.
If you cannot
see how the argument above is a form of question begging, you are too logically
handicapped to even begin a debate.
"We know that the animals could do it because Noah's family did
it" begs the question that Noah's family did it. It is clear that you do not understand
logical arguments. If it were not for
readers who could gain insight from your statements, I would end our exchange
this very moment.
I don't care if
you "don't want to assume anything" because your statement (your
plagiarized statement, that is) makes that very assumption. It assumes the story of Noah's survival is
true in order to support the position that kinds can give rise to species. Look up the definition of question begging,
then go back and read the statement you plagiarized.
You have proved
absolutely nothing to your benefit by this point but instead offer the straw
man that I need to demonstrate some quasi-version of evolution to make my
point. Please tell me how you have
proved one part of Noah's story is true by claiming that organisms produce only
according to their own "kind."
This also renders the
passenger list of the ark quite feasible.
At what point
did you demonstrate that two of each species could fit on the ark or that this
arbitrary number of "kinds" can become our present number of species
in only a few thousand years? Nowhere
that I saw, and certainly nowhere that the readers saw. You only assert that "kinds"
produce only within their "kinds" and that this somehow demonstrates
that a few "kinds" on the ark could expand and become our present
number of species. I'm sorry to be
blunt, but that is absolutely pathethic.
This, of course, is logically
fallacious. Noah and his family had no
better genetic chance of surviving post-flood civilization than any other
animal species.
Exactly what do you mean
by "post-flood civilization?"
Um, the world
as it existed after the flood?
And just how do you estimate Noah’s chances of
survival? What do you imagine he would have to face in order to survive? He was
not an ape-man you know!
By considering
the lack of vegetation, lack of nutrition, lack of genetic deviation,
catastrophic consequences of a single disease, etc. You did read the book, right? You can't just throw organisms into an
environment that doesn't have adequate resources and expect them to survive.
How logically nightmarish is it to conclude
that all kinds could survive based on the assumption
that a single one could survive, even in the face of overwhelming scientific
dispute?
You are falling back on
your evolutionary theory of survival of the fittest. That, my friend, is the
real fallacy.
This argument
has nothing – absolutely nothing – to do with survival of the
fittest. That is utterly absurd and
clearly shows your inability to grasp logical concepts. The statement only points out again the
question begging in saying that the animals could survive because Noah
survived. You may as well just have
started talking about football and nuclear fission instead of survival of the
fittest since that would be just as congruent to the topic at hand.
One opponent of evolution
wrote that:-"
Wrote what? Did you forget to plagiarize something? It appears so.
If we're just going to assume that the story
is true and that Noah's family survived, why not just assume that the Bible as
a whole is perfect and be done with the matter?
I can only tell you what I have
found out.
What a perfect
non-answer! Your previous statements (by
which I mean your plagiarized statements) beg the question of Noah's survival
to support the animals' survival. The
question put to you is why not just assume that the Bible is perfect if you are
going to use arguments that assume a certain part is true. Each act would be equally fallacious, so why
not just take the easier route. Do you
understand the fallacy of question begging (or in your instance, plagiarizing a
statement that is guilty of question begging)?
"What [you] found out" is irrelevant to explaining how your
statement doesn't beg the question of Noah's survival.
All men come from the same
source. The threefold division of the human family into the Japhetic, Hamitic, and Semitic races, all descending from Adam
through Noah, cannot be successfully disputed. (Ge
9:18, 19; Ac 17:26)
Back to your
plagiarism, I see. An assertion, but no
evidence or arguments. I offer plenty of
historical and scientific evidence contrary to your assertion.
Wherever it is possible to test Moses’
writings as to their historicalness and geographical accuracy, they stand up to
the closest scrutiny.
Back to your
plagiarism, I see. An assertion, but no
evidence or arguments. I offer plenty of
historical evidence to the contrary.
The Genesis account points to the plains of
Back to your
plagiarism, I see. An assertion, but no
evidence or arguments. I offer plenty of
historical evidence to the contrary.
On this point archaeologist Sir Henry Rawlinson remarked: "If we were to be guided by the
mere intersection of linguistic paths, and independently of all reference to
the Scriptural record, we should still be led to fix on the plains of
An appeal to
authority, but no evidence or arguments.
Why should we believe Rawlinson and not other
experts who would disagree?
In Statement on Race, Ashley
Montague says:"Scientists have reached general
agreement in recognizing that mankind is one: that all men belong to the same
species, . . . It is further generally agreed among scientists that all men are
probably derived from the same common stock. . . .
This does nothing
to support your claims since it can be applied to creation or evolution. Think before you copy and paste.
"
Then why can you
plagiarize it but not demonstrate it to be factual?
These
estimates may seem too restrictive to some, especially since such sources as
The Encyclopedia
This
assertion is ridiculous. Let the writer
draw a feasible plan where all of these animals (not luggage) could fit safely
in the ark given the specifications provided in the Bible.
Not so ridiculous! You
still fail to realize that this information is talking about species not kinds.
Species are many - kinds are few. The basic plan for the transportation of the
few basic "kinds" appears above.
I don't know
how many times I have to explain what you must prove. Even worse, you seem to be contradicting
yourself by saying that either scenario is possible. You state (well, your plagiarized statement
states) that "even if estimates are based on these expanded figures, the
ark could easily have accommodated a pair of all these animals." Well, which is it? Earlier, you seem 100% opposed to the
requirement of fitting two of each species on the ark, stating that one only
need the "kinds," but now you are saying that it is possible
to fit the species. Well, which is
it? Could all the species fit, as you
are stating here? If so, why bother with
the previous "kinds" solution since it isn't needed? If all these species could fit, as you assert
above, why even mention (copy and paste, rather) the "kinds"
argument? The "kinds" argument
is irrelevant if the species can all fit.
Did you not read before you copied and pasted? I'm sorry to be so blunt again, but you
really need help with logic and argumentation.
You might also want to try deriving your own arguments sometime. I know it takes effort, integrity, and
dedication, but you'll grasp a concept much better in the end.
This
information takes care of your much-vaunted objections regarding the size,
carrying capacity, passenger list and "seaworthiness" of the ark.
I
will let the readers decide for themselves.
Yes - do that.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Note: The writer
has now abandoned the discussion on Noah's ark and instead plagiarizes an
article (or a series of articles) on evolutionary gulfs. While he includes the references embedded in
the article(s), he does not give credit to the person(s) who actually read,
researched, and assembled the sources to write the article(s).]
“Fossils give
tangible evidence of the varieties of life that existed long before man’s
arrival. But they have not produced the expected backing for the evolutionary
view of how life began or how new kinds got started thereafter. Commenting on
the lack of transitional fossils to bridge the biological gaps, Francis
Hitching observes: “The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the
fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places.” (The
Neck of the Giraffe, by Francis Hitching, p. 19.)
The important places he refers to are the gaps between the major
divisions of animal life. An example of this is that fish are thought to have
evolved from the invertebrates, creatures without a backbone. “Fish jump into
the fossil record,” Hitching says, “seemingly from nowhere: mysteriously,
suddenly, full formed.” (The Neck of the Giraffe, by Francis
Hitching, p. 20.) Zoologist N. J. Berrill comments on
his own evolutionary explanation of how the fish arrived, by saying: “In a
sense this account is science fiction.” (The Origin of Vertebrates,
by N. J. Berrill, p. 10.)
<snip>
I responded to
your last plagiarism, but I'm not going to waste my time on this one since you
clearly dismissed and do not understand science. You do not respond point
by point, and you ignore parts of the argument that you cannot address.
Anyone can just copy and paste stuff, add summations to make it seem like a
personal letter, and cheer when the opposition does not address it. How
would you feel if I copied and pasted 41k back? It would take five
minutes. I take hours to ensure that I have properly addressed the issue,
which is no longer worth my time now. Our conversation is through.
I'll simply refer you to a page that addresses your plagiarized argument.
http://members.dslextreme.com/users/karl_lembke/science/Evolution/gulfs.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Note: The writer
has now ignored my response and instead emails a new article, this time with
proper attribution, even though I have told him I am through with our
discussion.]
KINGDOM OF THE
PLANTS: DEFYING EVOLUTION
by Alexander Williams
One of the
fundamental problems facing life scientists is the extraordinary variety and
complexity of life on Earth—there is just too much to comprehend. Most
biologists solve this problem by specializing, spending a whole career studying
just one or a few areas. Occasionally someone will attempt a grand synthesis or
overview to try to encompass the whole.
<snip>
[Since anyone can
copy and paste, what is this attempting to prove?]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Note: The writer
now goes back to an earlier topic after I have informed him that I no longer
wish to discuss the issue with him after repeated warnings for plagiarism and
copy-and-paste argumentation.
Predictably, the letter once again contains plagiarized material.]
In this you are very much mistaken. From its inception, the loss instituted by
Adam in Eden, the right to eternal life in a paradise under God's rulership, and its reinstitution was the overriding point
of the Bible writers. However, that was not the theme of their writings. The
theme of the entire Bible is rulership by God by
means of his Kingdom arrangement, or his Universal sovereignty. Does God have
the right to rule this earth? This was challenged in
…The
first-century Jewish historian Josephus shows the recognition given only to
those few books (of the Hebrew canon) viewed as sacred, stating: “We do not
possess myriads of inconsistent books, conflicting with each other. Our books,
those which are justly accredited, are but two and twenty [the equivalent of
the 39 books of the Hebrew Scriptures according to modern division], and
contain the record of all time.” He thereafter clearly shows an awareness of
the existence of Apocryphal books and their exclusion from the Hebrew canon by
adding: “From Artaxerxes to our own time the complete
history has been written, but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with
the earlier records, because of the failure of the exact succession of the
prophets.”—Against Apion,
I, 38, 41 (8).
<snip>
Even though I am extremely
tempted to post and respond to yet another one of your ill-fated letters, I
have already informed you that our conversation is through. When you stop
plagiarizing (which you have done yet again even after being repeatedly caught
[either from Brenda Martin of about.com or a tertiary source this time],
apologize to me and the authors of your copy-and-paste method of argumentation,
start responding point-by-point to the responses that I take much time to
craft, stop ignoring relevant parts of my arguments, go back to the beginning
and respond point-by-point to the six or seven letters of yours I've addressed
point-by-point (the ones you lift 5% from, if you even choose to respond), stop
providing irrelevant links (which you have done again), stop the utilization of
logical fallacies, and start staying on topic, I'll consider addressing more
material from you. If you choose to contact me again without adhering to
these guidelines, I will be attributing your email address to your work so that
everyone will know that you are a plagiarizer. I will also consider
forwarding your emails to those whose work you have lifted. I will accept
that you do not acknowledge science and reason, but I do not tolerate
plagiarism, and there will be no more anonymity for your practices on my
website.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Note: The writer
has been given fair warning that I will reveal him for plagiarizing him if he
continues the discussion. His denial of
plagiarism in this next letter is astounding.]
Even though I
am extremely tempted to post and respond to yet another one of your ill-fated
letters, I have already informed you that our conversation is through.
When you stop plagiarizing (which you have
done yet again even after being repeatedly caught [either from Brenda
Martin of about.com or a tertiary source this time],
Come off it,
Doc! You are obviously disturbed by the specific refutation of your
misinformation and are now hiding behind a feined
sense of indignation. You just can't
face the truth because the truth is not in you.
No comment here.
My last response on the matter of mutations was
entirely my own or properly accredited, but you hide because you cannot
successfully refute the conclusions presented there.
The writer
obviously has no clue how a phrase search on a search engine works. It's the easiest way to catch people who
steal others' work. The reader here can
easily verify that the writer has plagiarized articles by doing phrase searches
on the following:
first-century Jewish
historian Josephus shows the recognition given only to those few books
places he refers to are the
gaps between the major divisions of animal life
The Genesis account points to the
plains of Shinar
Although I could
pull phrases from his letters all day, these three examples will have to
suffice. Note that they are lifted from
articles in which proper credit is given, but instead of referencing the
article he is copying, he simply pastes the entire article in an email as
though it were his own article complete with references.
apologize
to me and the authors of your copy-and-paste method of argumentation,
Argumentation? I
was not aware that I was in an argument with you.
Perhaps he should
have looked up argumentation.
You are the one presenting arguments against
the Bible. I presented you with information drawn from my research, showing you
that an argument is not proof by any means.
By
"research," he means websites that he has browsed through in order to
find articles to cut-and-paste in order to pass off as his own.
You seem to think that you are in an American
court of law where all you have to do is create "reasonable doubt" in
order to negate Biblical truth. It does not work that way and you cannot
dictate how I should present the information. I present it, you read it
and refute it - if you can.
He is now back to
attempting to shift the burden of proof.
Reasonable doubt has nothing to do with the discussion. Christians assert that the Bible is God's
word. It is not the job of those who
deny such a proposition to prove a negative.
I could never make him understand this.
The trouble with you know-it-alls is that,
when you find someone that can stand up to you, you cut and run so as to
continue unchallenged, your opposition to what is true and right.
As I pointed out to you repeatedly, the Bible was not intended to be observed
by unbelievers.
No comment here
either.
Unlike you, I am
not trying to make a name for myself,
This attitude is
predictable. I'm hardly trying to make a
name for myself. I wrote the book for
the reasons given in the introduction, none of which have anything to do with
making a name for myself.
not looking to get published, not trying to
make profit in any way nor seeking notoriety of any sort;
My book is
non-profit. All revenue goes back to
advertising and web hosting. He
continues to make assertions that he knows nothing about.
so why should I adopt your attitude about
plagiarism?
Because it's
unethical? Because anyone can
copy-and-paste enough material to overwhelm an opponent?
No benefit at all comes to me.
No comment here
either.
I make no apologies because I published
nothing belonging to anyone else.
Which is a lie
that I have demonstrated to my satisfaction.
YOU DID! I sent
you private emails, YOU published them, putting them on the internet, and
against my specific request.
Let's see what
the writer said previously:
"I
would prefer that we discuss these matters privately, via email, as some of it
may prove to be embarrassing to either or both of us. BUT - If you are going to
post my replies and answers on the internet, then I truly hope that you will be
honest and courageous enough to post everything as I write them, even if they
tend to put you in an unfavorable light. Are we in agreement here?"
So, does it
appear that I published them against his specific request? Hardly.
God forces
no one to adhere to His regulations. Because of what I presented to you,
you now know that your position on the Flood, Noah's ark, the passenger list of
the ark, mutations, etc is not as you would like to have us believe.
No comment here either.
start
responding point-by-point to the responses that I take much time to craft, stop
ignoring relevant parts of my arguments, go back to the beginning and respond
point-by-point to the six or seven letters of yours I've addressed
point-by-point (the ones you lift 5% from, if you even choose to respond), stop
providing irrelevant links (which you have done again), stop the utilization of
logical fallacies, and start
staying on topic, I'll consider addressing more material from you.
You just don't
get it, Doc - you can't dictate to me in any way shape or form.
No comment here
either.
If you choose
to contact me again without adhering to these guidelines, I will be attributing
your email address to your work so that everyone will know that you are a
plagiarizer. I will also consider forwarding your emails to those whose
work you have lifted. I will accept that you do not acknowledge science
and reason, but I do not tolerate plagiarism, and there will be no more
anonymity for your practices on my website.
Stuff your
dictatorial attitude! I do not care what you do with the material I sent
you. The email addresses you see here are not my own because my computer has
been on the blink for a while, is now under repair and I am allowed to use
this one and others. Don't worry - it will soon be repaired and I can use
it at my convenience. No one will come after me because I did not put the
information "out there." If anybody comes after anybody, it
should be you, the one who published it. I am not in the least bit
interested in being on your website. I could not care less about your website.
I made that clear in my first response. I have no interest in
seeking any psychological "victory" over you in the
face of any real or imagined "readership." I am also not interested
in debating you nor in your rules of debate. I do not care what you think about
my source of information or about my use of it. I am only interested in getting
that information to you so that maybe you could get a much more balanced view
of the book you so clearly do not understand. I hope you clearly understand me
on these points.
No comment here
either.
I never heard of
Brenda Martin but, since you mentioned it, I looked her up and discovered
that material from her is useless. If you think not, then read her disclaimer.
If the material
from her is useless, I have to wonder why he lifted it.
My reason for
writing to you is to let you know that there is information that proves
that your view of the Bible is incorrect, and that I have such information
available to me. Neither you nor your book can undo all the good that has been
accomplished because of that Book. People's failure to live by the book is what has
been responsible for the state of affairs today.
No comment here
either.
Now here's how I
deal with your section entitled:
<snip>
Believe it or
not, the writer continues to engage in discussion. Don't expect to here anything further from ediu68@aol.com a.k.a. kabrikenpls@aol.com because future
letters are going straight into the trash.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------