Gee, now there's a shocker, huh?...Originally posted by steampunk
...They won't give access to the baby because they fear legal action or some such B.S. So no more DNA testing and no more proving/debunking the claim.
Locations and people in the bible have been found I accept that. But that doesn't make the Bible completely right. The equivalent Hindu text is OLDER than the Bible and mentions demons and a Monkey King. recent evidence implies that a city in the text was real. But I bet that isn't going to change your mind about there being multiple gods instead of just one now is it?
I didn't say it made the Bible completely right. My point is that scientific descoveries have thus far not refuted one thing in the Bible, whereas some of the same discoveries HAVE forced science to refute ITS own previous positions on some biblical events/people. Also, science only "implied" the veracity of the Hindu city you referred to; in the case of the discoveries I referred to, same served to PROVE the biblical account involved, not merely imply that it was true.
See multiple references elsewhere in recent posts for the refutation of corrupted texts idea. As for the name of God, He gave different names for Himself to different groups of people over time in the biblical texts; perhaps this is what leads to your apparent confusion in this area.Originally posted by cff
don't think so. For one you ignore that after all the propagation, and the translations the texts might be quite corrupted. For one we don't even know how to name God. Jahve? Jehova?
Think of it: Let's say your given name is Charles Smith, and you're a 42 year old married father and a businessman by profession. When you were 8 years old, you might've introduced yourself to new friends as "Chucky". When you went off to college, you then decided to go by the name of "Chip". When you got engaged and then married, your wife ended up calling you by the nickname of "honey" or "snookums". Your little girl calls you "Daddy". To your clients and employees, you're still "Charles" or "Mr. Smith". You're still only one person, yet all these different types of people know you by all these different names. Does that mean that you have a split personality or that something is wrong with you, or you're "two faced"?... Not at all. It is appropriate that different people know you by different titles/names, depending on the type of relationship they have with you, and what role you play in their lives. Same with God. To the ancient Jew, He was the eternally existent, all-sufficent, self-existent, all-powerful, holy, loving, saving God. But at different stages of the history of His relationship with the Israelis, He revealed different aspects of his character to them, and thus had them call him by an increasing number of titles/names. To answer the last part of your quote, the name given was "Yahweh"; but awestruck Jews were so afraid to pronounce the name of this omnipotent, holy God that they substituted the derivative name "Jehovah" instead.
Now if we assume a 'free will' or a soul. Ask yourself something: Under the precise same circumstances would you act the same again. Yes, you would (unless you learned that that act was foolish, but then the circumstances aren't the same after all). So even in the case of a free will existing the free will would be negated by the environment.
Not necessarily; it depends on how certain I was about my decision in the first place, and/or how important it was. I might equally well have chosen white toilet paper over pink; the decision wasn't all that important. Likewise, if I was forced to choose between hitting a deer with my car or veering off into a ditch, I could equally as well choose A or B; it's an important decision, but the net impact might be the same (either way, my car could get totalled and I could get seriously injured or killed).
Similar animals can do things that we humans cannot. A cat would laugh at your ability to predict earthquakes. Some fish would laugh at your ability to analyze the quality of water. A snake would laugh at your ability to see at night. So actually those have to be the superior beings, don't they?
Okay, one more time: That man CAN and DOES do ALL these things, and animals (even collectively) are incapable of doing but a FRACTION of them, is the crux of the matter.
And, the only stupid dog I ever met was my wife's poodle. GAWD that little floor mop is dumb. Not even worthy of the title "dog", I could only go so far as to refer to him as a "canine"...As for cats, they don't fall for the mirror, but then again, about the only things they DO go for is dinner, and big ol' balls of yarn.
I don't see how stochastic changes whith the scale you apply it to. Mathematics is absolute.
Not the stochastic; the order of magnitude. The point is, to have such order, spanning the gamut from huge celestial objects all the way on down to microscopic atoms & cells (and everything in between) speaks a weightier argument in favor of intelligent design than if this were not so. Do we not think more highly of the builder's craftsmanship when he has built an entire house from scratch, as opposed to the simple building facades you see on a Hollywood movie set?... They look real and detailed from the frontside, but when you peer behind 'em, you see they're nothing more than (essentially) a glorified mural painted onto a slab of plywood, held up by 2x6 studs. Takes a whole lot more knowledge and skill to assemble an entire house than just to slap together a facade.
Uhm - that doesn't have anything to do with "junk DNA"
Never said it did. I was pointing out that redundancy in designed systems is not necessarily "waste", and can actually be (in that example) a lifesaving failsafe mechanism.
... Of course it is entirely possible that some writers of the holy book twisted the truth to their personal advantage.
It's also 'entirely possible' that Bin Laden will have an attack of conscience and turn himself over to US troops today, but I think we all know how likely that is.
Actually didn't Jesus say something along these lines: "Wherever people assemble in my name..."
Yes, He did. The point the other guy (or was it you?) made in the earlier post was to correct me on this. "Going to church on Sunday" is not the only way to "do" church. The crux of it is that believers need to assemble together somewhere, and on a frequent/regular basis, to worship and strengthen/encourage one another in the faith. Whether or not that's in a "standard" church on a Sunday is irrelevant.