Tuesday, August 30, 2016

Professor B Supports Evolution

It’s Not My Dog, He Didn’t Bite You, And Besides You Kicked Him First

In this age of specialization we look to the experts to tell us what to think. And when it comes to origins, the experts tell us that life evolved. Random mutations, surprisingly enough, are sufficient to create the species. As if we needed another example of this, we now have “Professor B,” who wishes to remain anonymous but can’t help to explain that skeptics of this modern day Epicureanism are “almost certainly wrong” to doubt that proteins can spontaneously arise because it would require something like 10^74 attempts. After all, that figure was “based on a very small sample.” Small sample? If the professor understood statistics he would know small sample sizes do not invalidate results—not to the level he requires. In fact, as we have discussed many times, several studies have arrived at this type of astronomical figure.

When presented with that inconvenient fact, our Professor B switched strategies. Now, it seems that, according to the professor, “a very large number of different amino acid sequences were capable of performing the same biological function.” Therefore it is not a big problem for evolution to create these incredible molecular machines.

That is an absurd misrepresentation of molecular biology. While it certainly is true that a large number of different sequences can perform the same function, we are nowhere close to 10^74. “Very large” in this context is astronomically smaller than 10^74.

As if sensing a problem, Professor B switched to yet another tactic, claiming that evolution is capable of creating astronomical numbers of proteins anyway. It seems, according to the professor, that evolution can rip through 10^42 different proteins in search of what works.

Not that this helps much, as 10^42 is still dozens of orders of magnitude smaller than the needed 10^74. But even the estimate of 10^42 is, itself, absurd. It comes from a paper that assumes the pre existence of bacteria and, yes, proteins. In fact, the evolutionists assumed the earth was covered with bacteria, and each bacteria was full of proteins. That of course is not an appropriate assumption for the question of how proteins could have evolved in the first place. In fact, it is circular. Good thing the professor remained anonymous.

Religion drives science, and it matters.

87 comments:

  1. VJ Torley finishes his opus with "What do readers think? Over to you." Unfortunately, comments are disabled on his site. I invite him to provide a precis at The Skeptical Zone where all are welcome to comment and no comments are modified or deleted.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The professor was not anonymous. VJ Torley posted this at UD first, shortly followed by its removal by Barry along with any comments that referred to it. It looks like VJT is becoming persona-non-grata at UD. Simply for criticizing an ID "scientist".

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ch:
    In this age of specialization we look to the experts to tell us what to think.


    Funny you think this is some new thing, for most of history it has been those who were experts on the divine will.

    And when it comes to origins, the experts tell us that life evolved.


    Per VJ "while Professor B has strong doubts regarding the possibility of abiogenesis, but adheres to the neutral theory of evolution. "


    ReplyDelete
  4. Professor B reminds me of the story about the guy who continually bangs his head against a brick wall. When asked why he continues to subject himself to the needless pain and discomfort he blithely replies, 'because it feels so good when I stop.'

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hi Nic. Thanks for the suggestion for the pizza place in Jasper. It was excellent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. William,

      You're welcome, I hope you had a great time in Jasper.

      Delete
  6. I'm only about half way through VJT's article and I must say that, so far, it is very well written and reasoned. I disagree with some points but, in general, he makes a very well reasoned argument against Dr. Axe's theses.

    Nic---Jasper wa great. The rain held off just long enough to do some hiking and have a couple beers at the Jasper brew pub.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The problem for professor b just gets worse even if he can convince that a protein can evolve by stochastic means. The next hurdle are proteins that work together like transcriptional proteins or multi protein complexes that need to fit together with shape and charge.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes....and dead dogs stay dead dogs.

      http://www.uncommondescent.com/chemistry/relevance-of-coin-analogies-to-homochirality-and-symbolic-organization-in-biology/

      Delete
  8. All Darwinists are mathematically challenged and stupid as dirt. But what can one expect from a bunch of dirt worshippers?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah Mapou. We have all missed you. Your intelligent insight has been sorely missed.

      Delete
    2. Then you don't have a very good aim. :)

      Delete
  9. I wonder if EXPELLED 2 will include Barry Arrington and UD's expulsion of Dr. Torley's critical analysis of the flaws in Axe's ID work?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Torley isn't a scientist and there aren't any fatal flaws in Axe's ID work.

      Delete
    2. Joe G
      I agree with you here. I think Vincent is an interesting thinker and writer but he gets spun by faulty evolutionary arguments like UCD. I do see him learning, however. He asked a question on TSZ if anyone could reconcile the 44 million mutational differences between chimps and man. There were no takers.

      Delete
    3. " He asked a question on TSZ if anyone could reconcile the 44 million mutational differences between chimps and man. There were no takers."

      What's to reconcile, VJT and you are under the assumption that these 44 million mutations had to occur sequentionally in a single direct lineage. In any population, the source of mutations available is all of the mutations in a population.

      Delete
    4. "What's to reconcile, VJT and you are under the assumption that these 44 million mutations had to occur sequentionally in a single direct lineage. In any population, the source of mutations available is all of the mutations in a population."

      And your theory of how 44 million mutations get fixed in the population?

      Delete
    5. BC: "And your theory of how 44 million mutations get fixed in the population?"

      First, we are not talking about 44 million different mutations being fixed in the time between the chimp/human split. Second, when you can explain why this is true, we can continue discussing this. If you can't, you really aren't worth talking with.

      Delete
  10. First Sal Cordova loses his posting privileges at UD. Then Dr. Hunter. And now Dr. Torley. I guess we can look forward to more incomprehensible ramblings by Gordon KairosFocus Mullings, and more pompous assertions from William. It is only a matter of time before Barry grants posting permission to Batshitcrazy77.

    Maybe he will invite Mapou and Joe back.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I personally disagree with Barrington's leadership at UD. His obsession with morality issues and medieval Catholic philosophy is not what is needed for a site like UD. What UD needs is a scientist in charge, preferably a biologist with a background in computational biology. Cornelius would be perfect for the job. I believe that the future of ID is in using computers to unravel the organizational structure of various genomes. Needless to say, Kairosfocus is a complete joke.

      Delete
    2. Mapou: "Needless to say, Kairosfocus is a complete joke."

      This is proof that miracles happen. You and I agreeing on something.

      Delete
  11. Strange that using every garbage dump, ocean and laboratory on the entire planet earth as a sample size this exceedingly commonplace event has NEVER been witnessed to have happened in recorded history. And if it did we would probably all be dead many times over. On the contrary, environmental forces tend to dismantle and destroy complex biological molecule structures. They understand this but the bellicose cry of evolution is not muted.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Darwinists are simply evil. Only an evil cult would insist on such blatant, in-your-face absurdities. We must bash them at every opportunity and treat them like the brain-dead dirt worshippers that they are.

      Delete
    2. Good thing that there aren't any Darwinists.

      Delete
    3. "13 On that very day Noah and his sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, together with his wife and the wives of his three sons, entered the ark. 14 They had with them every wild animal according to its kind, all livestock according to their kinds, every creature that moves along the ground according to its kind and every bird according to its kind, everything with wings. 15 Pairs of all creatures that have the breath of life in them came to Noah and entered the ark. 16 The animals going in were male and female of every living thing, as God had commanded Noah. Then the Lord shut him in.

      17 For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits."

      Delete
    4. "Good thing that there aren't any Darwinists."

      Dirt worshipper.

      Delete
    5. [Reposting without the censored insult]

      Rich Hughes, a clueless dirt worshipper quoting the Bible (which he obviously does not understand) to make a stupid point that only he is privy to.

      The word translated "earth" in Genesis is also used in Hebrew to mean a land area or a territory. Back in those days, mankind was concentrated in a very small territory of planet earth. The Noah story was not so much about a flood as it was about the faith of God's servant in the face of clueless naysayers all around him.

      Delete
    6. Mapou: "Rich Hughes, a clueless dirt worshipper quoting the Bible (which he obviously does not understand)..."

      I have a theory that I would love to be able to test, but I don't know how to do it without introducing bias.

      My theory is that most atheists better understand the bible (or, more accurately, what it represents) than theists do. The bible is a compilation of often disparate stories, often contradictory stories, often by authors unknown. The stories were written partially as history and partially as cautionary fables. The intentions of the various authors can be guessed at, but never completely known. About the only thing that is almost a certainty is that the authors never intended for their stories to be compiled and codified into a single volume (or two) to form the basis of a world wide religion.

      Delete
    7. Dirt worshipper:

      "My theory is that most atheists better understand the bible (or, more accurately, what it represents) than theists do. The bible is a compilation of often disparate stories, often contradictory stories, often by authors unknown. The stories were written partially as history and partially as cautionary fables. The intentions of the various authors can be guessed at, but never completely known. About the only thing that is almost a certainty is that the authors never intended for their stories to be compiled and codified into a single volume (or two) to form the basis of a world wide religion."

      I'm a Christian and I agree with most of this. I will add the following:

      Some of the individual books or scrolls in the Bible, such as Genesis, were not books at all but compilations of various documents by different authors. Others were introduced into the Bible and Christianity by the Catholic Church. This is the reason that many pagan ideas and concepts (e.g., hell, easter, christmas, etc.) are only found in the New Testament and Christianity, thanks to the Church of Rome.

      In addition, a huge portion of the Bible is written in a metaphorical language that not even the original writers understood. Examples are the visions in the books of Zechariah, Ezekiel and Revelation. These are the books that most interest me because I know they were not messed with by conniving Church leaders and others, if only because they had no clue as to what they meant. I happen to know that the metaphorical books contain revolutionary scientific knowledge that will transform the world as we know it.

      Search and you shall find.

      Delete
    8. Louis Savain: "Darwinists are simply evil. Only an evil cult would insist on such blatant, in-your-face absurdities. We must bash them at every opportunity and treat them like the brain-dead dirt worshippers that they are."

      Well said.

      Delete
    9. Wiiliam,

      "My theory is that most atheists better understand the bible (or, more accurately, what it represents) than theists do."

      This may be your theory, but it is not supportable by evidence, only anecdote. It is akin to the theory regards the Brontosauros held by one Anne Elk. :)

      Delete
    10. Mapou, very well presented comment. Don't say that I never give praise when it is due. Slightly off topic, a recently read a thriller that was based on the premise that Revelation was written under the influence of hallucinogens. It definitely makes more sense under that assumption.

      Nic, my theory is definitely supported by evidence. We could argue about the veracity of the evidence, but it is still there.

      Delete
    11. Dirt worshipper Williams:

      "Slightly off topic, a recently read a thriller that was based on the premise that Revelation was written under the influence of hallucinogens. It definitely makes more sense under that assumption."

      No it doesn't. Both atheists and Christians will throw a clot when the real meaning of the book of Revelation comes out. Based on my research, I have determined that it is a purely scientific book coded in a clever and very precise metaphorical (or occult) language. More precisely, it is a description of how the brain and consciousness works. It is only a partial revelation. The rest of it can be found in the book of Zechariah (Yahweh remembers): the vision of Joshua the high priest and the golden menorah, which is a description of the structure, organization and mechanisms of memory and conscious attention.

      Search and you shall find.

      Delete
    12. William,

      "Nic, my theory is definitely supported by evidence. We could argue about the veracity of the evidence, but it is still there."

      Present me with what you see as your best example of this evidence and we will see how well it stands up to scrutiny. :)

      Delete
    13. Louis,

      "I have determined that it (the Book of Revelation) is a purely scientific book coded in a clever and very precise metaphorical (or occult) language."

      I look forward to the publication of your book, it should be a best seller. I'm sure all New Testament scholars are waiting with baited breath as well.

      Delete
    14. "I look forward to the publication of your book, it should be a best seller. I'm sure all New Testament scholars are waiting with baited breath as well."

      😂

      Delete
    15. Nic, the spineless Christian:

      "I look forward to the publication of your book, it should be a best seller. I'm sure all New Testament scholars are waiting with baited breath as well."

      I've been researching the book of Revelation (and other metaphorical scriptures) on and off for the last 16 years. I've come a long way and, assuming I continue my research, it's only a matter of time before I figure it all out. I can assure you that, if I do live long enough to do so, I will write no book about it and trying to impress New Testament scholars will be the last thing on my mind. It's the kind of knowledge that would bring this evil world to a quick end if it were revealed.

      Just saying.

      Delete
  12. Welcome back, Cornelius. Keep exposing those Darwinist frauds.

    ReplyDelete
  13. William
    You obviously know very little about the Bible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yet more than most Christians that I know.

      But I am curious, from what I have said in this thread, how can you possibly conclude that I know very little about the bible? So far, I have not said much about it other than the fact that it is a compilation of stories written by different people at different times; an accepted fact. That there are contradictions within it; another fact that is easily demonstrated. That the authors did not intend to have their stories compiled and codified in two volumes to form the basis of an organized religion; not a fact that can be proven but a logical inference given the history of the bible.

      Delete
  14. Hi Louis. You were opining about "Only an evil cult would insist on such blatant, in-your-face absurdities." Buy You're okay with all the life on earth being squeezed on a boat by a family that built that boat. Nice one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rich,

      "Buy You're okay with all the life on earth being squeezed on a boat by a family that built that boat. Nice one."

      Can you please provide chapter and verse from the Bible where it says all life on Earth was squeezed into a boat." I would very much like to see that reference.

      Delete
    2. Dirt worshipper Rich:

      "Hi Louis. You were opining about "Only an evil cult would insist on such blatant, in-your-face absurdities." Buy You're okay with all the life on earth being squeezed on a boat by a family that built that boat. Nice one."

      There is one thing that is immediately obvious when observing dirt worshippers. Their stupidity is only surpassed by their gutlessness and their dishonesty. Did you even read my comment, jackass?

      One more thing. Don't "Hi Louis" me. I ain't your friend, goddamnit.

      Delete
    3. Hi Louis. You said "The word translated "earth" in Genesis is also used in Hebrew to mean a land area or a territory. Back in those days, mankind was concentrated in a very small territory of planet earth." Do you think it is the story of a local flood?

      Delete
  15. Bonus Louis - "Bible authors didn't understand what they were writing but Louis does!"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pack your opinion where it does not shine, jackass. I was not talking to you.

      Delete
  16. William,

    "That there are contradictions within it; another fact that is easily demonstrated."

    If it is a fact which is easily demonstrated, please do so, but also be prepared to consider the explanations when they are presented.

    "That the authors did not intend to have their stories compiled and codified in two volumes to form the basis of an organized religion; not a fact that can be proven but a logical inference given the history of the bible."

    If, as you claim, it is a logical inference from the history of the Bible, please lay out your logical argument.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nic: "If it is a fact which is easily demonstrated, please do so, but also be prepared to consider the explanations when they are presented."

      Herod died before Jesus was born yet he ordered the killing of babies because of the birth of Jesus.

      The census that Mary and Joseph had to travel for did not occur in the time frame indicated.

      We could also talk about the order that Genesis took place, but then we would just get into arguments over the definition (and source) of "light".

      Biblical literalists have to jump through hoops of rationalization to explain away these (and many other) inconsistencies. This being said, I don't understand the need that some have for trying to explain away these inconsistencies. If the books (and parts of individual books) were written by different people at different times, inconsistencies such as these would be expected.

      Delete
  17. William,

    "Herod died before Jesus was born yet he ordered the killing of babies because of the birth of Jesus."

    Christ was born prior to Herod's death somewhere between 6 B.C. and 4 B.C., not year 'zero' or 1 A.D. as commonly thought. As Herod died in 4 B.C. there is no contradiction whatsoever. This is common knowledge if you do the homework.

    "The census that Mary and Joseph had to travel for did not occur in the time frame indicated."

    Do you possess information regards every census taken in the Roman Empire at that time? I doubt it. Not all census' were empire wide. Also we possess only a fraction of historical documents from the time. Hardly an all encompassing record of events. Thirdly, Luke stated the census occurred and as he was alive in that era must be seen as a reliable source historically. As Luke has been shown over the years to have been an accurate and reliable historian there is little reason to doubt his claims. There is solid historical evidence to support the census recorded by Luke occurred.

    Can you explain to me why the Bible is not seen as a reliable source of historical information while other writings from the same era are deemed completely reliable? Especially if they contradict the Bible.

    If you possessed every historical document from the era and could show there to have been no census you would have a solid argument. As it is the best you can do is argue from silence which constitutes a massive fallacy.

    "If the books (and parts of individual books) were written by different people at different times, inconsistencies such as these would be expected."

    If the books were of human origin that would be correct, but Christians see the books of the Bible as the word of God, not quite the same thing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Re Herod: "This is common knowledge if you do the homework."

      I did the homework. Remember what I said about biblical literalists illogically rationalizing the inconsistencies?

      Re census: Censuses taken at that time are amongst the best recorded events. The only census in the area at the time does not correspond to Herod's time. Another inconsistency.

      Re the bible as an historic record: I believe that I stated above that the bible is part historical record. But, as with all historic records, the ones most likely to be correct are those that are supported from multiple sources. In many instances the bible relates historical events accurately. In others, not so much.

      Re the bible being written by different people: this is accepted fact. Add to this the numerous translations and mistranslations, the decision on what stories made it into the bible, etc. And you have the potential for error. Unless you are suggesting that God intervened at every one of these events to ensure that there were no errors.

      Just a simple example, early texts describe Mary as a "young woman". More recent texts describe her as a virgin. Which is correct?

      Delete
    2. William,

      "I did the homework. Remember what I said about biblical literalists illogically rationalizing the inconsistencies?"

      Well then you are required to provide evidence to support your claim in regard to those instances in which you think this occurred. You simply cannot hand wave it off by saying 'they're only iilogically rationalizing an inconsistency, you must demonstrate that to be the case. I'm afraid you cannot.

      "Re census: Censuses taken at that time are amongst the best recorded events. The only census in the area at the time does not correspond to Herod's time. Another inconsistency."

      That does not address my argument. Records from this time are woefully incomplete and therefore a claim to have knowledge of each and every census from that era would be highly suspect.

      Secondly, why is Luke's accounting of the census not acceptable? His writings are historical documents like any others and more reliable than most as copies of his writings go back to within several decades of the events. This is simply an unfounded and unsupportable assertion that biblical documents are inferior in nature and accuracy when compared to other historical documents.

      "Re the bible as an historic record: I believe that I stated above that the bible is part historical record. But, as with all historic records, the ones most likely to be correct are those that are supported from multiple sources. In many instances the bible relates historical events accurately. In others, not so much."

      Now this is illogical rationalizing in action. Historical records are by definition single source documents. Some documents may draw from several sources in forming its structure, but once compiled it becomes itself a single source document.

      Biblical records are no different. Luke states at the outset of his gospel account that he had talked to many people in the course of his research prior to writing it all down. Yet his account is seen as a single source when it is in fact drawn from many sources.

      I'm sure the Bible relates history accurately when it does not disrupt your world view and inaccurately when it does.:)

      "Unless you are suggesting that God intervened at every one of these events to ensure that there were no errors."

      Would you see this as impossible for an omnipotent God?

      As for errors, yes some may have occurred over time, but they have been corrected as new documents come to light. An example is Mark 16:9-20 which was found not to be in older manuscripts which came to light later. As such, it is not known for sure if this was part of the original writing or not. This fact is indicated in the vast majority of Bibles in print today.

      "Just a simple example, early texts describe Mary as a "young woman". More recent texts describe her as a virgin. Which is correct?"

      The two terms are not contradictory. She was a young woman and she was a virgin, so I fail to see your point.

      Delete
    3. "That does not address my argument. Records from this time are woefully incomplete and therefore a claim to have knowledge of each and every census from that era would be highly suspect."

      True, but even biblical scholars refer to the census of Quirinius as the one in which Luke is talking about. Yet it took place ten years after Herod's death and, even by your reckoning, several years after the birth of Jesus.

      "Secondly, why is Luke's accounting of the census not acceptable? His writings are historical documents like any others and more reliable than most as copies of his writings go back to within several decades of the events."

      Thousands of copies of one document is still only one reference, not thousands. Unless you are suggesting that Harry Potter is a more accurate representation of "witchcraft" than the transcripts of the Salem witch trials simply because there are more copies of it.


      "Historical records are by definition single source documents."

      True.

      "Some documents may draw from several sources in forming its structure, but once compiled it becomes itself a single source document."

      Again true, but the veracity of this record is higher if the original source material is still available.

      "Biblical records are no different. Luke states at the outset of his gospel account that he had talked to many people in the course of his research prior to writing it all down."

      Hearsay. This wouldn't stand up as evidence in most courts unless either these witnesses could be questioned (obviously not possible in this case) or there were independent records of the same event. Copies of Luke's text made over centuries does not count.

      "Yet his account is seen as a single source when it is in fact drawn from many sources."

      It is seen as a single source because it is a single source.

      "I'm sure the Bible relates history accurately when it does not disrupt your world view and inaccurately when it does.:)"

      No, it accurately relates history when it can be supported by alternate and independent sources of evidence. That is a basic rule of the study of science.

      "Would you see this as impossible for an omnipotent God?"

      No. Except that given that we have many extant copies of biblical texts throughout history, and from one language to another, we can see many of the changes that have occurred.

      "The two terms are not contradictory. She was a young woman and she was a virgin, so I fail to see your point."

      But the terms can be contradictory. Not all young women are virgins. Not now and not 2000 years ago. You have mentioned that when early texts point to an error in translation that modern versions are corrected. Yet in this case, mistranslating "young woman" for "virgin", no correction has been made. Could this be because too much "inertia" and dogma has developed over the idea that Mary was a virgin that Christian authorities are allowing their worldview take president over accuracy? :)

      Delete
    4. William,

      "Thousands of copies of one document is still only one reference, not thousands."

      That was my point.

      "This wouldn't stand up as evidence in most courts unless either these witnesses could be questioned,..."

      Not true, hearsay evidence is often accepted in court proceedings.

      "It is seen as a single source because it is a single source."

      Again, that was my point.

      "But the terms can be contradictory. Not all young women are virgins.

      No, the two terms are never contradictory because they are referring to fundamentally different states of being. No, not all young women are virgins, but not all virgins are young women or even women. So, in effect, you have no argument here.

      Delete
    5. "No, the two terms are never contradictory because they are referring to fundamentally different states of being. No, not all young women are virgins, but not all virgins are young women or even women. So, in effect, you have no argument here."

      I'm confused. All the earlier texts said was that she was a young woman. I don't think that anyone would argue with this. A later translation said that she was a virgin, which initiated the entire dogma about Mary being a virgin. But you stated above that when errors in translation are identified, that they are corrected. Translating "young woman" into "virgin" is obviously an error. Maybe wishful thinking, but still an error. I don't want to accuse you are evading the question, because you have not had a history of doing this, but you are evading this one.

      The question I ask is, why has this not been corrected? It is a well known and easily proven error in translation. Is it possible that this correction has not been made simply because it goes against current dogma that is too deeply entrenched?

      I guess another way to look at it would be to answer the following question: would Jesus be less worthy of devotion and worship if his mother was a prostitute?

      Delete
    6. William,

      "A later translation said that she was a virgin, which initiated the entire dogma about Mary being a virgin. But you stated above that when errors in translation are identified, that they are corrected. Translating "young woman" into "virgin" is obviously an error."

      The truth is a little more complicated than that. In Isaiah 7:14 the Hebrew word almah is translated into English as virgin when it can also mean young woman. The reason behind the word almah being rendered as virgin is due to the fact that in the 3rd century BC when the Old Testament was translated into Greek the translators used the specific Greek word for virgin, parthenos, rather than the more generic term gynaika which can mean young woman.

      If ancient Hebrew scholars chose to translate almah as 'virgin' and not 'young woman', deference must be given to them as they were much more aware of the hermeneutical demands of their day than we are.

      So no, using virgin instead of young woman predates the New Testament by several centuries and is not a later attempt to alter the meaning of the text. It most certainly is NOT an error.

      Delete
  18. Nic the spineless Christian:

    "If the books were of human origin that would be correct, but Christians see the books of the Bible as the word of God, not quite the same thing."

    Worshipping the Bible as the inerrant word of God is idolatry, IMO. There are many errors, contradictions and nonsense in the Bible.

    Search and you shall find. Don't assume you already found the word of God before you even conduct your search.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Louis,

    Louis:"Worshipping the Bible as the inerrant word of God is idolatry, IMO."

    Nic: "but Christians see the books of the Bible as the word of God, not quite the same thing.:
    "

    Show me anywhere in that statement that I said Christians worship the Bible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nic, I hate to say this (and you know I do) but Louis as an iota of a point.

      If you perceive the bible as the inerrant word of God, then are you not worshipping God through the words in the bible?

      Delete
    2. Anybody who insists that any book is 100% true is committing idolatry, IMO.

      Delete
    3. William,

      "If you perceive the bible as the inerrant word of God, then are you not worshipping God through the words in the bible?"

      Nope, not at all. I see the world and all that is in it as the creation of God, but I do not worship anything in that creation, so why would you assume I would, of necessity, need to worship God through the inerrancy of the Bible? The logic does not follow.

      Delete
    4. Louis,

      "Anybody who insists that any book is 100% true is committing idolatry, IMO."

      I guess you're entitled to your opinion even if it is wrong. :)

      Delete
    5. Nic, I am not talking about the physical book, just the words within it. Aren't the words and what they represent the means by which you worship God? Would there be any worshipping without those words?

      Delete
  20. William,

    "Would there be any worshipping without those words?"

    No, the words are not worshipped. Yes, there could be worship without the words just as there was worship before the words were given. The words do not represent the means by which we worship God, they are the source of revelation by which we know God.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nic, I apologize for rearranging the sentences in your comment in the following response. I think it adds clarity, but please correct me if you disagree.

      "No, the words are not worshipped....Yes, there could be worship without the words just as there was worship before the words were given."

      I agree that there would be worship without documented text. But would it survive long term (unchanged) for many generations without the documented words. Before you answer that, keep in mind the dramatic (dare I say radical) variations in interpretation and worship for Judaism, Christianity and Islam, each of which has had documented text for many centuries.

      "The words do not represent the means by which we worship God, they are the source of revelation by which we know God."

      I thought that God was the source of revelation. The documented words are merely the means or tool by which we, hopefully, understand them. Am I wrong?

      Delete
    2. William,

      "I thought that God was the source of revelation."

      That is what I intended to convey with that statement but I can see its ambiguity.

      Delete
    3. Not to worry. I am the last person who should criticize someone for using ambiguous phrases.

      Delete
  21. It is true.

    You are the last person.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Except for me. I was the last person yesterday.

    ReplyDelete
  23. How sad with these religious nuts.
    There is a simple difference between science and fanatism:

    Science tries different answers constantly looking for that which at the moment fits best to our percieved reality.

    Religion, chalatans and right out nut-cases does the opposite: Uphold one answer and try to force the reality to fit it.

    You, dear blogger, should be qualified to get refunded your educational fees -in the case you even have one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Astute response Mapou. Do you have a logical counter argument? Or is "dirt worshipper" all you have? Btw, rhetorical question.

      Delete
    2. I thought it was a great argument. Don't blame me if you're slow. I find it ironic that a dirt worshipper is not ashamed to bash religious nuts. The jackass should look in the mirror.

      Delete
  24. Man, I know that religious nuts are not intelligent, but I didnt realise you are that dimwittet. "dirtworshipper".

    Really? Are you 5 years old?

    What a pity you must be to your parents. I hope they remember to give you a lollipop and a pad on the head each time you meet someone who has a different oppinion than you, because clearly you cant handle that.

    Funny how I dont really meet the same kind of '5year old attitude' from my fellow university graduates. I guess... its called intelligence.

    On the other hand, I do notice that ignorance and 'trying the low punches' goes no matter what kind of faith a religious nut has. I seems that it hasnt dawned on you muslims, christians, hinduists, kim-il-sung worshippers and what not - that instead of beliving the lies you'r told... maybe, juuust maybe - you should try to grow a brain :- )

    You might find that you still have some scraps left.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Says the brain-dead dirt worshiper. Go suck on a rock or something. You're effing boring.

      Delete
  25. religiuos money-baggers,

    "On the other hand, I do notice that ignorance and 'trying the low punches' goes no matter what kind of faith a religious nut has. I seems that it hasnt dawned on you muslims, christians, hinduists, kim-il-sung worshippers and what not - that instead of beliving the lies you'r told... maybe, juuust maybe - you should try to grow a brain :- )

    You might find that you still have some scraps left."

    What a marvelous display of evolutionary intellect and hypocrisy. One long spew of vindictive nonsense accusing others of 'low punches'.

    'Brainless Christians' just happen to be the source of the scientific method you so obviously worship. So the onus would actually be on you to grow a brain and do a little research into that fact. It's obvious you're the one believing what ever he is told without looking into the facts. Sadly, this is a condition all too common to evolutionists.

    "Funny how I dont really meet the same kind of '5year old attitude' from my fellow university graduates. I guess... its called intelligence."

    Seriously! How about PZ Meyers or Jerry Coyne? They have childishness down to an art.

    As for graduating from university being a marker of intelligence and maturity, Meyers, Coyne and your own post provide a strong argument against that belief.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nic, the spineless Christian, arguing with dirt worshipers. Man, get a life.

      Delete
    2. Sorry Mapou, but Nic has a spine far stronger than yours. Rmb, from what I saw, is just the atheist version of you. Thankfully, they are not indicative of atheists, any more than you are indicative of Christians.

      Nic and I disagree on many things, but I think I would still enjoy sitting down and having a drink with him. You and rmg, on the other hand, don't appreciate the benefits that come from differing opinions.

      All I can say is, sucks to be you.

      Delete
    3. You would not know a Christian if one kicked you in the ass. You are a gutless, closet homosexual with a bone to pick with Christianity. That's your only motivation. The fact that you are a member of the dirt worshiping community is proof that you are not only gutless but you are also brain dead.

      Now go eat a donut or something and see if I care. Or better, yet go pound a yam up your asteroid orifice seeing that, as a homosexual male, you enjoy these sort of things.

      ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha

      Delete
  26. Louis,

    "Nic, the spineless Christian, arguing with dirt worshipers. Man, get a life."

    What happened to you to make you so angry and so unhappy? Why is it so unsettling to you when someone has a different viewpoint that you feel it's necessary to call them dirt worshippers and spineless? Really, it must be sad to have so much nastiness pent-up inside.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have nothing pent up inside. I let it all hang out and, contrary to your opinion, I take great pleasure in bashing gutless Christians and brain dead dirt worshippers. I'm happy as a clam.

      ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

      Delete
    2. "I'm happy as a clam."

      And have half the intelligence and personality.

      ahah ahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahah ahaha....

      That last line sounds almost as moronic when I say it as when you do. But not quite.

      Delete
    3. Says the dirt worshiping closet homosexual.

      ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

      Delete
  27. I wouldn't want to have a drink with any of you [Fill in the blank].

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you really didn't care, you wouldn't bother to tell the world about it.

      Delete
    2. The world? LOL. You are clueless. This blog is not that popular, unfortunately. Besides, what I said is true. I don't care whether or not you would want to have a drink with me, or anybody else for that matter.

      Delete