Biblical contradictions.

One of the biggest questions I have of late is why do evolutionists feel so threatened by the teaching of creation? If evolution has so much evidence, and creation has so little, (or none, as some so boldly claim), then I would think that evolutionists would not only agree to, but would actively encourage the practice of teaching both creation and evolution side by side so that the evolutionists could show everyone just how right they are and just how wrong the creationists are. Leaning on that tired old "creation isn't science" argument doesn't wash anymore than saying "evolution is science." http://www.planetkc.com/puritan/EvolutionIsNotScience_f.htmJet Shalom ------------------
"If you tell a lie long enough, and loud enough, and often enough, the people will believe it." Adolf Hitler.......Darwinian Evolutionist

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe Meert:

JM: Yes and no. You assertion that the 7-day week likely had its roots in the Bible is correct. Your assertion that this was always agreed on is false. A few examples:

​

The ancient Egyptians used a 10-day "week", as did the French Revolutionary calendar.

​

The Maya calendar uses a 13 and a 20-day "week" (see Mayan calendar).

​

The Soviet Union used both a 5-day and a 6-day week. In 1929-30 the USSR gradually introduced a 5-day week. Every worker had one day off every week, but there was no fixed day of rest. On 1 September 1931 this was replaced by a 6-day week with a fixed day of rest, falling on the 6th, 12th, 18th, 24th, and 30th day of each month (1 March was used instead of the 30th day of February, and the last day of months with 31 days was considered an extra working day outside the normal 6-day week cycle). A return to the normal 7-day week was decreed on 26 June 1940.

​

Lithuanians used week of nine days before adopting Cristianity.

​

Cheers

​

Joe Meert

---

Interesting information! Thanks Joe! However, the question still stands. Even in non-Christian, non-Judaic, and non-Muslim nations, a seven day week has been adopted. Why? Is there some reason other than a Judeo-Christian influence? Is it astronomically valid to adopt a five day, ten day, or twenty day week versus a seven day week? If not, why not? If so, then why the seemingly universal adoption of a seven day week?Jet Shalom ------------------
"If you tell a lie long enough, and loud enough, and often enough, the people will believe it." Adolf Hitler.......Darwinian Evolutionist

[QUOTE]Originally posted by schrafinator:
[B] OK, let's say that Protestant Christian Creation is taught alongside science in a science classroom. Why not teach Native American Creation in the science classroom? Or Shinto Creation stories? Or Roman, Australian Aboriginal, or Egyptian Creation?After all, since Protestant Christian Creationism is based in what the Bible says, and what the Bible says holds ultimate sway over any natural evidence which might be discovered, then any other religion's creation story is as supported as any other.***Your point is well taken and valid, to be sure. All of the above are as rooted in history as is the erroneous concept of evolution.***Jetschraf: Creation 'science' isn't real science. It violates the tenets of scientific inquiry.......Creation 'science' breaks the rules of science.***I believe this has been discussed at length already. But in case your memory needs refreshing, then visit...................
http://www.planetkc.com/puritan/EvolutionIsNotScience_f.htm
Your "real science" argument reveals the so-called science of the TOE to be full of holes.***Jetschraf: http://www.skepdic.com/science.html***Actually, I have already bookmarked the skepdic site, as well as a number of others. I am never opposed to examining all sides of an issue, even when I am convinced that one side, (in this case, the argument for evolution), is so full of errors, misinformation, and outright lies that it is, without a doubt, completely inane.***Jet Shalom Jet------------------
"If you tell a lie long enough, and loud enough, and often enough, the people will believe it." Adolf Hitler.......Darwinian Evolutionist

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
Gee, somehow the idea that the seven day week was adopted by everyone because the more powerful people came in and converted everyone to their religion doesn't seem very mysterious to me.

​

In addition, the Church was freaking rich and if I'm not mistaken, controlled and funded a great deal of trade and commerce. It would make sense to adopt the week structure that your most powerful customer used so you could coordinate business with them.

​

Are you really asking why everyone has the same week structure now?? Trade and commerce!!!

​

---

***You must have absolutely loved the movie "Conspiracy Theory"***Jet Shalom Jet------------------
"If you tell a lie long enough, and loud enough, and often enough, the people will believe it." Adolf Hitler.......Darwinian Evolutionist"For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of his reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about
to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over
the final rock, he is greeted by a small band of theologians, who have been sitting there for centuries."Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
You're ignoring the issue about your signoff. I raised the issue because I felt it was offensive and inflammatory. You've had, and still have, the opportunity to justify it, during which period you may continue to use it, but if you choose not to respond to inquiries then I must ask you to remove or modify the signoff or risk suspension of posting privileges.

​

--Percy
EvC Forum Administrator

---

***Please be more specific as to the "sign off" that you are referring to and I will then make an attempt to justify it. If, however, your reference pertains to the quote from Adolph Hitler, please feel free to offer your suggestions as to how you would like it modified so as to not be offensive and/or inflammatory. If it is the quote that you are referring to, what guidelines are there to follow as to what is acceptable and where do I find these guidelines.If, on the other hand, it is not the quote, but rather the designation that follows it, please help me understand how this is any more inflammatory than many of the others that are presently being used. Several members use signatures/sign offs that are not only bound to be seen as offensive to some, but are actually designed to be so.Schrafs' signature/sign-off is undoubtedly put forth as a comedic insult to, and of creationists, (a good one at that), and may be seen by some as inflammatory and offensive, but it is a valid quote and designation, (assumption), and therefore should not be censored.I would hope the same would hold true for my signature/sign-off and its' designation as it is just as valid and true. If, as you referred to earlier, someone chooses to use a quote from someone like a Timothy McVeigh followed by the designation; "Christian", I would hardly view that as being inflammatory or offensive because a persons' actions speak so very much louder than their words ever can.Many people, as well as organizations, have, throughout history, used the designation "Christian" and have exhibited behaviour that was anything but Christian and their deeds showed their true allegiance, which assuredly was not Christ.Adolph Hitler is one good example, the Catholic Church during the Inquisition is another, not to mention the numerous child rapists masquerading as Catholic Priests.It is a record of history that Adolph Hitler was a firm believer in the Darwinian concept of evolution, superiority of the races as well as species, and also the survival of the fittest. Several of his quotes refer to the Germans as the superior race and to the Jews and Africans as inferior races. History will never forget Hitlers' indignation when his "Superior German Race" lost to a supposed inferior race, that being an American of African descent.Nevertheless, I realize that some individuals have a very thin skin but I am not going to name any names, "Larry! Schraf! Percy! Mark!", (ha, ha, just a joke, so don't hate me just because I'm a bit sardonic at times). If you desire me to do so, I will modify it or remove it entirely. I do request your reason for singling out my signature/sign-off without my having received even a small number of complaints as to the signature/sign-off being offensive to them personally, and which, upon my receiving any after this post is made public, I would not consider them as being at all valid.*** Shalom Jet------------------
"If you tell a lie long enough, and loud enough, and often enough, the people will believe it." Adolf Hitler.......Darwinian Evolutionist"For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of his reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about
to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over
the final rock, he is greeted by a small band of theologians, who have been sitting there for centuries."Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:

Jet writes:

---

Please refer me to the post where I stated that "my views" should be taught as science.

---

​

You're just playing semantic games. By "your views" I obviously meant Creationism.

​

The question is, if science is based upon building frameworks of understand around bodies of information and evidence, while your approach is based upon revelation, prayer and reflection, then how can you claim your views, ie, Creationism, should be taught as science?

​

--Percy

---

***There is enough information in the book of Job alone to justify teaching Creationism. Several phrases made within the book of Job could not have possibly been known to man, in fact, some have only recently been discovered and/or verified. With the overwhelming amount of accuracy the Bible contains versus the overwhelming amount of speculation, postulation, and utter guesswork that must be used to justify teaching evolution, I am surprised that teaching Creationism is still so heavily opposed by those who should be seeking the truth as to the origin of man, no matter what the source of information may be that will lead us to that truth.*** Shalom Jet------------------
"If you tell a lie long enough, and loud enough, and often enough, the people will believe it." Adolf Hitler.......Darwinian Evolutionist"For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of his reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about
to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over
the final rock, he is greeted by a small band of theologians, who have been sitting there for centuries."Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
Your association of evolution with Adolf Hitler has two problems:

​

• You've already conceded a theory's validity is not a function of the morality of those who accept it, and so your signoff cannot be construed as a valid debating point.
• It is offensive and inflammatory.

​

On a scale of offensiveness, characterization of ignoring scientific evidence and theory as ignorant and narrow minded, an intellectual assessment in what is hopefully an intellectual debate, doesn't even register on a scale that associates acceptance of evolution with Adolf Hitler, which is a moral assessment.

​

As has already been pointed out, Hitler also said, "By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work." Quoting can go both ways, and to the degree that Hitler was an evolutionist he was also a Christian.

​

It's okay to keep the Hitler quote if you delete the "Darwinian Evolutionist" part, or perhaps you could change it to "Darwinian Evolutionist and Christian." But your Jastrow quote by itself is really all you need. You've got some line breaks in it that you might want to eliminate.

​

--Percy

---

***It is my hope that all offended parties are satisfied with the changes that I have made to my sign-off. I have attempted to eliminate the line breaks. If the editing of the lines is still resulting in line breaks, I will edit again.*** Shalom Jet------------------
"For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of his reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a small band of theologians, who have been sitting there for centuries."Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow

I ask a little indulgence. For all those who have not read Roy Masters brilliant book, I offer a small sampling in the hopes that it will pique the interest of evolutionists and creationists alike. Knowledge Is Power! Feed Your Brain! Comments to follow in subsequent posts.Page not found – Foundation of Human Understanding"[Cut-n-paste of ~2500 words replaced with link to original website. Please, in general no cut-n-pastes longer than a paragraph. Also, this is off-topic, it belongs in the Big Bang and Cosmology forum, you may want to repost there. --Percy]"Finding God in Physics: Einstein’s Missing Relative" by Roy Masters------------------
"For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of his reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a small band of theologians, who have been sitting there for centuries."Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow

​

[This message has been edited by Percipient, 05-28-2002]

edited quote:
...............................science is based upon evidence.--Percy***If science is based solely on a hands-on, physical type of "evidence", which is what you seem to favor, then not only does the TOE not qualify as being scientific, but much of what is studied and thought to be understood about the entire universe cannot qualify as being scientific. We have "scientific" calculations as to the temperature of the suns' surface. This science is not based on any physical "evidence", but rather on educated mathematical calculations based on what scientists think they know and understand about the sun and our solar system.Much of science is based upon speculations, calculations, and educated guesswork rather than any real physical evidence. If it wasn't, the TOE would already be an idea that had been regulated to the ash heap of silly myths and legends, better suited for science fiction writers and Hollywood moviemakers than for scientists. For all that evolutionists claim to have, what they truly have is very, very little. And of that, much, if not all, is based upon speculations, calculations, and educated guesswork. The physical evidence for evolution just does not exist. If it did, the debate would be over.*** Shalom Jet------------------
"For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of his reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a small band of theologians, who have been sitting there for centuries."Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow

Sorry, my mistake! Shalom Jet------------------
"For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of his reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a small band of theologians, who have been sitting there for centuries."Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:

xxx writes:

---

If science is based solely on a hands-on, physical type of "evidence"...

---

​

I just said evidence, plain old evidence. Evidence is that which is apparent in some way to the five senses. Evidence could be something you can hold in your bare hands, or it could be ancient photons from a distant galaxy impinging upon the eye, or even just on optical sensors.

​

***If that is truly the case, then the Bible is all the evidence that I should need to convince you that Creationism is scientific. I can hold it in my hands and read its' pages with my eyes.***Jet

​

Anyway, the original question was, if your interpretations are based upon revelation, reflection and prayer, how can that qualify as science, since science is based upon evidence?

​

--Percy

---

***Perhaps your use of "your interpretations" is a poor choice of words. I do not attempt to interpret the Bible, per se, as the Bible interprets itself quite nicely. You also left out a vital ingredient that I had mentioned. Study! Intense, unending study. Without study, any revelation, reflection, or prayer becomes a rather fruitless endeavor. I read and study the Bible continually. Within its' pages, I read about the creation of the world and all that it contains. With my five senses, I observe the evidence of that creation. I see the design inherent in all of creation and realize that any design requires a designer. Even a small child understands this. Design comes about by the effort of the designer, and never by the combination of chance plus time. Chance plus time creates nothing but lost time.*** Shalom Jet------------------
"For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of his reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a small band of theologians, who have been sitting there for centuries."Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Percipient:
Jet writes:
***There is enough information in the book of Job alone to justify teaching Creationism.***Percy writes:
So using your example of the book of Job, if your interpretation of it is based upon revelation, reflection and prayer, how can that qualify as science, since science is based upon evidence?--Percy
**********************************************************************
At the end of the book of Job (chapter 38-41) is an amazing and very revealing piece of literature, for it claims to be the direct word of God proclaiming the wonders of his creation to Job and his friends. If this segment of writing is what is says it is, then we would expect to find some pretty amazing scientific insight. And that's exactly what we find:"Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades? Can you loose the chords of Orion?" Job 38:31Pleiades is a cluster of stars numbering about 250. The latest scientific observations suggest that they are all bound together, moving in the same direction, according to Dr. Robert J. Trumpler from the Lick Observatory:""Over 25,000 individual measures of the Pleiades stars are now available, and their study led to the important discovery that the whole cluster is moving in a southeasterly direction. The Pleiades stars may thus be compared to a swarm of birds, flying together to a distant goal. This leaves no doubt that the Pleiades are not a temporary or accidental agglomeration of stars, but a system in which the stars are bound together by a close kinship.""Orion is another constellation admired by the Hebrews. It is made up primarily of three main stars, which seem to make up a perfect line.However, the Astronomer Garrett P. Serviss commented on Orion:""At the present time this band consists of an almost perfect straight line, a row of second-magnitude stars about equally spaced and of the most striking beauty. In the course of time, however, the two right-hand stars, Mintaka and Alnilam, will approach each other and form a naked-eye double; but the third, Alnitak, will drift away eastward so that the band will no longer exist.""So basically, Orion is the direct opposite of Pleiades. The stars are actually moving in completely different directions.This information, which is not discernable to the naked eye, has only been discovered by the most advanced modern astronomical equipment, yet it is written in a 3000-year-old book! Could it be a lucky guess by the writer of Job?Unlikely! When a noted astronomer, Charles Burckhalter of the Chabot Observatory was shown the book of Job, he made an astonishing statement:""The study of the Book of Job and its comparison with the latest scientific discoveries has brought me to the matured conviction that the Bible is an inspired book and was written by the One who made the stars."" http://www.stilez.freeserve.co.uk/apol/int3.html Shalom JetKNOWLEDGE IS POWER! FEED YOUR BRAIN!------------------
"For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of his reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a small band of theologians, who have been sitting there for centuries."Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Percipient:
[b]

Jet writes:

---

I do not attempt to interpret the Bible, per se, as the Bible interprets itself quite nicely.

---

Isn't this different from what you said earlier?***No, I don't believe that it is.***JetI asked how you know you have the correct interpretation of the Bible, and you said study, prayer, etc.While the Bible may have no trouble interpreting itself, humans have much difficulty with Biblical interpretation, as there is a wide variety of opinion. How do you decide whose interpretation is correct?--Percy***I believe that I have already answered that question but here is my answer again. Study, prayer, guidance and revelation from the Holy Spirit.The argument you are attempting to use is circular. Through intense study of Gods' Holy Word, mingled with fervent prayer, and accepting the guidance and revelation that is provided by the Holy Spirit, the erroneous interpretations that abound are made self evident.Was Saul correct in his persecution of what he perceived to be a cult that threatened his Judaic beliefs?
Was the Catholic Church and its' officials correct in their Inquisition?
Were they guided by the Holy Spirit?The answer is a resounding NO! And that is verified by the Holy Word of God. Neither action could be justified by the Word of God as written in the Holy Bible.Someone once said:
"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink."The same can be said of those who are perishing by their own volition.
"You can show a man the truth of Gods' Holy Word but you can't make him believe it." Shalom Jet------------------
"KNOWLEDGE IS POWER! FEED YOUR BRAIN!".....................Jet"For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of his reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a small band of theologians, who have been sitting there for centuries."Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow

Originally posted by Percipient:I think you must mean repetitive, not circular.***No, I mean just what I said. You argue that creationism is not scientific because of its' base, that being the Bible, which is a religous work and not a scientific work. You also argue that because the Bible is not a scientific work, but rather a religious work, that it can not be used to support the numerous facts which support creationism, thereby making creationism unscientific. That seems pretty circular to me.The Bible was never meant to be a scientific work, but that does not mean that it does not contain some amazing scientific insight. In a previous post, I offered you some verses from Job that clearly point out a scientific understanding of some stars/constellations that science has only recently been able to verify. Rather than accept something that is obvious to even the novice student, you choose rather to dismiss it out of hand.When I was a child growing up, adults used a very true statement when someone of the younger generation dismissed the obvious out of hand. They said, "Willful ignorance is no excuse!" That simple statement stills holds true today, and I remind my own children of it every time it becomes necessary to do so, which, thankfully, is not very often at all.***JetOriginally posted by Percipient:.......Millions of humble souls study the Bible, pray, accept the guidance and revelation of the Holy Spirit, only in the end to arrive at a variety of conclusions.***This is a rather vague statement. Are you attempting to suggest that "Millions of humble souls study the Bible, pray, accept the guidance and revelation of the Holy Spirit", only to arrive at different conclusions as to how creation occurred and who the Creator is? If so, what are theses differing conclusions, and just who, if anyone, is openly declaring them to the Body of Christ?***JetOriginally posted by Percipient:How do you decide whose interpretation is correct?***Perhaps it would help me to answer your oft repeated question if you would offer a variety of examples of how different translations, (or even the same translation), result in millions arriving at different interpretations as to how creation actually occurred and who the Creator actually is.***Jet Shalom ------------------
"KNOWLEDGE IS POWER! FEED YOUR BRAIN!".....................Jet"For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of his reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a small band of theologians, who have been sitting there for centuries."Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow

Originally posted by gene90:Which was it, stars or constellations? One is important to science, the other useless. (I'm splitting hairs though.)***You can say that again!***Jet Shalom ------------------
"KNOWLEDGE IS POWER! FEED YOUR BRAIN!".....................Jet"For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of his reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a small band of theologians, who have been sitting there for centuries."Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow