Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
110 online now:
dwise1, PaulK, Tanypteryx (3 members, 107 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,047 Year: 5,159/6,534 Month: 2/577 Week: 70/135 Day: 1/1 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?
Kapyong
Member (Idle past 2717 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


(2)
Message 71 of 2059 (573777)
08-12-2010 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by archaeologist
08-11-2010 7:41 PM


Gday all,

archeologist writes:

we have over 5,000 mss or partial mss. concerning the new testament alone with some written very close to the originals {Bruce: The NT documents: Are they reliable: pg 10}

Sorry, you confused two fundamentally different issues - that because we have so many copies this proves the contents true. Well, this is obviously not true - the number of copies has nothing to do with the truth of the contents. Consider -

* the Iliad - over 600 manuscripts, more than the NT until after 1000AD - does this mean that the Iliad was more true than the NT until about 1000AD, but from the middle ages on, the NT became MORE TRUE than the Iliad?

* the works of 10thC. Yen-Shou of Hangchow - about 400,000 copies exist, about 4000 times as many copies as NT copies at that time - does this make the work over 4000 times MORE TRUE than the NT?

* the Book of Mormon - there are millions of copies of this work, many dating maybe a FEW YEARS after the original - would this make the Book of Mormon much MORE TRUE than the NT?

* the Lord of the Rings - there are many millions of copies of this work, (including the original manuscript AFAIK), dating from very soon after its writing - does this makes the Lord of the Rings of vastly more true than the NT?

No.
It should be obvious that the NUMBER of copies attesting to a work gives no support to the truth of the contents - yet apologists repeatedly bring this point up as if it proves something.

Kap


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by archaeologist, posted 08-11-2010 7:41 PM archaeologist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by archaeologist, posted 08-12-2010 8:00 PM Kapyong has replied

  
Kapyong
Member (Idle past 2717 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


(2)
Message 95 of 2059 (573904)
08-13-2010 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by archaeologist
08-12-2010 8:00 PM


Gday,

archaeologist writes:

no i didn't as i was specifically refering to the gap between origin and copies.

Then why did you specifically start your comment with there being 5000 manuscripts ?

If the gap between our copies and the original versions is what matters, then consider some works for which we have the original copies :

What about egyptian writings in stone? We have ORIGINAL copies.
Does having the actual original carved stone copy of a story about Isis and Osiris argue for it being true?
Of course not.

What about the Book of Mormon?
We have very early copies, possibly even the original manuscript.
Does that argue for the Book of Mormon being true?
Of course not.

What about Scientology?
We have the original writings of L.Ron Hubbard.
We have actual video of him teachings.
We have many certain direct eye-witness accounts of him.
Does that have ANYTHING to do with it being true?
Of course not.

Having early copies, even having ORIGINAL copies, (or having a large number of copies) has NOTHING to do with whether a book is true or not.

Can you please explain why you think it does?
Thanks :-)

Kapyong

Edited by Kapyong, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by archaeologist, posted 08-12-2010 8:00 PM archaeologist has taken no action

  
Kapyong
Member (Idle past 2717 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 110 of 2059 (574394)
08-15-2010 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by archaeologist
08-15-2010 12:44 AM


Gday,

archeologist writes:

to say reproduction is micro-evolution is over generalizing an nonexistent process.

Pardon?
Micro-evolution is directly observed, every day.
Uni 101 students do micro-evolution in a petri-dish.

archeologist writes:

all you have done is taken the reality of life and slapped a secualr science label over it and made the definition of the label fit what you want it to cover.

Pardon?
Science has observed and explained evolution.

archeologist writes:

if the process of evolution were true, there would be no need for reproductive systems

Why not?
Please explain in detail.

archeologist writes:

and the process would not know to carry on till it got reproductive organs,

There is NO "knowing" in the process at all.

archeologist writes:

it would not know how to design them,

There was NO knowing, there was NO design.

archeologist writes:

and why make the women's vaginal canal so small so that she feels pain

Because evolution has nothing to do with being perfect, or reaching any goal - it's just whatever is good enough.

What is YOUR explanation?
That God made it that way to cause pain deliberately?
That God bungled?
What, exactly?

archeologist writes:

--are you going to tell a pregnant woman that she feels pain because she hasn't fully evolved?---good luck with that one.

So, are YOU going to tell a pregnant woman that she feels pain because God's designs are incompetent ?---good luck with that one.

Kap


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by archaeologist, posted 08-15-2010 12:44 AM archaeologist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by archaeologist, posted 08-16-2010 5:54 AM Kapyong has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022