Why MT doesn't believe in this.

[Darth Crater]

Agreed, Narg - it's rather hard not to be biased toward the beliefs you hold, after all. I'm doing my best to counteract this by looking for evidence against them. The whole thing with the links was just me attempting to skip over the inevitable "That link has 'infidel' in the name, clearly it's biased, I'm going to ignore it" and say "Yes, it's biased. I think it has some good points anyway".

Statistical data and facts are not enough when looking for the origin of life and our universe.

So, statistical data and facts (which is pretty close to the definition of "evidence") are not enough? What, then, do you suggest I use? I can demonstrate (and prove) that beliefs based on evidence are more beneficial to me than those that are not. (Quick example: say I have a fatal disease. Statistics say modern medicine cures it 99% of the time. Statistics say voodoo appears to cure it 33% of the time, about the same as with no treatment. Believing voodoo is more effective than modern medicine has a 66% chance of killing me.) What do you have that makes your beliefs perform better than those based on evidence? Or do you just want to believe them, regardless of cost?

It all comes to this: If you are to accept the teaching of macro-evolution as true, you must believe that agnostic or atheistic scientists will not let their personal beliefs influence their interpretations of scientific findings. You must believe that mutations and natural selection produced all complex lifeforms, despite a century of research that shows that mutations have not transformed even one properly defined species into something entirely new. You must believe that all creatures gradually evolved from a common ancestor, despite a fossil record that strongly indicates that the major kinds of plants and animals appeared abruptly and did not evolve into other kinds, even over aeons of time.

A century is ridiculously insignificant as far as evolutionary timescales go. The kinds of changes you're thinking of might require many beneficial mutations. Changes can and do occur - consider antibiotic-resistant bacteria, for one. Where is this research demonstrating that species have been static forever?

The fossil record indicates the opposite of what you claim - the simplest and earliest mammals are older than any other mammals. Dinosaurs and such are older than modern reptiles and birds. Where is this research demonstrating that species always arise from nowhere, bearing traits not demonstrated by forebears, then remain static?

Those aren't the most serious problems, though. You seem to think that evolution requires atheism. As I've said several times, this is untrue. Countless Christians have looked at the evidence, decided that evolution makes sense, then worked reconciled that with their religions. Plenty of scientists, including those who developed this field, were Christian. If anything, I'd expect an initial bias in the other direction. All of these people overcame that, looked at the facts, and then decided that evolution best explains what we know.

The Bible does not contradict itself. True, there may appear to be discrepancies in certain Bible accounts. But the problem usually is lack of knowledge regarding details and circumstances of the times. If you find a verse in the bible, that you think does, I'll come out of retirement to explain it :)

The problem is that you are making a blanket statement: "There are no contradictions". This means if I identify even one, which I can, your argument is disproved. If you want to rephrase it, go ahead, just know that its strength drops accordingly.
I'll repeat the link: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... tions.html Here are a few of the less pedantic-looking ones:

Judas died how?

"And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and hanged himself." (MAT 27:5)

"And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out." (ACT 1:18) Note from Crater: says he used the money to buy the field where this happened

God be seen?

EXO 24:9,10; AMO 9:1; GEN 26:2; and JOH 14:9
God CAN be seen:
"And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts." (EXO 33:23)
"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." (EXO 33:11)
"For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (GEN 32:30)

God CANNOT be seen:
"No man hath seen God at any time." (JOH 1:18)
"And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live." (EXO 33:20)
"Whom no man hath seen nor can see." (1TIM 6:16)

CRUEL, UNMERCIFUL, DESTRUCTIVE, and FEROCIOUS or KIND, MERCIFUL, and GOOD:

"I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy." (JER 13:14) "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling."

"The Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercy." (JAS 5:11)
"For his mercy endureth forever." (1CH 16:34)
"The Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works." (PSA 145:9)
"God is love." (1JO 4:16)

Bible Prophecy, is 100% accurate. The Dead Sea Scrolls included a copy of the Book of Isaiah and the scrolls were dated about the 2nd century BCE before Christ was born, yet it had prophecies of what the lineage of the Messiah would be - Isaiah 9:7, how he would suffer - Isaiah 50:6, and his death - Isaiah 53:12. There were many more, including the rise and fall Alexander the Great - Daniel 8:5-8, 21, 22. Also the name of the conqueror of Babylon, as well as the manner of his conquering the city, given 150 years in advance - Isaiah 45:1

Again, that "100%" essentially kills your argument. I have no clue why you're sabotaging yourself this way. Suppose that I agree with everything else you stated above. Suppose that none of those were distorted, given meaning in hindsight, or otherwise problematic. What about all of the ones you didn't specifically cite? As before, what about the prophecies listed here - do you claim all of them were fulfilled? http://faithskeptic.50megs.com/prophecies.htm http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/proph/long.html
-Isaiah 9:7 - Jesus did nothing described there. He never ruled or governed. Isaiah was predicting the rise of a leader for the Jewish people.
-Isaiah 50:6 - Are we meant to assume, without any evidence I can see in this chapter or the surrounding, that this is Jesus speaking? It seems more general, in any case - no mention of any details like the crucifixion, etc.
-Isaiah 53:12 - Again, excessively general. Effectively says "he will die for us", which is rather easy to fulfill (not to mention that those writing about Jesus would have been consciously trying to fit him into this prophecy).

The historical accuracy of the Bible is well documented and while not a science text book it is scientifically sound. As far as the Flood since that was one I heard outcry over, why is it so unbelievable? Over 71% of the earth is covered by seawater, if glaciers and polar ice caps were to melt, the sea level would rise to cover cities like New York and Tokyo. Also the ark was not a rounded boat as many artist drawings show.

I will repeat - the Bible can be a good source on Jewish history without being a good source on theology. The people writing it were either present or had oral histories, so some accuracy is to be expected. However, they had much less ability to measure the world, and ascribed many things (such as lightning, to name one) to the supernatural which we have now explained. There is no reason to believe this particular group was somehow better at determining the truth of the universe than, say, the Greeks or Hindus. On scientific accuracy, again: http://www.godlesshaven.com/articles/bible-science.html

The ark is not the problem. The ability of agricultural-age people to construct a ship is not in question. Absolutely everything else about the story is. I'll go ahead and quote a bit from my drafted response to Cypher here. One thing not covered there - a melting of ice would only flood areas near the sea, and would would take orders of magnitude longer to rise and subside.

2) A valid rebuttal, and quite plausible (yes this is geology, not evolution, but evolution requires long ages, so if they don't exist, evolution could not occur). However, it brings up an interesting question. The tool used to determined (and assign) long age dates to fossils is radiometric dating, and it is subject to the same issues. Flood geologists contend that the long "apparent" age of the rocks was produced by the effects of a violent worldwide flood depleting the measured isotopes.

The idea of a worldwide flood, as described in the Bible, is not supported by any reliable source I know of. The idea of the Young Earth, likewise. There are countless pieces of evidence or arguments against it; the following are just the ones I've come up with in this short time.

Why would simpler creatures have been buried by the flood first? If the flood struck rapidly enough to wipe out humanity, you would expect to see entire ecosystems buried together. Not to mention, fossils of aquatic creatures are found in similar strata as well - are you implying the flood drowned them? Why are sediment patterns not consistent with a single, global flood? Why would a global flood speed up the decay of various isotopes, which is determined by the half-life of the isotope in question, and not affected by surroundings? Why is there no evidence of humans or modern animals in the same strata as these fossils?

All this leaves out the issues with the story of Noah - how did he collect countless animals from across the continents? How did he feed them, keep them from slaughtering each other, get them all onto a single ship? How did he gather billions of insects, 2 per species? Why is humanity too diverse to be descended from one family ~5000 years ago?

On the Young Earth - I'll let the entire field of geology speak for itself. If you want to claim a creator made the world to look exactly as we'd expect it to if it wasn't created (complete with millions of years of simulated history, tectonic movements, erosion, life), fine, but then there's no way to distinguish them. Occam's Razor then applies. Also, on the age of the universe - we can see celestial bodies that are millions or billions of light-years away. This is only possible if the universe is at least that old.

Please, stop insisting on the Young Earth or the Flood. All it will do is trash your credibility completely.

[Yanoda]

Failed to see how it's a double standard. If it was in the bible you would call it unreliable, but since it's not in the bible that also makes it unreliable????

I have provided points where sections of the Bible were taken out. Your argument was that the section that was cut out was "unreliable, untrue and utterly useless". I and Crater have provided points where other sections would fit in the same category (Noah's Flood being a prime example of being untrue, explained further down). You ignore this point. This is the double standard I was referring to.

Um no, because your arguments are illogical, and unfounded.....next!

How so? The Bible is interpreted in different ways, there are several denominations within a religion, each having different stories/views.
Homestar, making such claims "illogical & unfounded" without giving an argument is disrespectful. Until you provide an argument, your claim is dismissed.

Yanoda claiming my arguments are dismissed because they are not to your liking is disrespectful.

You're misreading what I said. Until you provide an argument, your claim is dismissed. If you can make a proper argument as to why my argument was "illogical and unfounded", then I'll happily address it appropriately.

The "wise and intellectual ones" are too haughty to give up the prestige and prominence their "knowledge" gives them. It takes a humble attitude to admit that mankind doesn't have all the answers, and its the height of arrogance to exclude God from the picture completely.

We never stated we know everything and we never stated that we know all the answers. I don't know where you got this from. Can you provide a quote where anyone of us made such a claim? We never excluded the concept of God(s) either, please reread our previous posts. We said there is not sufficient evidence (or way to get evidence) on God(s), based on the scientific process, we cannot make the claim that God(s) actually exist (same with other mythical beings/creatures which you do not believe in, despite only having the same amount of evidence as God(s)). The same concept was with the Higgs Boson, until scientists were able to measure it, it was a concept/hypothesis. They have found a variable of the Higgs Boson a little over a week ago and further studies are conducted to validate the find.
Same goes with Evolution ('Abiogenesis' and the 'Big Bang' are all different scientific fields and studies), first it was a concept. Then, archaeological finds provided transition fossils, DNA analysis shown the resemblance of species (and a form of family tree), observations were made (Peppered Moth), mutations are confirmed to occur, radiometric dating etc. indicated that Evolution is not just a concept, but an actual process (which were mentioned many times). There are rarely any (or none at all) research studies that indicate the process to be false. Note that the studies that do find some discrepancies from current knowledge, do not indicate that Evolution is false, but that our current understanding needs to improve.

So please provide an example where I was "arrogant" and "haughty" based on our argument Homestar. I noticed that you're starting to just making claims about the individuals you're debating with. Furthermore, not providing any reference where the individual presented that - this in essence is disrespectful towards anyone.

Because the Bible is not like countless ancient texts. It has a perfect record of prophecies that have come true, it's historical value is accurate, on the parts where it does touch on sconce, it is ahead of its time, despite being written by different men, in different places, at different times, it's remains harmonious, and finally it's advice is practical even for us today almost 2000 years after the last book was written.

Crater already addressed it so I have nothing much else to add.

You mean with the "unchecked" "bias" Google links?

Your sources were less than unbiased and unchecked as well (major example is ICR.org), so making this claim of Crater being bias is hypocritical. Since you also conducted this process. Note: I provided a reason and argument as to why I claim "hypocritical", each one of us used this process to find our sources. Demeaning someone for this is the very concept of hypocracy, unless you never conducted the search through Google.

It is relevant to the validity of the Bible. The Bible is based on several ancient texts and stories put into one book. Regarding the bible as truth would mean that the other religious texts are also true (such as the Enuma Elish, which the creation story of the Bible originates from). Each religion/religious text claims it is true and the one true religion. This is the problem with the argument validating one's own religion, others use the same arguments to validate theirs.

You can't invalidate evidence because it's misused. You invalidate the theory it was erroneously presented for.

Evidence indicates that the Bible originated from earlier texts. The original Bible was compiled at around 400 CE. The first English translation occurred at around 14th Century CE. The King James Bible was completed in the 17th Century, which most other Bibles originate from. The other texts which the Bible used/are included, came at a much earlier time. Over this time period, changes/modifications have occurred. The Quran as we know today was written at around the 9th Century, it also includes parts from earlier ancient texts. Historians, Archaeologists and Biblical Scholars agree that the Bible (other texts from Judaism and Islam) originated from an earlier ancient Texts and Polytheistic Religions (Enuma Elish and Babylonian Religion). Claiming the Bible as the only True Text is an assumption which arises problems, the other texts must also be true (or equally valid) like the Enuma Elish, Hebrew Bible and Qur'an. Each also claim to have made Prophecies that came true.

No. It is based on the available evidence, and erroneous points of the Bible, that I have come to the conclusion.

Evidence that in your opinion is valid

To which the evidence is based on Archaeological findings, Geological studies, and historical origin of the Bible. The number of different sources on the evidence is vastly more than the Bible itself as a source. Studies showing that the are errors in the Bible (Flood etc.) indicate it is far from flawless.

Ah yes because the best way to seriously debate the bible is to "Google" it.
If you don't want to put the time in to post an argument why should I take it seriously. I failed to see any argument you made that I didn't "address." Typing something into Google and pasting links is not proof or evidence, I know that "everything" found on the internet "seems" trustworthy, but I like to get my information from someone who is not also making videos while in his underwear. (Look at the guy who uploaded the videos Yanoda posted)

The best way to argue against science is to provide conflicting evidence, to which you're lacking. Sorry, but Google isn't allowed in your arguments as well then. Seems your arguments cannot be considered serious either, since you used Google.
Wonderful, now you're making insults to people you never have met. Where in any of the videos was the author of the videos in underwear? You're making outrageous claims.

Crater posted Google arguments, if you took time to read my post you would see that I was being sarcastic. The guy who upload the videos you used has other videos in his account that he posted, one looks like he is in pjs or something. Still when all of his videos are titled "Steps to leaving theism" or whatever, they seem to be just a tiny bit on the bias side, don't you think

Again, based on your assumption of the user wearing pajamas, 99% of youtubers should also be wearing pajamas. Making this as an argument against the user is lacking and baseless. If you read about the user, his Channel was about his process how he de-converted from Christianity. How is it (or he) Bias in anyway? Please provide an example. Way to misrepresent his video titles Homestar. Nowhere does it say "Steps to leaving Theism" note that when using quotation marks, you should provide the actual title/quote used, not make up your own.
If I understand what you're actually referring to which is the Section 2 of the series: "Deconversion". He is not making steps on how to leave Theism, it is the process he underwent in deconverting. Vastly different meanings Homestar and far from being bias in anyway from the youtube user.
Based on these points, it seems you're making assumptions without looking into the subject more (actually watching the videos to see what he's talking about).

Not loss of confidence, but if your going to dismiss it saying it's bias why am I going to spend more time on it. We disagree. Your arguments are bias as well. You have to get over the fact that belief in God is not an irrational blind leap of faith. That's the issue I have with the post by you and Crater, you act like your theories are ironclad because you feel it's based only on what can be physically measured, but that doesn't make your argument airtight, it just narrows the conclusions you can draw.

Again, you seem to ignore the point that I provided an analysis and showed how they were manipulative of the actual scientific research. This is the reason for the claims I made previously. The belief of God is faith, in simple terms. Though we do not prevent you from doing so, we just indicate the problem on the subject. Why believe in a God when dismissing other forms of supernatural beings based on the same amount of evidence (or none at all) available? Where is the limit on what you believe and what you don't. Your arguments thus far can easily be applied to the validity of other supernatural beings, thus we point out the problem in your argument.
Having evidence to back up one's claim is more valid (or ironclad as you claim) than making a claim without evidence etc. Crater and I, in turn, are more confident in our claims since we have more sources to back up our claim. Also, Scientific Theories are well documented and studied research. Do not confuse it with the general term Theory. In the scientific community, non-documented/studied subjects are not theories, but hypotheses. It takes rigorous research, evidence and data to call a Scientific Hypothesis a Scientific Theory.

Belief in evolution is an act of “faith”
Why do many prominent evolutionists insist that macro-evolution is a fact? Richard Lewontin, an influential evolutionist, wrote that many scientists are willing to accept unproven scientific claims because they “have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” (Materialism in this sense, refers to a theory that everything in the universe, including all life, came into existence without any supernatural intervention in the process) Many scientists refuse even to consider the possibility of an intelligent Designer because, as Lewontin writes, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” (The New York Review of Books, “Billions and Billions of Demons,” by Richard C. Lewontin, January 9, 1997, pp. 28-32) If you feel this is quote mining it's not. Look up the reference yourself. I just did not feel like posting all 4 pages.

It would have been easier if you provided a link. Either way, I've attached the actual text Homestar is referring to.
Again, there is no argument or example showing where "many scientists are willing to accept unproven scientific claims because they “have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism".” The reason why Scientists do not consider the concept of a supernatural being in their theories is that there is no indication that a supernatural being exists. Supernatural cannot be measured or observed. Why should something be included in a study which has no basis, validity or even measurable/observed?
The claim that something must exist without possibility of collecting data/evidence/observations etc. is a bigger assumption than saying it doesn't exist (since there is no data/evidence indicating it).

It all comes to this: If you are to accept the teaching of macro-evolution as true, you must believe that agnostic or atheistic scientists will not let their personal beliefs influence their interpretations of scientific findings. You must believe that mutations and natural selection produced all complex lifeforms, despite a century of research that shows that mutations have not transformed even one properly defined species into something entirely new. You must believe that all creatures gradually evolved from a common ancestor, despite a fossil record that strongly indicates that the major kinds of plants and animals appeared abruptly and did not evolve into other kinds, even over aeons of time.
Now does all that sound as if it's based on facts, sorry I don't....

So many assumptions... where to begin?
1. The study of Evolution is not constrained to Atheism/Agnosticism.
2. Scientists try to stay as neutral as possible. Making a claim, such as a supernatural being that cannot be measured has to exist, is a wild assumption.
3. Evidence and data indicate that Mutations occur and natural (and artificial) selection occurs.
4. Mutations aren't the only mechanisms driving evolution.
5. The combination of mechanisms drive evolution, such as mutation, migration (gene flow), genetic drift, and natural selection. How variation, differential reproduction, and heredity occur in natural selection. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/e ... isms.shtml
6. Speciation has occurred. http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/ ... in-action/ and http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3790531.stm
7. DNA analysis indicates how each species is related to one another. Mapping everything out provides a family tree and it is shown that all species originated from a single ancestor.
8. Where does the fossil record indicate "major kinds of plants and animals appeared abruptly"? Are you referring to the Cambrian Explosion? If so, do note that this happened over many millions of years.
9. Please provide an example where organisms "did not evolve into other kinds". Thus far, the current evidence indicate otherwise.

The historical accuracy of the Bible is well documented and while not a science text book it is scientifically sound. As far as the Flood since that was one I heard outcry over, why is it so unbelievable? Over 71% of the earth is covered by seawater, if glaciers and polar ice caps were to melt, the sea level would rise to cover cities like New York and Tokyo. Also the ark was not a rounded boat as many artist drawings show. The bible says about the ark construction:

And this is how you will make it: three hundred cubits the length of the ark, fifty cubits its width, and thirty cubits its height.

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. This proportion of length to width (6 to 1) is used by modern naval architects. This gave the ark approximately 40,000 cu m (1,400,000 cu ft) in gross volume.

Here's a video explaining why the Flood story is not historically accurate (using math).
There is one error in the video when comparing how much extra water would be needed for the flood said 4.3 times as much as current volumes of water on Earth. It is actually 3.3 times as much. Just for clarification. Enjoy it nonetheless.

Note that Glaciers, Icecaps and Permanent Snow are only about 2% of the total volume of the Sea. Further note that Icecaps do not raise the sea-level when they melt. It is the melting of Glaciers and thermal expansion that causes sea level rise. If all the glaciers were to melt, seas would roughly rise to 60 meters. It is a lot, but barely comparable to what the Bible describes.

Cheers

Yanoda

[haasd0gg]

[Col. Hstar]

Yes that was a short retirement, but the Bible deserves a defense.

The Bible does not contradict itself. True, there may appear to be discrepancies in certain Bible accounts. But the problem usually is lack of knowledge regarding details and circumstances of the times. If you find a verse in the bible, that you think does, I'll come out of retirement to explain it :)

The problem is that you are making a blanket statement: "There are no contradictions". This means if I identify even one, which I can, your argument is disproved. If you want to rephrase it, go ahead, just know that its strength drops accordingly.

No I don't want to rephrase it I'll explain why at the end of the post

I'll repeat the link: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... tions.html Here are a few of the less pedantic-looking ones:

Judas died how?
"And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and hanged himself." (MAT 27:5)
"And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out." (ACT 1:18) Note from Crater: says he used the money to buy the field where this happened

Matthew 27:5 states that Judas hanged himself, whereas Acts 1:18 says that “pitching head foremost he noisily burst in his midst and all his intestines were poured out.” While Matthew seems to deal with the mode of the attempted suicide, Acts describes the results. Judas apparently tied a rope to the branch of a tree, put a noose around his neck, and tried to hang himself by jumping off a cliff. It seems that either the rope or the tree limb broke so that he plunged downward and burst open on the rocks below. The topography around Jerusalem makes such a conclusion reasonable.
The statement at Acts 1:18 that Judas “purchased a field” indicate that he furnished the means for purchasing the field, or was the occasion of doing so. The record at Matthew 27:3-10 shows that the priests used the 30 pieces of silver (if shekels, $66) thrown into the temple by Judas to make the actual purchase and that this “Field of Blood” was previously a potter’s field and was obtained by the priests “to bury strangers.”
Remember to keep things in context. Matthew was relating events as they pertained to Jesus’ life and ministry. The scripture in Acts is a "quote" from the discussion the apostles are having about replacing Judas.

God be seen?
EXO 24:9,10; AMO 9:1; GEN 26:2; and JOH 14:9
God CAN be seen:
"And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts." (EXO 33:23)
"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." (EXO 33:11)
"For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (GEN 32:30)
God CANNOT be seen:
"No man hath seen God at any time." (JOH 1:18)
"And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live." (EXO 33:20)
"Whom no man hath seen nor can see." (1TIM 6:16)

How did God speak to Moses “face to face” At Exodus 33:11? This expression denotes intimate two-way conversation. Moses talked with God’s representative and orally received instruction from Jehovah through him. But Moses did not see Jehovah, since ‘no man can see God and yet live.’ In fact, Jehovah did not personally speak to Moses. The Law “was transmitted through angels by the hand of a mediator,” - Galatians 3:19.

Why, then, the Law? It was added to make transgressions manifest, until the seed should arrive to whom the promise had been made; and it was transmitted through angels by the hand of a mediator.

This is actually proved by one of the scriptures you use. Exodus 33:23 was a part of the very conversations mentioned in vs 11. Moses asked to see the face or glory of God. After stating that no flesh can see God in all his glory and live Moses was told to stand high in the mountain, alone, Jehovah gave him a vision of his glory, putting his “palm” over Moses as a screen, allowing Moses to see his “back,” evidently the afterglow of this divine manifestation of glory.
What did Jacob mean by saying he had “seen God face to face”? The whole acct Gen 32:24-30 right before this statement by Jacob was that he was grappling with one of God’s Angels. As said before, Jehovah God used Angels to convey his messages to people back then. And it’s safe to assume that since angels are spirit creatures in God’s form, an angel would have looked like a God to Jacob

CRUEL, UNMERCIFUL, DESTRUCTIVE, and FEROCIOUS or KIND, MERCIFUL, and GOOD:
"I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy." (JER 13:14) "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling."
"The Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercy." (JAS 5:11)
"For his mercy endureth forever." (1CH 16:34)
"The Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works." (PSA 145:9)
"God is love." (1JO 4:16)

Not really a contradiction, The scripture you provide is an action taken against a rebelious nation. A father tells his child that he loves them, and then punishes them with a spanking. Is that contradiction? Are we to imagine that Jehovah’s tender compassion is without limits? Do you consider yourself a good person, but if I follow your reasoning, I hope you never get mad or angry.
The Bible states as you mentioned, that "God is Love" where does it say he is cruel. That would be a contradiction. No disrespect but this one was not anywhere near a contradiction, it comes off sounding like a child crying that his father doesn't love him because he got punished.

Some bonus stuff I wasn't going to include but I might as well

-Isaiah 9:7 - Jesus did nothing described there. He never ruled or governed. Isaiah was predicting the rise of a leader for the Jewish people.
No he was predicting the coming of the Messiah, the one who would rule God's Kingdom. The Jews mistakenly assumed he would rule physically on earth. But Jesus himself stated he would not do that.
-Isaiah 50:6 - Are we meant to assume, without any evidence I can see in this chapter or the surrounding, that this is Jesus speaking? It seems more general, in any case - no mention of any details like the crucifixion, etc.
In this passage Isaiah is talking of himself, and he may have experienced some of these trial, but the prophecy is fulfilled completely in Jesus Christ. And details? Why just so you can claim the writers added that to conform to the prophecy???
-Isaiah 53:12 - Again, excessively general. Effectively says "he will die for us", which is rather easy to fulfill (not to mention that those writing about Jesus would have been consciously trying to fit him into this prophecy).
Would you mind stating the proof you base this on? The gospel recordings of Matthew, Mark, Luke , and John are well accounted for as accurate by the historian Josephus. What proof do you base this comment on?

I know you provided links for other scriptures, but I am only going to expend time explaining, if you want to expend time asking. You can cite the link as your reference, but if you really want to debate a particular scripture do like you did with those first 3 scriptures.

But if it's not worth it to you that's fine with me.

Again, that "100%" essentially kills your argument. I have no clue why you're sabotaging yourself this way.

Now I'll explain it. I say 100% is because it is true. (a statement I will defend) You right it is a bold statement to make. The fact that I feel I can make that statement with confidence shows why I feel my faith is based on solid proof.

[Darth Crater]

... I really would like to continue the discussion with you, but I'm having difficulty doing so. You completely ignored the two sections of my post that I felt were most important (what is better than evidence, and how you defend the flood). What you did respond to, you seem to have shackled yourself to the insanely idiotic and demonstrably false idea that the Bible is completely infallible, all-knowing, and 100% accurate. Seriously, go talk to a religious scholar. I'm sure they can name, far better than I, many contradictions and unfulfilled prophecies. That, or bother to actually read my links, but I'm sure a scholar will have narrowed it down to the better ones. I'm sorry if I seem angry about this, but it's because I am. I have no problem with you believing a deity exists, other than that I disagree. Believing a book and its teachings are utterly infallible, though? That gets people killed.

Sure, you can construct a complicated backstory that weaves the contradicting bits into a coherent tale containing elements of both. This does not make them stop contradicting, as written. If Judas gave the money away, he could not have spent it. If he hung himself, he did not die via disembowelment. If God says "I will not have mercy", then he is not "good to all" and his mercy will not "endure forever". These are contradictions.

So, Isaiah predicted Jesus would rule on Earth. Jesus did not, in fact, rule on Earth. You attempt to justify this in hindsight via the "rule in Heaven" dogma. This does not mean Isaiah was correct. Why ask for details such as the crucifixion? So we could know it was actually talking about Jesus, as you claimed before, and not Isaiah, as you claim now. If there was actual detail of that kind, I'd consider possibilities other than "hindsight bias". Those writing about Jesus thought he was the Messiah, so they would have tried to make sense of the world through that belief.

You also need to respond to my criticism of the Flood story. If that is not true (which it isn't), the Bible is not perfectly accurate.

[Col. Hstar]

Believing a book and its teachings are utterly infallible, though? That gets people killed

Only thing to really respond to is this utterly stupid statement. Sorry if that's harsh, but it's true. To blame a book for all atrocities done in it name is to shift the blame off of the maniacs and evil humans who carried out those acts. Whatever event you refer to whether it be the crusades or the World Wars, any violence done in the name of the Bible is misguided and ignorant. The people who twist the words of the book are to blame.

As a completely and equally stupid response, If the evolutionary course is that man will naturally be replace by another species or something else does the act of people killing other people mean it's just the natural course of events? I know you don't believe that but you have to understand how stupid and ignorant I feel your comment about the bible is.

This was why I want to retire form these round and round arguments. As far as the flood, you cannot be 100% sure it didn't happen. We are not going to come up with the silver bullet that each side has been searching for. I am still willing to discuss the interpretation of scriptures if you want but that's it.

[Darth Crater]

The moment you give anything - the Bible, another book, another human, even yourself - the status of "infallible" you give up your free will. You bind yourself to do whatever is commanded by that thing, believe whatever it tells you, and in effect become an extension of it. If what it tells you hurts you, or hurts others - too bad, it's right. You can't make changes, improve, or surpass your idol.

I'm not blaming the things done by men on the Bible, or any other object. I'm blaming it on the men. Some of those men had the belief that someone, or something, they served was infallible. That thing told them to kill, or cause pain, and they did so. The problem isn't the thing, the problem is the belief.

If you disagree that you are like this, you cannot believe the Bible is infallible. If you ever disagree with anything it says, you must either explicitly give up free will to it or stop believing it is infallible.

As far as the flood, you cannot be 100% sure it didn't happen

Really? We're back to "You have no proof it isn't" again? We do have enough evidence and arguments to be called "proof" by anyone in the field. Many of the things being suggested are physically impossible. When all of the evidence we have points one way, and one unsupported book points the other, the answer is not "oh, we don't know for sure!".

This is an example of what I mentioned above - you say the Bible is infallible. Thus, you're bound to defend the Flood, no matter how unfixable and unsupported it is. You've stopped caring about the truth, and started trying to defend your master and ideology whatever the cost.

Finally - there's still one thing I wanted from you. An answer to this. When I can demonstrate and prove that beliefs based on evidence are more useful, why is this not enough? What should I use instead?

So, statistical data and facts (which is pretty close to the definition of "evidence") are not enough? What, then, do you suggest I use? I can demonstrate (and prove) that beliefs based on evidence are more beneficial to me than those that are not. (Quick example: say I have a fatal disease. Statistics say modern medicine cures it 99% of the time. Statistics say voodoo appears to cure it 33% of the time, about the same as with no treatment. Believing voodoo is more effective than modern medicine has a 66% chance of killing me.) What do you have that makes your beliefs perform better than those based on evidence? Or do you just want to believe them, regardless of cost?

[11_Panama_]

I saw a post that Nite made earlier....and it got me thinking. Wether you believe or not, can't you guys at least see the message that Jesus was bringing to the world? To love and take care of each other. Who cares if you believe in Him or not, he said some beautiful things...all aimed at living a good life. I was born a Roman Catholic, but I renouce all religion and put my faith in Him. Him. Do I need to see Him to believe in His words? I don't, because if beauty is all He left me, that's all I need.

[Darth Crater]

Agreed - many of the things taught by Christianity make plenty of sense. One of them you mention - the "golden rule" - is at the core of my philosophy. You don't have to reject anything that you agree with, or anything that will make the world a better place.

[Col. Hstar]

The moment you give anything - the Bible, another book, another human, even yourself - the status of "infallible" you give up your free will. You bind yourself to do whatever is commanded by that thing, believe whatever it tells you, and in effect become an extension of it. If what it tells you hurts you, or hurts others - too bad, it's right. You can't make changes, improve, or surpass your idol.

I guess the problem here is your under the impression that I think of the bible as an idol to be worshiped and literally followed like computer code for a computer. I don't worship it, and I don't blindly follow what someone tells me they think the bible says.
Definition of an idol :An image used as an object of worship.
I view the bible as the word of God. I feel as the creator, God knows best how humans can live a happy purposeful life. Rather then worship the Bible, I use it to better know the God That I have chosen to worship. It's like a map that we can use to tell us God's thoughts on different situations in life. The bible doesn't tell me to hurt others. What scripture do you see that says we are told to do any harm to people? Jesus said we should love our neighbor as ourselves, how can that imply that we should harm people?

I'm not blaming the things done by men on the Bible, or any other object. I'm blaming it on the men. Some of those men had the belief that someone, or something, they served was infallible. That thing told them to kill, or cause pain, and they did so. The problem isn't the thing, the problem is the belief.

If you disagree that you are like this, you cannot believe the Bible is infallible. If you ever disagree with anything it says, you must either explicitly give up free will to it or stop believing it is infallible.

Again, ignorance of what the message of the Bible says is why you feel this way. I'm not using the term ignorance as a "put down". I have free will despite believing the Bible is infallible. That free will is the choice to follow and apply to my life what I learn from the Bible.
You do not get to make the iron clad statement that I have no free will, when you yourself say you don't understand everything in the bible. As an example, you get very frustrated with me arguing about evolution, because of my "background". It's the same for me with your arguments about the Bible. There are literal portions, symbolic portions alike. A study of the Bible based on original texts (or as close as we have) includes discerning which is which.
Humans are different. We look at things differently. Who are you to say what I can and cannot view as infallible. Yes people have killed other because of what they thought was in the Bible, but people have also killed people because they wanted to read the bible

As far as the flood, you cannot be 100% sure it didn't happen

Really? We're back to "You have no proof it isn't" again? We do have enough evidence and arguments to be called "proof" by anyone in the field. Many of the things being suggested are physically impossible. When all of the evidence we have points one way, and one unsupported book points the other, the answer is not "oh, we don't know for sure!".
This is an example of what I mentioned above - you say the Bible is infallible. Thus, you're bound to defend the Flood, no er how unfixable and unsupported it is. You've stopped caring about the truth, and started trying to defend your master and ideology whatever the cost.

Of course I defend it. We don't have iron clad proof either way, this was discussed between us about creation and evolution. I have faith that the events of the flood happened the way the Bible says. My point is you cannot say 100% that it didn't happen, which leaves room for my faith. Your trying to project my beliefs into your own belief parameters. You only believe what you can physically measure and test, I add faith to those things, Again, as a different human being from you, I feel the evidence in support of the flood is enough when combined with my faith. Call it short sighted if you want, but read below first:

Finally - there's still one thing I wanted from you. An answer to this. When I can demonstrate and prove that beliefs based on evidence are more useful, why is this not enough? What should I use instead?

So, statistical data and facts (which is pretty close to the definition of "evidence") are not enough? What, then, do you suggest I use? I can demonstrate (and prove) that beliefs based on evidence are more beneficial to me than those that are not. (Quick example: say I have a fatal disease. Statistics say modern medicine cures it 99% of the time. Statistics say voodoo appears to cure it 33% of the time, about the same as with no treatment. Believing voodoo is more effective than modern medicine has a 66% chance of killing me.) What do you have that makes your beliefs perform better than those based on evidence? Or do you just want to believe them, regardless of cost?

I didn't respond before because I was somewhat confused by what you were saying at first. So now I'm going to give it a try, hopefully I interpreted what you mean correctly.....
First I stated that statistical data, and physical experimentation were not enough, considering the question we are discussing.I did not say it was inferior. That being the beginning of the universe, life and the existence of God, was the question we were discussing. When discussing the existence of God, how can you limit yourself to only what you can see and touch. (I know the scientific process is more complex then see and touch but for the rest of this post I'd rather not have to type it out each time).
It's a great process when you are trying to measure something that is already here for us to measure, hence my example of measuring the heat of the sun. It's also great for know whether modern medicine is better then voodoo medicine. Because that's the goal of your testing. The medicine example is a physical question with physical data and physical results. Your question was not, "why does the Voodoo medicine work?" it was which one works best.
The existence for God is not only a physical question, it's also a spiritual one. Sure you can treat it as a physical one, but you then box yourself into only physical answers, leaving out the spiritual ones.

@Pan, I too agree that there were many beautiful things that Jesus said, and I totally agree that all his teachings are words to live by. There were also things that he said we should be doing such as at Matthew 24:14 where he spoke of good news of the kingdom being preached. And at Matthew 28:19 we he told his followers to "Go therefore and make disciples of all the people of all the nations" It was these commands that made me ask what was it I am supposed to be doing. That's why I personally will away speak up, about the bible. Jesus views it as truth (John 17:17) This is why I do as well.