[_ Old Earth _] Questions about ID

[lordkalvan]

You seem determined to ignore every argument I have made to show that your interpretation of Exodus and its relationship to Genesis is disputed, not just by agnostics, atheists and 'Darwinist-Christians', but also by biblical scholars with no evolutionary axe to grind - unless you believe that Talmudic Rabbis and Moses Maimonides had a 'Darwinist' agenda underlying their understanding of OT text.

1. I have already conceded that even the ORTHODOX (i.e most strict of the Jewish sects) have caved in to Darwinian doctrine.

No, you claimed that Orthodox Rabbis who had 'caved in to Darwinian doctrine' supported your exegesis of Exodus 20. You have never evidenced this claim and have persistently avoided doing so. Anyway, this response ignores my point entirely. And again, are you suggesting that biblical scholars of Talmudic times and the Middle Ages, who as I have shown disagree with the literal days of Genesis interpretation that you cling to, 'caved in to Darwinian doctrine'? Your argument is absurd.

2. I have asked that you show "actual exegesis" of the Exodus 20:8-11 takes so IT can be "seen" to make your case... you steadfastly refuse to do that -- preferring to "talk around that point" instead.

You make some assumptions here. You assume that exegesis provides a value-free tool for determining absolute meaning; I have explained fully and with reasons why I believe this is not so. You also assume that I think your exegesis of Exodus 20 is absolutely wrong; I do not, I only believe that it is not persuasive and that other understandings of biblical text can be derived by biblical scholars whose knowledge and learning is at least the equal of yours, as I have demonstrated. Why should I believe your conclusions over and above theirs?

3. You also provide no example of anyone ELSE exegeting Exodus 20:8-11 showing THE TEXT to conform to the usage you need to make of it. All you show is that there are those who agree with your need to spin it -- but so far nothing showing IN EXODUS 20 (from either you or any of your sources showing that the TEXT was intented to be bent in such a darwinist fashion).

I make no usage of Exodus 2; I only contest your certainty about it.

4. Most innexplicable of ALL - when we compare your approach here to the one you used on the "Food for Noah" thread where you argued that the TEXT is faulty and can not be relied upon as a source of truth -- you have no problem admitting that the text does not support your bias... why not simply admit the same thing here as well? Use the same solution??

Irrelevant as I am not arguing the same thing. Even if I was and you were to accuse me of harbouring contradictions, I would give you Whistler's answer: I am large, I contain multitudes.

Having said that -- I still have THIS question for you -- why do you struggle so much trying to get the text to agree with you when ALSO claim the word of God is corrupt? (see your quotes below)

I do not struggle to get the text to agree with me. I struggle to point out that I believe your certainty about the text is misplaced. I also attempt to explain why I believe the OT is the imperfect rendition of imperfect human beings rather than the literal, inerrant word of God.

Given that you are already arguing FOR the untrustworthy unreliable nature of the Bible -- why do you spend so much time running away from exegesis of the text? Go ahead and admit that text is not preaching Darwinism and is promoting a 7 day week for humans - based on the 7 day week of Genesis -- where GOD MADE everything (you know... just like the text says)-- AFTER all you claim the text of scripture is pretty much worthless -- what harm then does it do your argument to admit the obvious about Exodus 20:98-11 is not preaching Darwinism -- no not even remotely?

What is stopping you -- given that you claim the text itself is so glaringly obvious and you provide no exegesis of it - AND you give no source SHOWN to exegete Exodus 20:8-11.

I have explained often and fully why I believe this exegesis to be a futile exercise influenced as it is by pre-existing assumptions and ideas. I decline to play this particular game. Are you prepared to concede that your exegesis of Exodus may have led you to a faulty conclusion?

.... you can not '"show me the probem with exegesis" without actually doing it -- or pointing to someone who did it in the case of Exodus 20.

You miss my point again.

If you are claiming to be more skilled at exegeting the text than I -- please actually "do it" at least "once".

I claim no such thing. I only claim that skill is no guarantee of certainty.

[quote:dca6f]
By the way, I am still awaiting further information on the evolutionary-accepting Orthodox Rabbis who supposedly support your 'exegesis' of Exodus and whose authority you used to upbraid me for my disagreement with your conclusions.

I have not provided Exegesis of Exodus 20 yet -- nor did I claim that they did that. I merely point to the linguistic argument from "Hebrew" that they are not claiming that there is anything in the Hebrew language that would argue in favor of "Changing the meaning of the word YOM in the middle of that text" just to please Darwinist doctrine.[/quote:dca6f]
Sorry to have conflated the threads; I sometimes lose track of which argument started where. Anyway, despite what you say here, the claim that you made that I am referring to seems entirely unequivocal to me:

HINT: Even Orthodox Rabis WHO DO TEACH Darwinism - agree - that the SIX DAY term in exodus 20 CAN NOT be "exegeted" or "BENT" to Darwinist needs.

And regardless of the interpretation of your remark, it still remains a fact that the Orthodox Rabbis to whom you refer remain wholly anonymous. I do not say that you are just making stuff up to suit your argument, but on the other hand without quotations, citations and references, how do I know that you aren't?

[quote:dca6f]Insofar as you have never really addressed them, you also seem with no very good reason to dismiss as insignificant the opinions of those biblical scholars I have referred you to whose conclusions are different from yours.

I did not find a single one of them even attempting to exegete Exodus 20 -- did I miss something??[/quote:dca6f]
You seem to miss the point that they do not consider it either certain or necessary that the days of creation were actual, literal 24-hour days as we know them now. This leads me to conclude that your exegesis of Exodus is not as persuasive as you claim it is.

 

[Snidey]

Barbarian,
That's not exactly a test but rather an interpretation of data collected. Others have tested the theory that the earth is flat by pouring water onto a sphere and as predicted the water ran off onto the floor. That in no way proved the earth to be flat but was rather a misinterpretation of the predicted outcome.

There are various ways to test evolution, and it does not have to involve interpreting already collected data. A better way, and the reason that evolution has become acknowledged as correct by the overwhelming majority of biologists, would be to predict the location in strata of a fossil that has not been discovered but is the predicted ancestor of existing relatives. This is why Lucy was such a big discovery. We compare morphologies, predict an ancestor, and find it in the fossil record. That's testable. An easier test is to merely separate populations and observe over time, which has been done numerous times, and is absolutely NOT an interpretation of data collected (which is a weird thing to say if you are scientifically minded, as all tests involve interpreting data that has been collected.)

Natural selection proves evolution?
Natural selection I believe. But all that's doing is developing a trait that's already there, nothing new has been added such as going from a fish to a mammal. A canine may have the traits or genes for short and long fur. Exposure to a colder climate through successive propagation essentially heightens the trait of long fur thus enabling those that retain the gene to survive. Along the way though the short fur gene may be lost and attempting to recondition the animal back to a warmer climate would then be unsuccessful.

Natural selection is the mechanism through which evolution functions, and is not proof of it in and of itself as much as an obvious and logical explanation for it. If mutations can occur (everyone agrees they do), then beneficial mutations will make a creature more likely to survive, and so forth. It's a common sense explanation for how evolution is happening. I don't understand your main point - mutations are required for many evolutionary changes - they are not "already there" in the sense that you seem to be implying.

 

[Rick W]

then beneficial mutations will make a creature more likely to survive, and so forth.

Yes, that's the common belief I suppose yet the majority of evidence seems to suggest that beneficial mutation simply isn't a prevalent mechanism found in nature. The evidence is stacked against such an idea though many pursue the quest to prove beneficial mutation occurs with enough regularity to fuel the engine of evolution even through a lifelong endeavor to do so. But the odds are against such a natural and common occurrence. Mutation detracts from functionality through disease, various cancers and deformities of all kinds degrading the organism's chance of survival of the fittest. The aging process is also associated with DNA mutation. And while most if not all evidence shown to support beneficial mutation is centered on bacteria and/or viruses these instances still leave the bacteria as that, bacteria. (Speciation is one thing... going from class to class or type to type is quite another) Natural and inherent systems of DNA repair are constantly at work within the cell. This also narrows the most slimmest of chances that a beneficial mutation would even survive.
And I'm not a big fan of the "given enough time anything can happen" ideas. This idea coupled with the idea of beneficial mutation is the sole engine of the evolutionist's belief system. I honestly believe that as we gain more knowledge in the mechanics of life it will become increasingly apparent that the odds are stacked against the ideas of evolution.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

I honestly believe that as we gain more knowledge in the mechanics of life it will become increasingly apparent that the odds are stacked against the ideas of evolution.

You may believe this, but it certainly is not the case.

In fact, the exact opposite is true. Shall we go tit for tat over papers and discovery over the last 20 years for each side?

You showing a progression in a decrease in support, while I'll provide sources and papers of new discoveries shedding light on how ToE works.

Now of course I am assuming you mean ToE and nothing to do with a fine-tuned universe, or abiogenesis.

 

[Snidey]

then beneficial mutations will make a creature more likely to survive, and so forth.

Yes, that's the common belief I suppose yet the majority of evidence seems to suggest that beneficial mutation simply isn't a prevalent mechanism found in nature. The evidence is stacked against such an idea though many pursue the quest to prove beneficial mutation occurs with enough regularity to fuel the engine of evolution even through a lifelong endeavor to do so. But the odds are against such a natural and common occurrence. Mutation detracts from functionality through disease, various cancers and deformities of all kinds degrading the organism's chance of survival of the fittest. The aging process is also associated with DNA mutation. And while most if not all evidence shown to support beneficial mutation is centered on bacteria and/or viruses these instances still leave the bacteria as that, bacteria. (Speciation is one thing... going from class to class or type to type is quite another) Natural and inherent systems of DNA repair are constantly at work within the cell. This also narrows the most slimmest of chances that a beneficial mutation would even survive.
And I'm not a big fan of the "given enough time anything can happen" ideas. This idea coupled with the idea of beneficial mutation is the sole engine of the evolutionist's belief system. I honestly believe that as we gain more knowledge in the mechanics of life it will become increasingly apparent that the odds are stacked against the ideas of evolution.

This is addressed basically repeatedly by those with a more thorough understanding of evolution, but creationists are masters of repeating the same arguments, so I might as well provide the same refutation.

Beneficial mutations are indeed not common. The vast, vast majority of them are neutral. Of the remaining, by a small amount most are harmful, the rest are helpful. Estimates vary as to how many mutations on average are helpful, but I have heard numbers like 1 in 150 and thereabouts quite a bit. Mutations are not uncommon - according to the National Center for Biotechnology Information, the average human zygote contains 128 mutations. Further mutations occur over the course of our lifetime. That means assuming a conservative 6 billion humans, the people alive today are carrying a bare minimum of three quarters of a trillion mutations.

We can even see beneficial mutations in humans today. Certain Tibetans have mutations that allow them to survive for longer periods at high altitudes. The CCR5-Delta 32 mutation can provide extraordinary resistance - possibly immunity - to AIDS. Tetrachromacy - the ability to see some of the ultraviolet spectrum - has been linked to a mutation being found in some women. Even super strong people are resulting from mutations (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5278028/).

We do not need (poorly conceived) odds calculations to "guess" whether or not beneficial mutations can appear and survive. They can and do, and it's something we have seen before and will continue to see as long as we are observing, because genetic mutation is not a hypothetical, but an empirical reality. Even with almost entirely neutral mutations, it's much more accurate to say that with all the mutations occurring, positive mutations are an inevitability, not an impossibility.

 

[Rick W]

I've said what I wanted to say and I mean that as no offense.
Anyway,
Keep things civil in here and there won't be any problems. This is a public forum in that things posted here can and do show up in search engines. Help keep this site as Christian in manner as intended and enjoy the discussions.

 

[jmm9683]

I've said what I wanted to say and I mean that as no offense.
Anyway,
Keep things civil in here and there won't be any problems. This is a public forum in that things posted here can and do show up in search engines. Help keep this site as Christian in manner as intended and enjoy the discussions.

No response when actual facts are presented that completely refute your argument. Just as we all expected.

 

[Rick W]

I've said what I wanted to say and I mean that as no offense.
Anyway,
Keep things civil in here and there won't be any problems. This is a public forum in that things posted here can and do show up in search engines. Help keep this site as Christian in manner as intended and enjoy the discussions.

No response when actual facts are presented that completely refute your argument. Just as we all expected.

You're going to believe what you want to believe and so am I. That's a given. I don't see any reason why or how I am the least bit obligated to say anymore on a subject I've debated many times in the past. I don't have that desire to "win" a discussion and I'm not going to waste any of my time in a vain attempt to do so. I've been on numerous forums over the years and have learned long ago nobody ever "wins" anyway.
:smt102

carry on

 

[Barbarian]

Yes, that's the common belief I suppose yet the majority of evidence seems to suggest that beneficial mutation simply isn't a prevalent mechanism found in nature.

When we actually find the reason behind an adaptation, so far, it's always been a mutation to produce a different allele.

The evidence is stacked against such an idea

I like evidence. Show me.

though many pursue the quest to prove beneficial mutation occurs with enough regularity to fuel the engine of evolution even through a lifelong endeavor to do so. But the odds are against such a natural and common occurrence. Mutation detracts from functionality through disease, various cancers and deformities of all kinds degrading the organism's chance of survival of the fittest.

You've been misled on that. Most mutations don't do much of anything. We all have a few.

The aging process is also associated with DNA mutation.

It's actually sort of programmed. We're adapted to live a limited time. Each time a cell reproduces, it loses telemers from the end of the chromosomes. When it gets short enough, the cell can't divide, and dies. This is what causes aging.

Interestingly, there is a way to prevent this, although it's very expensive. There is a chemical that induces telemers to repair themselves. People are still working on it.

And while most if not all evidence shown to support beneficial mutation is centered on bacteria and/or viruses these instances still leave the bacteria as that, bacteria. (Speciation is one thing... going from class to class or type to type is quite another)

Ah, the "man can walk a hundred yards, but he can't walk four miles" argument. You really believe that? Really?

Natural and inherent systems of DNA repair are constantly at work within the cell. This also narrows the most slimmest of chances that a beneficial mutation would even survive.

And yet, we know about dozens of them.

And I'm not a big fan of the "given enough time anything can happen" ideas.

Neither is evolutionary theory.

This idea coupled with the idea of beneficial mutation is the sole engine of the evolutionist's belief system.

My goodness, no. Where did you get that?

I honestly believe that as we gain more knowledge in the mechanics of life it will become increasingly apparent that the odds are stacked against the ideas of evolution.

It's directly observed. Not much chance of that being wrong.

 

[lordkalvan]

...is an utterly untestable notion for science...

Some of your beliefs I find you defending here are just as untestable as some of my beliefs. How does one test the "Big Bang"? Or how does one test the mechanics of the theory of evolution? Or how does one test the evolution of man from microbe which in my mind is just as an exaggerated or untestable claim/belief as you believe Christ creating the fishes would be.

Well, we look at the evidence that supports those theories. We also look for evidence that will invalidate them. So far, the weight of observed evidence suggests that both theories are withstanding critical scrutiny, although this does not mean to say that either theory is fixed and unchanging, nor that it may be shown to be inadequate at some point in the future; advances in knowledge and understanding are incorporated into scientific theories all the time.

I don't find debating such theories much different from debating Buddhism, Hinduism or anything else which is based on a belief or the conclusions drawn or opinion formed from a pool of "believable" evidence through the faith of the believer whatever that may be.

Except that faith often involves denying or ignoring contrary evidence. I do not say that science is free of such bias, but its mechanisms are at least directed to overcoming this while such mechanisms seem to be entirely absent in faith.

 

[Rick W]

I honestly believe there is is a mix of two things concerning evolution. Fact and theory.
There is fact in variation within any specific class known as speciation. Are there beneficial changes within those classes? Yes, and it's these changes evolutionists cite as evidence for their belief. Is it real? Yes, of course it is. Are evolutionists correct to point out these facts? You bet.

The theory is introduced when facts in variations are elaborated upon or believed to be the mechanism to go from say a fish to a frog... class to class. It's said this transition takes place over many generations over the span of many years if not thousands or even millions. But the differing parts to make up the different class must be intact or natural selection of survivability kills off the dysfunctional organism. If all this transition over millions of years is true then we should have no problem finding evidence of these transitions, in fact, we should be absolutely swamped with it. Yet, what we have in abundance instead are fully formed creatures with all their parts intact and functional.

I'll buy the statement that evolution is both fact and theory. Fact in variation within the class but theory for transition between classes.

Bacteria can reproduce another generation within hours. Fruit flies are another specimen scientists choose to study because it takes just over a week to go from egg to adult. But in both cases, even after countless generations with thousands of variations and under just about every conceivable condition the bacteria remains bacteria and the fruit flies remain fruit flies. With some bacteria generation time measured in minutes it's not inconceivable to observe thousands of generations over a matter of a few years yet I don't see anyone reporting that a bacteria in some lab somewhere turned into something else after so many generations other than what it was, bacteria.

 

[lordkalvan]

The fiction is introduced when facts in variations are elaborated upon or believed to be the mechanism to go from say a fish to a frog... class to class. It's said this transition takes place over many generations over the span of many years if not thousands or even millions. But the differing parts to make up the different class must be intact or natural selection of survivability kills off the dysfunctional organism. If all this transition over millions of years is true then we should have no problem finding evidence of these transitions, in fact, we should be absolutely swamped with it. Yet, what we have in abundance instead are fully formed creatures with all their parts intact and functional.

Some of the species you refer to that are alive today are undoubtedly transitional species; you may be one yourself. Others are doomed to extinction with no direct descendants at all. The fossil record is sparse and idiosyncratic because of the particular and limited conditions under which fossils can form and the dynamic processes of Earth's geology. Charles Darwin recognized and addressed these problems himself in Chapter VI of On the Origin of Species:

As natural selection acts solely by the preservation of profitable modifications, each new form will tend in a fully-stocked country to take the place of, and finally to exterminate, its own less improved parent-form and other less-favoured forms with which it comes into competition. Thus extinction and natural selection go hand in hand. Hence, if we look at each species as descended from some unknown form, both the parent and all the transitional varieties will generally have been exterminated by the very process of the formation and perfection of the new form.

But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? It will be more convenient to discuss this question in the chapter on the imperfection of the geological record; and I will here only state that I believe the answer mainly lies in the record being incomparably less perfect than is generally supposed. The crust of the earth is a vast museum; but the natural collections have been imperfectly made, and only at long intervals of time.

Palaeontologists have identified and in some cases predicted the existence of transitional species in the fossil record, the best known recent example being Tiktaalik. It is also the case that embryology and molecular genetics point to the hidden patterns of relatedness amongst species. If you disagree that these are indeed evidences of common descent, you need to challenge science with science rather than personal incredulity that transition must happen instantly or not at all. To rephrase Richard Dawkins' response to the question of what use would half an eye be, twice as much use as a quarter of an eye.

For Professor Dawkins' argument in more detail, see:

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins...Dawkins/Work/Articles/1995-06-16peepers.shtml

 

[Rick W]

Perhaps if one could produce evidence of measurable change of specimen of bacteria after say 50,000 generations to another class then maybe you may have something.
Say generation time or doubling time equals 4 hours. 50,000 generations is not out of the question concerning a time of 20 years. We've been dabbling in microbiology much longer than that. Surely someone, somewhere has documented the change to another class in bacteria since then. Especially when scientists are so intense on proving the mechanics of evolution.
Again, I'm not arguing speciation. I'm not arguing species or variances thereof but rather from one classification of organism/animal to another classification.

I'll be install Linux openSUSE today, check the "Teck Talk" forum (along with saturday's honey do's) so i won't be here until possibly, hopefully this evening.

 

[Snidey]

I honestly believe there is is a mix of two things concerning evolution. Fact and theory.
There is fact in variation within any specific class known as speciation. Are there beneficial changes within those classes? Yes, and it's these changes evolutionists cite as evidence for their belief. Is it real? Yes, of course it is. Are evolutionists correct to point out these facts? You bet.

I will spare you the typical lecture on what "theory" actually means to a biologist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory) and figure that you basically mean evolution is comprised of facts and assumptions. This is actually correct, but those assumptions don't require any leap of faith, just a glance at the available evidence.

Actually, variation within a class is not necessarily speciation - speciation would be the emergence of new species. This is actually something almost every creationist I've ever seen or heard about contends, so I'm a little surprised that you believe new species can arise, if you did intend to phrase it that way.

The theory is introduced when facts in variations are elaborated upon or believed to be the mechanism to go from say a fish to a frog... class to class.

Neither "fish" nor "frog" is a taxonomic class, so this is an odd thing to say. What you seem to be referring to, though correct me if I'm wrong, is the Biblical idea of "kinds," which holds no scientific weight as far as classification goes. "Class" is a scientific classification, but like many others it is slightly vague and basically designed to help organized the massive amount of organisms that have been observed, past and present. More importantly, what is necessary for evolution is NOT evolution from one class to another existing class, which would be a strange occurrence indeed, but rather the emergence of different classes from a single ancestor, which is not strange and actually occurred.

It's said this transition takes place over many generations over the span of many years if not thousands or even millions. But the differing parts to make up the different class must be intact or natural selection of survivability kills off the dysfunctional organism. If all this transition over millions of years is true then we should have no problem finding evidence of these transitions, in fact, we should be absolutely swamped with it. Yet, what we have in abundance instead are fully formed creatures with all their parts intact and functional.

Irreducible complexity argument, yikes. Again you misuse class, so I'm a little confused by your statements (especially your second sentence). What transitions do you believe are missing? If you named them we could get specific here. I am baffled by your statement that transitional forms are lacking, as they certainly are not, despite the fact that fossilization processes are very unlikely. Your last sentence is strange and really makes little sense in application. All the creatures we find are "fully formed"? What do you mean? All species are always evolving, so calling one "fully formed" is strange. We have observed numerous intermediary species and parts. Lucy was not a "fully formed" creature in the sense that her kind eventually evolved into both humans and modern apes. It's also very strange that you'd say all parts are functional, which is hardly true. Even humans have various vestigial parts.

I'll buy the statement that evolution is both fact and theory. Fact in variation within the class but theory for transition between classes.

I'll agree with your first sentence. Evolution is a theory that is also a fact. Your second sentence is incorrect. Species are capable of eventually evolving out of their class. What do you believe is the specific biological mechanism preventing this?

Bacteria can reproduce another generation within hours. Fruit flies are another specimen scientists choose to study because it takes just over a week to go from egg to adult. But in both cases, even after countless generations with thousands of variations and under just about every conceivable condition the bacteria remains bacteria and the fruit flies remain fruit flies. With some bacteria generation time measured in minutes it's not inconceivable to observe thousands of generations over a matter of a few years yet I don't see anyone reporting that a bacteria in some lab somewhere turned into something else after so many generations other than what it was, bacteria.

Every time a change occurs, that is a different organism. We have seen organisms evolve to the point where they cannot produce fertile offspring with the original species - the definition of speciation. Why, if you believe in small changes, are you unable to believe that these small changes will eventually compound and represent vast differences? I ask again - what biological mechanism prevents the compounding of those small changes into an evolution of one species to another?

 

[lordkalvan]

]I believe that the Bible is trustworthy and self-correcting. I would say that at some point in history a few characters have been copied incorrectly. These "typos" can be corrected by the surrounding text. I do not think any scribe was able to mistake "now" for "never", or "day" for "millions of years", but then I'm a believer. I only ask how much one has to believe in something to count oneself as a believer. When does one become a disbeliever? How does one know what parts are true? When one says they believe in God but don't believe God ensures the integrity of His own word, how can they know the one in whom they profess to believe?

Well, to take one example, do you regard the directions in Leviticus 14 as effective treatment for the cure of leprosy? If you became ill with leprosy, would you follow the 'trustworthy and self-correcting' biblical instructions, confident in a cure, or would you prefer to place yourself in the hands of medical science? If the latter, are you sure that you are not thereby doubting 'the integrity of His own word'?

 

[lordkalvan]

I'll buy the statement that evolution is both fact and theory. Fact in variation within the class but theory for transition between classes.

Are you sure that you are using 'class' in the generally accepted sense in biology? If you are, you seem to be accepting that, for example, given time a single species of mammal could evolve into elephants, whales and human beings (Mammalia being the class in this example). If you can accept this as entirely plausible, I do not really see how you can object to the idea, that given time, evolution across class boundaries can also occur.

 

[Barbarian]

It should also be pointed out that irreducible complexity has been directly observed to evolve in bacteria.

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/AcidTest.html

 

[DavidLee]

]I believe that the Bible is trustworthy and self-correcting. I would say that at some point in history a few characters have been copied incorrectly. These "typos" can be corrected by the surrounding text. I do not think any scribe was able to mistake "now" for "never", or "day" for "millions of years", but then I'm a believer. I only ask how much one has to believe in something to count oneself as a believer. When does one become a disbeliever? How does one know what parts are true? When one says they believe in God but don't believe God ensures the integrity of His own word, how can they know the one in whom they profess to believe?

Well, to take one example, do you regard the directions in Leviticus 14 as effective treatment for the cure of leprosy?

Yes, because the actions taken are a testament to the faith of the doer.

If you became ill with leprosy, would you follow the 'trustworthy and self-correcting' biblical instructions, confident in a cure, or would you prefer to place yourself in the hands of medical science? If the latter, are you sure that you are not thereby doubting 'the integrity of His own word'?

Not the instructions in Leviticus. But not because it isn't trustworthy.

“Is anyone among you sick? Then he must call for the elders of the church and they are to pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord;â€Â
(James 5:14 NASB)

God honors His word.

 

[lordkalvan]

Well, to take one example, do you regard the directions in Leviticus 14 as effective treatment for the cure of leprosy?

Yes, because the actions taken are a testament to the faith of the doer.

If you became ill with leprosy, would you follow the 'trustworthy and self-correcting' biblical instructions, confident in a cure, or would you prefer to place yourself in the hands of medical science? If the latter, are you sure that you are not thereby doubting 'the integrity of His own word'?

Not the instructions in Leviticus. But not because it isn't trustworthy.

You seem to want to have your cake and to eat it too.

If the success of treatment is dependent solely upon the faith of the sufferer, what need would there be for the bizarre nostrums proposed by Leviticus 14? Indeed, what differences do they have from any other shamanic remedies for illness practised by pre-scientific cultures for millennia?

If you are not prepared to follow the instructions for treating leprosy in Leviticus 14 even though you regard them as trustworthy, why do you prefer (as I assume you do) the treatments offered by medical science?

Is there any evidence that the proposed treatment for leprosy in Leviticus 14 would have been effective then, now or at any intervening time?

I do not see how you can use the Bible as evidence for the trustworthiness of the Bible, as your argument then becomes wholly circular. If your only answer is, and I paraphrase so please forgive me if I have misunderstood you, that if the Bible says it is so then it must be so, your argument devolves to that of an unquestioning faith uninterested in anything remotely approaching evidence and this is a wholly pointless discussion.

 

[DavidLee]

If you became ill with leprosy, would you follow the 'trustworthy and self-correcting' biblical instructions, confident in a cure, or would you prefer to place yourself in the hands of medical science? If the latter, are you sure that you are not thereby doubting 'the integrity of His own word'?

Not the instructions in Leviticus. But not because it isn't trustworthy.

You seem to want to have your cake and to eat it too.

I am not under the Law.

If the success of treatment is dependent solely upon the faith of the sufferer, what need would there be for the bizarre nostrums proposed by Leviticus 14?

The treatment is dependent on the giver:

“Who pardons all your iniquities, Who heals all your diseases;â€Â
(Psalms 103:3 NASB)

A verbal acknowledgment is not the same as trusting. Our actions are predicated by our beliefs.

Indeed, what differences do they have from any other shamanic remedies for illness practised by pre-scientific cultures for millennia?

Faith (trust) in the creator who is able to back up His word.

If you are not prepared to follow the instructions for treating leprosy in Leviticus 14 even though you regard them as trustworthy, why do you prefer (as I assume you do) the treatments offered by medical science?

I do not prefer treatments from medical science. I've had them (but not for a very long time, and never again). I rely on God. Should I contract a disease that threatens my life, I will follow no other course of action. God is able to sustain me. If He does not, then so be it. I trust Him, because He is trustworthy. I have seen Him honor that trust. Repeatedly.

Is there any evidence that the proposed treatment for leprosy in Leviticus 14 would have been effective then, now or at any intervening time?

An argument from my experience does not convince you. I find God trustworthy (as did the Israelites), you do not. I cannot convince you.

I do not see how you can use the Bible as evidence for the trustworthiness of the Bible, as your argument then becomes wholly circular. If your only answer is, and I paraphrase so please forgive me if I have misunderstood you, that if the Bible says it is so then it must be so, your argument devolves to that of an unquestioning faith uninterested in anything remotely approaching evidence and this is a wholly pointless discussion.

If you do not understand my argument, how can you restate it?
If you are looking to the bible as anything other than a way to know God and His attributes then you will be disappointed. If you look to believers for anything other than belief you will be disappointed.

You have offered supposed facts that contradict my experience, not my will. You have no experience to contradict. What facts can I offer? As to the pointlessness of this discussion, you are probably correct, but you asked.

What part (if any) of the bible do you find trustworthy?