The flaws in Intelligent design

[Hockeycowboy]

Faith is believing without evidence

This is wrong. Faith can be misplaced, though.... like the German peoples' faith in Hitler. But it was based on evidence, on what he did for them prior to WWII

I've just posted many evidences detailing what my faith is built on.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Subduction Zone

Other lines of evidence:

**"There are many strands of evidence proving that the Bible really is God’s Word. Each strand is strong, but when all are taken together, they are unbreakable. In this chapter and the one following, we will discuss just one strand of evidence: the history of the Bible as a book. The truth is, it is nothing short of a miracle that this remarkable book has survived until today. Consider the facts for yourself....

these 66 books were written over a period of about 1,600 years, beginning when Egypt was a dominant power and ending when Rome was mistress of the world.

Only the Bible Survived

More than 3,000 years ago, when the writing of the Bible got started, Israel was just one small nation among many in the Middle East. Jehovah was their God, while the surrounding nations had a bewildering variety of gods and goddesses. During that period of time, the Israelites were not the only ones to produce religious literature. Other nations too produced written works that reflected their religion and their national values. For example, the Akkadian legend of Gilgamesh from Mesopotamia and the Ras Shamra epics, written in Ugaritic (a language spoken in what is now northern Syria), were doubtless very popular. The vast literature of that era also included works such as The Admonitions of Ipu-wer and The Prophecy of Nefer-rohu in the Egyptian language, hymns to different divinities in Sumerian, and prophetic works in Akkadian.1


All these Middle Eastern works, however, met a common fate. They were forgotten, and even the languages they were written in became extinct. It was only in recent years that archaeologists and philologists learned of their existence and discovered how to read them. On the other hand, the first written books of the Hebrew Bible have survived right up to our own time and are still widely read. Sometimes scholars claim that the Hebrew books in the Bible were derived in some way from those ancient literary works. But the fact that so much of that literature was forgotten while the Hebrew Bible survived marks the Bible as significantly different.

The Guardians of the Word

Make no mistake, from a human standpoint the survival of the Bible was not a foregone conclusion. The communities that produced it suffered such difficult trials and bitter oppression that its survival to our day is truly remarkable. In the years before Christ, the Jews who produced the Hebrew Scriptures (the “Old Testament”) were a relatively small nation. They dwelt precariously amid powerful political states that were jostling with one another for supremacy. Israel had to fight for its life against a succession of nations, such as the Philistines, the Moabites, the Ammonites, and the Edomites. During a period when the Hebrews were divided into two kingdoms, the cruel Assyrian Empire virtually wiped out the northern kingdom, while the Babylonians destroyed the southern kingdom, taking the people into an exile from which only a remnant returned 70 years later.


There are even reports of attempted genocide against the Israelites. Back in the days of Moses, Pharaoh ordered the murder of all their newborn baby boys. If his order had been observed, the Hebrew people would have been annihilated. (Exodus 1:15-22) Much later, when the Jews came under Persian rule, their enemies plotted to get a law passed intended to exterminate them. (Esther 3:1-15) The failure of this scheme is still celebrated in the Jewish Festival of Purim.

Later still, when the Jews were subject to Syria, King Antiochus IV tried very hard to Hellenize the nation, forcing it to follow Greek customs and worship Greek gods. He too failed. Instead of being wiped out or assimilated, the Jews survived while, one after the other, most of the national groups around them disappeared from the world scene. And the Hebrew Scriptures of the Bible survived with them.


The Christians, who produced the second part of the Bible (the “New Testament”), were also an oppressed group. Their leader, Jesus, was killed like a common criminal. In the early days after his death, Jewish authorities in Palestine tried to suppress them. When Christianity spread to other lands, the Jews hounded them, trying to hinder their missionary work.—Acts 5:27, 28; 7:58-60; 11:19-21; 13:45; 14:19; 18:5, 6.

In the time of Nero, the initially tolerant attitude of the Roman authorities changed. Tacitus boasted of the “exquisite tortures” inflicted on Christians by that vicious emperor, and from his time on, being a Christian was a capital offense.2 In 303 C.E., Emperor Diocletian acted directly against the Bible.* In an effort to stamp out Christianity, he ordered that all Christian Bibles should be burned.3

These campaigns of oppression and genocide were a real threat to the Bible’s survival. If the Jews had gone the way of the Philistines and the Moabites or if the efforts of first the Jewish and then the Roman authorities to stamp out Christianity had succeeded, who would have written and preserved the Bible? Happily, the guardians of the Bible—first the Jews and then the Christians—were not wiped out, and the Bible survived. There was, however, another serious threat if not to the survival at least to the integrity of the Bible.

Fallible Copies

Many of the aforementioned ancient works that were subsequently forgotten had been engraved in stone or stamped on durable clay tablets. Not so the Bible. This was originally written on papyrus or on parchment—much more perishable materials. Thus, the manuscripts produced by the original writers disappeared long, long ago. How, then, was the Bible preserved? Countless thousands of copies were laboriously written out by hand. This was the normal way to reproduce a book before the advent of printing.


There is, however, a danger in copying by hand. Sir Frederic Kenyon, the famous archaeologist and librarian of the British Museum, explained: “The human hand and brain have not yet been created which could copy the whole of a long work absolutely without error. . . . Mistakes were certain to creep in.”4 When a mistake crept into a manuscript, it was repeated when that manuscript became the basis for future copies. When many copies were made over a long period of time, numerous human errors crept in.

In view of the many thousands of copies of the Bible that were made, how do we know that this reproduction process did not change it beyond all recognition? Well, take the case of the Hebrew Bible, the “Old Testament.” In the second half of the sixth century B.C.E., when the Jews returned from their Babylonian exile, a group of Hebrew scholars known as Sopherim, “scribes,” became the custodians of the Hebrew Bible text, and it was their responsibility to copy those Scriptures for use in public and private worship. They were highly motivated, professional men, and their work was of the highest quality.

From the seventh century to the tenth century of our Common Era, the heirs of the Sopherim were the Masoretes. Their name comes from a Hebrew word meaning “tradition,” and essentially they too were scribes charged with the task of preserving the traditional Hebrew text. The Masoretes were meticulous. For example, the scribe had to use a properly authenticated copy as his master text, and he was not allowed to write anything from memory. He had to check each letter before writing it.5Professor Norman K. Gottwald reports: “Something of the care with which they discharged their duties is indicated in the rabbinic requirement that all new manuscripts were to be proofread and defective copies discarded at once.”6


How accurate was the transmission of the text by the Sopherim and the Masoretes? Until 1947 it was difficult to answer that question, since the earliest available complete Hebrew manuscripts were from the tenth century of our Common Era. In 1947, however, some very ancient manuscript fragments were found in caves in the vicinity of the Dead Sea, including parts of books of the Hebrew Bible. A number of fragments dated to before the time of Christ. Scholars compared these with existing Hebrew manuscripts to confirm the accuracy of the transmission of the text. What was the result of this comparison?

One of the oldest works discovered was the complete book of Isaiah, and the closeness of its text to that of the Masoretic Bible we have today is amazing. Professor Millar Burrows writes: “Many of the differences between the [recently discovered] St. Mark’s Isaiah scroll and the Masoretic text can be explained as mistakes in copying. Apart from these, there is a remarkable agreement, on the whole, with the text found in the medieval manuscripts. Such agreement in a manuscript so much older gives reassuring testimony to the general accuracy of the traditional text.”7Burrows adds: “It is a matter for wonder that through something like a thousand years the text underwent so little alteration.”*

In the case of the part of the Bible written in Greek by Christians, the so-called New Testament, the copyists were more like gifted amateurs than like the highly trained professional Sopherim. But working as they did under the threat of punishment by the authorities, they took their work seriously. And two things assure us that we today have a text essentially the same as that penned by the original writers. First, we have manuscripts dated much closer to the time of writing than is the case with the Hebrew part of the Bible. Indeed, one fragment of the Gospel of John is from the first half of the second century, less than 50 years from the date when John probably wrote his Gospel. Second, the sheer number of manuscripts that have survived provides a formidable demonstration of the soundness of the text.

On this point, Sir Frederic Kenyon testified: “It cannot be too strongly asserted that in substance the text of the Bible is certain. Especially is this the case with the New Testament. The number of manuscripts of the New Testament, of early translations from it, and of quotations from it in the oldest writers of the Church, is so large that it is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved in some one or other of these ancient authorities. This can be said of no other ancient book in the world.”10"**

Source: The Bible’s Fight to Live — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

To be continued.....

The Bible was written much more closely over a five hundred year period than over a 1,500 year period. Your site is basing that claim on myths in the Bible rather than on evidence. Your site disqualifies itself from the discussion with such blatant flaws.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

and a third joke link. Surely you can do better than that.

You don't want to learn anything, huh? That's OK, others might.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is wrong. Faith can be misplaced, though.... like the German peoples' faith in Hitler. But it was based on evidence, on what he did for them prior to WWII

I've just posted many evidences detailing what my faith is built on.

It is too bad that you could not find any reliable evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You don't want to learn anything, huh? That's OK, others might.

You have that backwards. I do want to learn. If what you claim is true you should be able to do better than biased propaganda sites.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The Bible was written much more closely over a five hundred year period than over a 1,500 year period. Your site is basing that claim on myths in the Bible rather than on evidence. Your site disqualifies itself from the discussion with such blatant flaws.

The Silver Scrolls refute your assertion.

Archaeology is constantly validating the Scriptures.

Gotta love it!

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You have that backwards. I do want to learn. If what you claim is true you should be able to do better than biased propaganda sites.

You mean like those promoting Ernst Haekle's embryos?

Lol.

I suppose if you read that Hitler quoted from Einstein, you'd ignore Einstein from then on?

The value in any information comes not from who uses it, but from the information, itself.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This is wrong. Faith can be misplaced, though.... like the German peoples' faith in Hitler. But it was based on evidence, on what he did for them prior to WWII

I've just posted many evidences detailing what my faith is built on.

You posted a bunch of claims with no real support. So, yes, you posted what faith is built on. Oddly, not in the way you probably intended.

 

[Ellen Brown]

No, you did not. You stated that both ID and Evolution were each a hypothesis and you are in error, in both cases.

ID is a religious view, not a hypothesis, Evolution is a scientific theory thus ranking above a "law."

You erroneously implied that a "law" is the penultimate rank.

Go your way in wisdom.

You have an inappropriately high estimation of your own opinion. **** off.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Silver Scrolls refute your assertion.

Archaeology is constantly validating the Scriptures.

Gotta love it!

How so? Do you know the dates of those? They support my claims.

 

[dianaiad]

How am I making science a religion? It is a specific way of looking at things. ID believers do not follow that method.

And one very important feature of science is that terms have to be very well defined. You seem to realize that you cannot define "design". That alone sinks your claims.

What is "design"? How do we tell if something was made by an intelligence or if it was natural?

That is not a matter that needs examining by 'science.'

....and all the "intelligent design' folks I know certainly use the same scientific method their atheist colleagues do, as they should, to examine the universe as it is. As for the 'design,' good grief, is that the most important thing to you, to somehow disprove any possible idea that the universe WAS designed, or at least kicked off, by a Creator? What difference does it make to those who are looking at black holes, or supernovas, or star nurseries, whether these things were created by Somone/Something, or not? They work the same either way.

What difference does it make to the biologist who examines how corn grows in a specific climate, if that particular corn stalk was planted, deposited by a passing crow, mislaid by a squirrel, or just dropped from a parent plant? The method of observing the growth is the same no matter what. The corn doesn't grow differently if a farmer plants it instead of the flippin' squirrel.

The way we examine the path of a wild fire and the damage it causes (or the way the plant life requires periodic fires to reproduce and be healthy) does not change because it might have been started by a badly made campfire....or a lightning strike.

Do get over this. Scientists do NOT have to deny God in order to BE scientists....and that is how you are making science a religion, by insisting upon specific beliefs that must be held by scientists in order to qualify as scientists.....that have nothing at all to do with science.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This is wrong. Faith can be misplaced, though.... like the German peoples' faith in Hitler. But it was based on evidence, on what he did for them prior to WWII

I've just posted many evidences detailing what my faith is built on.

Faith in people is not the same as faith in something you cannot see and even then, it is clear that people faith can end up being wrong, because it is based on poor evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is not a matter that needs examining by 'science.'

....and all the "intelligent design' folks I know certainly use the same scientific method their atheist colleagues do, as they should, to examine the universe as it is. As for the 'design,' good grief, is that the most important thing to you, to somehow disprove any possible idea that the universe WAS designed, or at least kicked off, by a Creator? What difference does it make to those who are looking at black holes, or supernovas, or star nurseries, whether these things were created by Somone/Something, or not? They work the same either way.

What difference does it make to the biologist who examines how corn grows in a specific climate, if that particular corn stalk was planted, deposited by a passing crow, mislaid by a squirrel, or just dropped from a parent plant? The method of observing the growth is the same no matter what. The corn doesn't grow differently if a farmer plants it instead of the flippin' squirrel.

The way we examine the path of a wild fire and the damage it causes (or the way the plant life requires periodic fires to reproduce and be healthy) does not change because it might have been started by a badly made campfire....or a lightning strike.

Do get over this. Scientists do NOT have to deny God in order to BE scientists....and that is how you are making science a religion, by insisting upon specific beliefs that must be held by scientists in order to qualify as scientists.....that have nothing at all to do with science.

You tried to claim that there was a scientific basis to ID. Now that it is apparent that you were wrong you are making excuses and falsely accusing others of your sins.

I never claimed or implied that one has to deny God to be a scientist. One must merely follow the scientific method.

You do not seem to understand that if you want to call ID scientific that you must properly define your terms. You failed to do that. If you want to call it scientific you must think of a test that it could conceivably fail. If not you only have hand waving and ad hoc explanations.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Hockeycowboy the Silver Scrolls, the oldest biblical writing found, dates to about 586 BC. The Bible appears to have been written from the mid 600's BC to roughly 100 AD, much closer to my time range than yours.

Ketef Hinnom - Wikipedia

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That is not a matter that needs examining by 'science.'

....and all the "intelligent design' folks I know certainly use the same scientific method their atheist colleagues do, as they should, to examine the universe as it is. As for the 'design,' good grief, is that the most important thing to you, to somehow disprove any possible idea that the universe WAS designed, or at least kicked off, by a Creator? What difference does it make to those who are looking at black holes, or supernovas, or star nurseries, whether these things were created by Somone/Something, or not? They work the same either way.

What difference does it make to the biologist who examines how corn grows in a specific climate, if that particular corn stalk was planted, deposited by a passing crow, mislaid by a squirrel, or just dropped from a parent plant? The method of observing the growth is the same no matter what. The corn doesn't grow differently if a farmer plants it instead of the flippin' squirrel.

The way we examine the path of a wild fire and the damage it causes (or the way the plant life requires periodic fires to reproduce and be healthy) does not change because it might have been started by a badly made campfire....or a lightning strike.

Do get over this. Scientists do NOT have to deny God in order to BE scientists....and that is how you are making science a religion, by insisting upon specific beliefs that must be held by scientists in order to qualify as scientists.....that have nothing at all to do with science.

That is the underlying argument I have. You can believe in God and accept and understand nature through science. What I cannot do is claim a divine cause for something, because I do not have the divine evidence for that something. I cannot tell others to believe and then follow it up with the offer of evidence that is either never given or proves not to be evidence for my claims at all.

All I can say with confidence is that I believe. I have reasons for believing, but they are personal experiences that I cannot validate to others. I do not have the arrogance to demand that others believe just because I do. I accept that others do not believe and I understand their reasoning. It is often very logical and based on evidence. Faith is not a logic or evidence-based expression. Not in the same sense as scientific understanding is based on logic and evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The Silver Scrolls refute your assertion.

Archaeology is constantly validating the Scriptures.

Gotta love it!

The scrolls show put a date on certain scripture, but that does not validate the scriptures. You are working with a false dichotomy that great age of the text demonstrates validity of the content.

 

[Forever_Catholic]

We will never know, since you have not stated what those books are.

Here's a good one you might want to start with: https://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Doubt-Explosive-Origin-Intelligent/dp/0062071483 A New York Times best seller with tons of great reviews. Buy it. It will answer many of your questions

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here's a good one you might want to start with: https://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Doubt-Explosive-Origin-Intelligent/dp/0062071483 A New York Times best seller with tons of great reviews. Buy it. It will answer many of your questions

And thoroughly refuted to boot:

Doubting “Darwin’s Doubt”

If it was scientific then why didn't he try to publish any of his ideas in a well respected professional peer reviewed journal?

I know why.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Here's a good one you might want to start with: https://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Doubt-Explosive-Origin-Intelligent/dp/0062071483 A New York Times best seller with tons of great reviews. Buy it. It will answer many of your questions

Thank you. I have read it. There was nothing there that would cause me to reject the current theory of evolution or show that there is design in nature and indirectly a designer. It is a giant God of the gaps argument. We do not know all the details of the Cambrian explosion so therefore a designer. Not much of an argument really. Nothing new.

I was expecting a list of serious works considering you claimed what could easily be described as a list of such works. Darwin's Black Box is another and it too, fails.

 

[We Never Know]

Faith isn't evidence for a God or anything else. OTOH faith as a belief does has evidence in the form of the Bible, passed on stories, and self claimed experiences, nothing scientific. None of them are scientific and should not be confused with simple beliefs.
I've asked several people that believe in God if they also believe in Zeus. The answer is always no. When asked why the number 1 answer is because Zeus isn't mentioned in the bible.
Fact is people believe in God because of the bible. Even if they claim the Bible is inherent, not taken literally, has flaws, or what ever, they accept and believe in God simply because of the bible they are so quick to discredit on its truthfulness and accuracy. That alone shows me their faith is either weak or misguided.
Either you believe in God or you don't. If you believe in God, you believe in the same God creationists do so don't try to save face by saying you accept science because there is not one tinsy peice of evidence in science to make you believe in a God.
If you are a person of faith, dig deep and re-examine your faith and the reasons why you believe in God. I think you will find it all boils down to a book written by men called the bible that you claim you don't take inherent or literally anyway.