Antiparticle,

Good day bro. I must start by apologizing for not opening this thread up until now. This is due to some unforeseen circumstances. I hope you do pardon me.

Are we good to go?

You can drop any question you want me to answer.

Lets watch the debate from here... I won't in unless asked to

It's no problem bro. I completely understand, we both have lives outside NL.

First off, can we both agree on some guidelines for our conversation?
Here are my proposed guidelines.
1. There will be no abusive language towards each other, but of course we can criticize or vehemently disagree with each other's views.
2. The objective of each party is not to convert the other, it is to engage in a conversation to evaluate what is true and what is not, and what is credible and what is not.
3. We will relate with each other based on both empathy and logic as much as we can (i.e. when it comes to evaluating the veracity of any claims by me or you).

Let me know if you find these three guidelines reasonable. If not, please propose yours and we will go ahead. Not following the guidelines gives either of us the prerogative to terminate the conversation at any time.

DoctorAlien:
Antiparticle,

Good day bro. I must start by apologizing for not opening this thread up until now. This is due to some unforeseen circumstances. I hope you do pardon me.

Are we good to go?

You can drop any question you want me to answer.

I should add that my responses may not always be immediate because I live in a far away time zone. So this conversation might linger over several days due to time gaps. Yet, I will do my best to respond and engage expeditiously.

Antiparticle:
It's no problem bro. I completely understand, we both have lives outside NL.

First off, can we both agree on some guidelines for our conversation?
Here are my proposed guidelines.
1. There will be no abusive language towards each other, but of course we can criticize or vehemently disagree with each other's views.
2. The objective of each party is not to convert the other, it is to engage in a conversation to evaluate what is true and what is not, and what is credible and what is not.
3. We will relate with each other based on both empathy and logic as much as we can (i.e. when it comes to evaluating the veracity of any claims by me or you).

Let me know if you find these three guidelines reasonable. If not, please propose yours and we will go ahead. Not following the guidelines gives either of us the prerogative to terminate the conversation at any time.

The terms are okay by me.

Antiparticle:
I should add that my responses may not always be immediate because I live in a far away time zone. So this conversation might linger over several days due to time gaps. Yet, I will do my best to respond and engage expeditiously.

The discussion can last for a year LOL. I definitely know we have things doing outside nairaland, and so I don't expect replies within 5 seconds.

Perfect! Thanks for letting me ask the first question. Usually I'm put on the defensive when it comes to this topic.

My first question:
Do you consider the Bible to be literal truth? If so, why?

Let me be even clearer. Do you consider all the contents of the Bible to be true and divinely inspired? If so, why?

Antiparticle:
Perfect! Thanks for letting me ask the first question. Usually I'm put on the defensive when it comes to this topic.

My first question:
Do you consider the Bible to be literal truth? If so, why?

Yes. I consider the Bible to be truth literally. History corroborates some of the events and figures recorded in the Bible. Also, biblical prophecies have come to fulfillment with astonishing accuracy.

It is indeed true that history corroborates some of the events and figures in the Bible. But this doesn't in itself imply that all its contents are literally true and accurate. For example, the Harry Potter book series have a lot of historically correct places in them but most of the rest of the book is fiction.

If the Bible was literally true, this means that the universe is less then 10,000 years ago old? What explanation do you have to justify the fact that there are trees today even older than this? There are archaeological fossils that are hundreds of thousands of years old. How do you reconcile these inconsistencies?

Also, how do you explain the fact that some parts of the Bible are widely considered to be forged, even by Christian theologians? For instance, open the book of Mark 16:9-20 in any NIV Bible, and you will see a footnote at the bottom saying those verses weren't in the original manuscript and were added later. This is a widely accepted fact, for instance. The only thing is that Christian theologians seem to conclude that even the forgery must have been divinely inspired.

I have other thoughts about this, but will hold off so you can first respond to these. Thanks.

DoctorAlien:

Yes. I consider the Bible to be truth literally. History corroborates some of the events and figures recorded in the Bible. Also, biblical prophecies have come to fulfillment with astonishing accuracy.

The fact that history corroborates some of the stories recorded in the Bible gives it an amount of credence, you can agree with me.

I can say with certainty that the earth is about 6,000 years old. Radiometric dating, which is employed by scientists to determine the age of some artifacts, is greatly flawed. How do you account for the fact that over 500 000 years of age is assigned to a fossil which should contain no trace of radiocarbon whatsoever after 250 000 years of age?

I'm happy you used the word "considered." That many people in the old world considered the earth flat didn't make it true. Some people even consider biblical prophecies that have been clearly fulfilled, unfulfilled.

From a logical perspective, that some parts of the Bible have credence doesn't necessarily mean that the whole thing is literally true. I gave the Harry Potter example to illustrate this.

Please could you respond to my statement about the book of Mark? I would recommend you open an NIV Bible and do some reading about that part I mentioned.

About radiometric dating, are you saying that radiometric dating is always wrong? As you respond to this, let me also ask you: to what extent are you conversant with science? Are you trained at the university level in any of STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) subject? I ask not to be condescending but to know how much detail I should go into when I discuss specific scientific concepts. I need to know if we both are on the same page on what the scientific method is.

I read the Mark 16:9-20. The Jews never wanted the disciples to preach the resurrected Jesus, you know. This, coupled with the fact that the doubt concerning the credibility of the said text is found in the NIV, which unexplainedly omits many Bible verses, makes the case worthy of little or no consideration.

Yes. Radiometric dating is based on too many assumptions, which makes it not trustworthy.

Response to your Mark comment: The verses were not ommitted from KJV because that version was written based on newer manuscripts, when the older manuscript hadn't yet been found.

Comment about your post on radiometric dating: what is your level of scientific training? I need to know this in order to adequately address this topic. Thx.

Edited: fixed typos

Antiparticle:
Response to your Mark comment: The verses were not committed from KJV because that version was written based on newer manuscripts, when the older manuscript hadn't yet been found.

Comment about your post on radiometric dating: what is your level of scientific training? I need to know this in order to adequately address this topic. Thx.

NIV omits some verses of the Bible and then indicates in the footnote that "some manuscripts add that verse." However, how do you explain the fact that NIV omits Mark 9:46, Mark 11:26, Mark 15:28, Luke 17:36, Luke 23:17, John 5:3-4, without adding "some manuscripts add..." to the footnote? This is to name but a few.

I can say I'm a scientist. Bring whatever you have to support your arguments.

My commentary about Mark is not about what he omits, so it is your place to answer why he omits certain verses and not others, since I am not the one with the position that the Bible is literal truth. But I am not asking you to justify why he omits verses, I am not concerned about that as I don't think it helps me evaluate its credibility.

My specific commentary on Mark is about its historical manuscripts and the absolutely inarguable fact that the oldest manuscripts of the book don't have some critical verses that newer historical manuscripts have. It is widely accepted that the additions to the newer historical manuscripts were forged. How do you reconcile this with your idea that the whole Bible is literally true and divinely inspired?

I have a lot more to say about the Bible's credibility but I want us to address them one by one, as thoroughly but as quickly as possible. If we are dancing around the same issue for too long, I'll move on to other issues I want to bring up.

Hmm, also, what do you mean when you say you are a scientist? I need to know specifically because I don't want to make assumptions on how you determine what is true and what isn't. I've never met a physical scientist who says radiometric dating (as a whole) is a dubious method. So I need to know how to respond effectively, but I can't do this if I don't know the foundation of how you interpret scientific claims.

DoctorAlien:
NIV omits some verses of the Bible and then indicates in the footnote that "some manuscripts add that verse." However, how do you explain the fact that NIV omits Mark 9:46, Mark 11:26, Mark 15:28, Luke 17:36, Luke 23:17, John 5:3-4, without adding "some manuscripts add..." to the footnote? This is to name but a few.

I can say I'm a scientist. Bring whatever you have to support your arguments.

Btw, I am not asking about your level of scientific training in order to dismiss your views. I am asking so that I can explain certain things differently.

The issue is not the gospel of Mark: the issue is the NIV. That the NIV omits many(important) verses of the Bible without explanation calls its validity into serious question.

You say that the older manuscripts this, older manuscripts that: Can it not also be that those manuscripts were edited, and those strategic verses removed? How do you explain the fact that the NIV avoids referring to Jesus as the Christ or Lord? Is something not smelling?

LOL. It's a pity that all the physical scientists you've met swallowed every thing "science" told them hook, line and sinker, without even verifying their trustworthiness. I'm not a physical scientist, anyway. That does not mean I don't have knowledge of Math and Physics.

DoctorAlien:
The issue is not the gospel of Mark: the issue is the NIV. That the NIV omits many(important) verses of the Bible without explanation calls its validity into serious question.

You say that the older manuscripts this, older manuscripts that: Can it not also be that those manuscripts were edited, and those strategic verses removed? How do you explain the fact that the NIV avoids referring to Jesus as the Christ or Lord? Is something not smelling?

Ok I see why you focus on the omission of several verses when compared to KJV. The KJV version of Mark (and certain other gospels) was written off a newer manuscript that is considered to not be as credible as the older ones. Keep in mind that in the "days of old", manuscripts were replicated via hand copying, so this introduced new errors to each new iteration of a manuscript that was written. For this reason, modern Bible translators consider older manuscripts to be more accurate than newer ones. This is why the NIV Mark is demonstrably different from the KJV Mark. NIV is likely closer to original manuscript actually.

The printing press was only invented in the 15th century, so before that (i.e. 2000 years ago when these manuscripts were initially written) and up until the 15th century, replicating manuscripts was done by hand thus leading to lots of discrepancies and errors. No Christian theologian argues against these plentiful discrepancies between manuscripts of different ages (for the same book in the Bible), their claim is that even the discrepancies are either divinely inspired or immaterial; this isn't credible.

Your statement denouncing the NIV leads one to conclude that you don't think it is fully accurate and literally true. This contradicts your claim/belief that all of the Bible is true & literally inspired, since you have now parsed your statement to imply that some versions of the Bible are not literally true, but some others are.

DoctorAlien:
LOL. It's a pity that all the physical scientists you've met swallowed every thing "science" told them hook, line and sinker, without even verifying their trustworthiness. I'm not a physical scientist, any way. That does not mean I don't have knowledge of Math and Physics.

I didn't say you don't have the knowledge of math and physics. But if you are going to criticize an outstanding majority of physical scientists then you should have credible reasons to. You forget that the device you type on is due to the ingenuity of the same physical scientists that you consider to be gullible automatons.

The specific example you give about wrong radiocarbon dating may be true. But then you should realize that science is very open to self-correction. It is indeed true that there have been some samples that have been misdated due to contamination by other newer or older material, but this is a very small minority. The peer review process of vetting scientific findings is very effective at weeding out bad information, which is why science advances and self-corrects.

Also, don't confuse radiocarbon dating with all of radiometric dating. Radiocarbon dating is just one way of dating (its half life is a bit much shorter than that of certain other elements yet it is excellent at dating matter less than 50,000 years old). Rubidium and/or Potassium and/or Uranium dating (and others), for instance are used to date the age of our solar system. These dating systems have been used to a 99.9% accuracy to determine the age of our solar system to be about 4.6 billion years old. How do you reconcile this with the Biblical notion that the universe is 6000 years old?

It befuddles me that you reject all these findings. I myself have used Geiger counters to measure radioactive decay and I know this phenomenon is real. In addition, these same radioactive decay methodologies are what help us to generate X-Rays, create nuclear weapons, generate electricity using nuclear reactors, and more. Are all these wrong? If so, why? If all of this is wrong, then you might know more than all the physical scientists in the world combined.

The issue is that the NIV omits verses not only in Mark but even in Luke, John, Acts. Very strategic verses too. The NIV is too tampered-with to be considered a version of the Bible.

The Bible is true. I trust it. However, I don't trust adulterated versions of it.

The scientists created phones: does it mean they can't lie? This is argumentum ad verecundiam.

How do you explain the fact that the potassium-argon dating of a sample gives one age, while uranium-lead dating for the same sample gives a totally unrelated age?

Edited: It has to be pointed out that radioactive decay is not the same thing as radiometric dating.

Peaceful, civil, matured, each sides responding reasonably........

These are the kind of discussion that are the real gem. The threads in which knowledge can be accessed without the usual bumble fumble, strawman, red herrings, threats ec cetera....


Hard to find. So damn hard to find.






This is my first and only comment.

Hope both parties don't mind.

Cc hopefullandlord, Teempakguy

DoctorAlien:
The issue is that the NIV omits verses not only in Mark but even in Luke, John, Acts. Very strategic verses too. The NIV is too tampered-with to be considered a version of the Bible.

The Bible is true. I trust it. However, I don't trust adulterated versions of it.

So you are moving the goal post by now saying that the NIV is not the Bible? Ok, I won't focus on this for the sake of not going down an unproductive rat hole.

DoctorAlien:
The scientists created phones: does it mean they can't lie? This is argumentum ad verecundiam.

Sure, they can lie. They are humans too. But the difference is that you are claiming that they are lying because their findings do not agree with the Bible. You need proof in order for me to believe this. But it would be extremely hard for you to convince any rational thinker about this because physical science has produced more reproducible findings about nature and the universe, than the Bible ever has. The books of the Bible are approximately two thousand years old, yet we are still arguing about which version is correct.

Modern science is only 500 years old, and it has done more to shed light on the way nature works, much more than the Bible (cue: you've visited a hospital before abi? you were vaccinated as a child abi? you use a cellphone abi? you use GPS abi? you know that airplanes fly abi?). To compare the credibility of the Bible to the credibility of physical scientists is absurd. You are welcome to defend yourself, however.

DoctorAlien:
How do you explain the fact that the potassium-argon dating of a sample gives one age, while uranium-lead dating for the same sample gives a totally unrelated age?

This has never been shown to be universally true unless the sample was contaminated. I await your evidence that this is always true.

DoctorAlien:
Edited: It has to be pointed out that radioactive decay is not the same thing as radiometric dating.

Ok, your last sentence is uninformed and just completely wrong. Radioactive decay is the reason why radiometric dating works. That you are not aware of this basic fact fundamentally challenges and dismisses the basis of your opposition to radiometric dating.

The notion that there are unexplained discrepancies between Potassium-Argon dating and Uranium-Lead dating is false. You need a mountain of explanations to convince any deeply physics-literate person about this. If you are correct that radiometric dating is dubious, then you will have to tell me why radioactive decay works, why X-Rays work, why nuclear fusion/fission works, why nuclear reactors work? etc. If you are gonna criticize radiometric dating, you need to understand it first. This is why I was asking you if you were a physical scientist, so as to determine the basis upon which you are dismissing these scientific facts.

Edited for clarity.

I never claimed they lie simply because their findings don't agree with the Bible: they lie because their findings contradict reason.

Physical Science is not pitted against the Bible. Many a skeptic make this fallacious assumption.

I await your concrete and solid proof that radiometric dating cannot be faulted.

Engineering involves mathematics, but engineering is not mathematics. You now get the radioactive decay-radiometric dating relationship?

LOL. You clearly don't know that many assumptions are made during radiometric dating. Said assumptions make the process totally unreliable.

DoctorAlien:
I never claimed they lie simply because their findings don't agree with the Bible: they lie because their findings contradict reason.

Please explain how their findings contradict reason? You still haven't done this. You provided one example of radiocarbon dating being wrong, and thereby extrapolate that all radiocarbon (and radiometric) dating therefore must be wrong. What you should take into account is that those incorrect results in one (or even a few) scenario(s) is not a failure of radiometric dating, it was the result of tainted samples NOT radiometric dating. It's like saying that because one laboratory made a mistake on your blood test (due to tainting the sample with another person's blood), therefore the methodology used for all blood tests is unreliable! This is a massive logical fallacy.

DoctorAlien:
Physical Science is not pitted against the Bible. Many a skeptic make this fallacious assumption.

I used to think this when I was Christian, but not anymore. This is because physical science disproves many of the Bible's claims, and shows that the supposed deities of Yahweh/Jesus barely had knowledge of how the universe works. For example, Jesus in Matthew 24 said that in the last days the stars would fall from the sky. He didn't know that stars cannot fall from the sky into the earth; most stars are millions to billion times larger than the earth!

Another one is Revelations Revelation 8:10 which says: "And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters". Once again, this demonstrates a misunderstanding of nature.

DoctorAlien:
I await your concrete and solid proof that radiometric dating cannot be faulted.

All scientific methodologies are open to being challenged or faulted, provided there is countervailing evidence or cogent proof. I have no reason to accept your challenge on radiometric dating when you are extrapolating a few instances of wrong dating due to tainted samples to imply that all radiometric dating is incorrect. There is a preponderance of evidence showing that radiometric dating is by and large very accurate, yet you dismiss it. You dismiss it because you want the Bible to be true, which I am sympathetic to, because I used to be subconsciously the same way as a Christian.

DoctorAlien:
Engineering involves mathematics, but engineering is not mathematics. You now get the radioactive decay-radiometric dating relationship? LOL. You clearly don't know that many assumptions are made during radiometric dating. Said assumptions make the process totally unreliable.

Your prior post implied that radiometric dating had nothing to do with radioactive decay, and I felt I had to correct you; but it seems I misunderstood you. I'm glad you already knew that the former is derived from the mechanism of the latter. It is indeed true that there are assumptions made in radiometric dating, just as there are assumptions made in every engineering, physics, and scientific discovery. The question to ask is: are the assumptions empirically reasonable? You have not provided any explanation as to why the assumptions are empirically unreasonable. Keep in mind that the burden of proof on you is very high if you insist that radiometric dating is unreliable, since its accuracy has been corroborated tens to hundreds of thousands of times.

I can't fathom why & how you would think that radiometric dating is dubious. Please do tell what assumptions they make that are wrong. While you ponder this, I'll give you some more scientific evidence that disproves the Bible's assertions that the earth is 6000 years old.

Ok, I'm moving away from radiometric dating, although I still hope you would respond by justifying, for example, why radiometrically dating rocks from fallen asteroids would give us the wrong results. I specifically chose asteroids (within our solar system) because they require less assumptions (than rocks on earth or fossilized organic matter) for radiometric dating. Yet these asteroid rocks show dating results that are consistent with the oldest rocks found on earth. Why?

We have dated rocks from the earth and across the solar system, and the results are consistent, our solar system is over 4 billion years old while the earth is slightly younger (these two findings are empirically consistent with the idea that the earth was formed from the contents of the sun, which is the star of our solar system).

Now I'll move on to another way to illustrate that the Bible is wrong about the age of the universe.

The universe is estimated to be about 13.8 billion years old. Note that this estimate is through a method completely different from radiometric dating!

This estimate was obtained from the cosmic microwave background radiation left behind after what we might consider the Big Bang. Keep in mind that the cosmic background radiation was predicted in 1948 (based on mathematical and other observational estimations) even before it was physically discovered!

Another way used to estimate the age of the universe is the cosmological redshift, which is an expression of the Doppler effect. Basically we are able to estimate the time elapsed since the universe started rapidly expanding based on the frequency (color, but not the colors you can see with your bare eyes sha) of light emitted from celestial objects moving fast away from one another. The Doppler effect is an effect observed in acoustic (sound) and electromagnetic waves (e.g. the signals that propagate from your phone); this effect is basically an expression of the change in frequency of light/sound emitted from a moving object if it is moving very fast (relative to wavelength) from the perspective of an observer.

We use sophisticated telescopes (and in some cases very large massive dish antennas) to observe the redshift of celestial objects travelling very fast away from one another in our rapidly expanding universe, and this redshift is clearly and consistently observed. The cosmic background radiation is itself redshifting, meaning that the wavelength of its radiation is changing as the edges of the universe further expand and expand faster and faster away. We were able to correctly calculate the properties of the cosmic microwave background even before we discovered it!

What do you say about this? Do you think all this is credible or not? Btw, I would suggest you spend some time deeply researching these research works before responding. Thank you.

Antiparticle:
Btw, I am not asking about your level of scientific training in order to dismiss your views. I am asking so that I can explain certain things differently.

doctoralien and antiparticle...please sorry for interfering....
But my Good news bible at home...has that *foot note*...
In truth..the gospel of mark has 3 different endings in the good news version...so what antiparticle is saying is not restricted to the NIV as you think it is..
Cheers..

DoctorAlien:


NIV omits some verses of the Bible and then indicates in the footnote that "some manuscripts add that verse." However, how do you explain the fact that NIV omits Mark 9:46, Mark 11:26, Mark 15:28, Luke 17:36, Luke 23:17, John 5:3-4, without adding "some manuscripts add..." to the footnote? This is to name but a few.

I can say I'm a scientist. Bring whatever you have to support your arguments.

Please what branch of science brother?

Do you guys entertain visitors cause i have a lot of questions..you know nah

Antiparticle:
Ok, I'm moving away from radiometric dating, although I still hope you would respond by justifying, for example, why radiometrically dating rocks from fallen asteroids would give us the wrong results. I specifically chose asteroids (within our solar system) because they require less assumptions (than rocks on earth or fossilized organic matter) for radiometric dating. Yet these asteroid rocks show dating results that are consistent with the oldest rocks found on earth. Why?

We have dated rocks from the earth and across the solar system, and the results are consistent, our solar system is over 4 billion years old while the earth is slightly younger (these two findings are empirically consistent with the idea that the earth was formed from the contents of the sun, which is the star of our solar system).

I will be quick,
How possible will it be for radiometric dating to falsely predict with accuracy beyond certain years. Say beyond 2000 years it starts "guessing".
We would really not know, no one is that old to tell it's a lie. Can we just hope it's correct cause has done it before?
Won't be the first time it got something wrong or experienced a 'partially correct truth'.

Just saying.