noetic2:

I am waiting. . . ,  

This is a report of one such study.  Taken from http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/09/books/new-torah-for-modern-minds.html


New Torah For Modern Minds
By MICHAEL MASSING
Published: Saturday, March 9, 2002


Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation.

Such startling propositions -- the product of findings by archaeologists digging in Israel and its environs over the last 25 years -- have gained wide acceptance among non-Orthodox rabbis. But there has been no attempt to disseminate these ideas or to discuss them with the laity -- until now.

The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, which represents the 1.5 million Conservative Jews in the United States, has just issued a new Torah and commentary, the first for Conservatives in more than 60 years. Called ''Etz Hayim'' (''Tree of Life'' in Hebrew), it offers an interpretation that incorporates the latest findings from archaeology, philology, anthropology and the study of ancient cultures. To the editors who worked on the book, it represents one of the boldest efforts ever to introduce into the religious mainstream a view of the Bible as a human rather than divine document.

''When I grew up in Brooklyn, congregants were not sophisticated about anything,'' said Rabbi Harold Kushner, the author of ''When Bad Things Happen to Good People'' and a co-editor of the new book. ''Today, they are very sophisticated and well read about psychology, literature and history, but they are locked in a childish version of the Bible.''

''Etz Hayim,'' compiled by David Lieber of the University of Judaism in Los Angeles, seeks to change that. It offers the standard Hebrew text, a parallel English translation (edited by Chaim Potok, best known as the author of ''The Chosen''), a page-by-page exegesis, periodic commentaries on Jewish practice and, at the end, 41 essays by prominent rabbis and scholars on topics ranging from the Torah scroll and dietary laws to ecology and eschatology.

[b]These essays, perused during uninspired sermons or Torah readings at Sabbath services, will no doubt surprise many congregants. For instance, an essay on Ancient Near Eastern Mythology,'' by Robert Wexler, president of the University of Judaism in Los Angeles, states that on the basis of modern scholarship, it seems unlikely that the story of Genesis originated in Palestine. More likely, Mr. Wexler says, it arose in Mesopotamia, the influence of which is most apparent in the story of the Flood, which probably grew out of the periodic overflowing of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. The story of Noah, Mr. Wexler adds, was probably borrowed from the Mesopotamian epic Gilgamesh.

Equally striking for many readers will be the essay ''Biblical Archaeology,'' by Lee I. Levine, a professor at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. ''There is no reference in Egyptian sources to Israel's sojourn in that country,'' he writes, ''and the evidence that does exist is negligible and indirect.'' The few indirect pieces of evidence, like the use of Egyptian names, he adds, ''are far from adequate to corroborate the historicity of the biblical account.''

Similarly ambiguous, Mr. Levine writes, is the evidence of the conquest and settlement of Canaan, the ancient name for the area including Israel. Excavations showing that Jericho was unwalled and uninhabited, he says, ''clearly seem to contradict the violent and complete conquest portrayed in the Book of Joshua.'' What's more, he says, there is an ''almost total absence of archaeological evidence'' backing up the Bible's grand descriptions of the Jerusalem of David and Solomon.[/b]

The notion that the Bible is not literally true ''is more or less settled and understood among most Conservative rabbis,'' observed David Wolpe, a rabbi at Sinai Temple in Los Angeles and a contributor to ''Etz Hayim.'' But some congregants, he said, ''may not like the stark airing of it.'' Last Passover, in a sermon to 2,200 congregants at his synagogue, Rabbi Wolpe frankly said that ''virtually every modern archaeologist'' agrees ''that the way the Bible describes the Exodus is not the way that it happened, if it happened at all.'' The rabbi offered what he called a ''litany of disillusion'' about the narrative, including contradictions, improbabilities, chronological lapses and the absence of corroborating evidence. In fact, he said, archaeologists digging in the Sinai have ''found no trace of the tribes of Israel -- not one shard of pottery.''


The reaction to the rabbi's talk ranged from admiration at his courage to dismay at his timing to anger at his audacity. Reported in Jewish publications around the world, the sermon brought him a flood of letters accusing him of undermining the most fundamental teachings of Judaism. But he also received many messages of support. ''I can't tell you how many rabbis called me, e-mailed me and wrote me, saying, 'God bless you for saying what we all believe,' '' Rabbi Wolpe said. He attributes the ''explosion'' set off by his sermon to ''the reluctance of rabbis to say what they really believe.''

Before the introduction of ''Etz Hayim,'' the Conservative movement relied on the Torah commentary of Joseph Hertz, the chief rabbi of the British Commonwealth. By 1936, when it was issued, the Hebrew Bible had come under intense scrutiny from scholars like Julius Wellhausen of Germany, who raised many questions about the text's authorship and accuracy. Hertz, working in an era of rampant anti-Semitism and of Christian efforts to demonstrate the inferiority of the ''Old'' Testament to the ''New,'' dismissed all doubts about the integrity of the text.

Maintaining that no people would have invented for themselves so ''disgraceful'' a past as that of being slaves in a foreign land, he wrote that ''of all Oriental chronicles, it is only the Biblical annals that deserve the name of history.''

The Hertz approach had little competition until 1981, when the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, the official arm of Reform Judaism, published its own Torah commentary. Edited by Rabbi Gunther Plaut, it took note of the growing body of archaeological and textual evidence that called the accuracy of the biblical account into question. The ''tales'' of Genesis, it flatly stated, were a mix of ''myth, legend, distant memory and search for origins, bound together by the strands of a central theological concept.'' But Exodus, it insisted, belonged in ''the realm of history.'' While there are scholars who consider the Exodus story to be ''folk tales,'' the commentary observed, ''this is a minority view.''

Twenty years later, the weight of scholarly evidence questioning the Exodus narrative had become so great that the minority view had become the majority one.

Not among Orthodox Jews, however. They continue to regard the Torah as the divine and immutable word of God. Their most widely used Torah commentary, known as the Stone Edition (1993), declares in its introduction ''that every letter and word of the Torah was given to Moses by God.''

Lawrence Schiffman, a professor at New York University and an Orthodox Jew, said that ''Etz Hayim'' goes so far in accepting modern scholarship that, without realizing it, it ends up being in ''nihilistic opposition'' to what Conservative Jews stand for. He noted, however, that most of the questions about the Bible's accuracy had been tucked away discreetly in the back. ''The average synagogue-goer is never going to look there,'' he said.

Even some Conservative rabbis feel uncomfortable with the depth of the doubting. ''I think the basic historicity of the text is valid and verifiable,'' said Susan Grossman, the rabbi of Beth Shalom Congregation in Columbia, Md., and a co-editor of ''Etz Hayim.'' As for the mounting archaeological evidence suggesting the contrary, Rabbi Grossman said: ''There's no evidence that it didn't happen. Most of the 'evidence' is evidence from silence.''

''The real issue for me is the eternal truths that are in the text,'' she added. ''How do we apply this hallowed text to the 21st century?'' One way, she said, is to make it more relevant to women. Rabbi Grossman is one of many women who worked on ''Etz Hayim,'' in an effort to temper the Bible's heavily patriarchal orientation and make the text more palatable to modern readers. For example, the passage in Genesis that describes how the aged Sarah laughed upon hearing God say that she would bear a son is traditionally interpreted as a laugh of incredulity. In its commentary, however, ''Etz Hayim'' suggests that her laughter ''may not be a response to the far-fetched notion of pregnancy at an advanced age, but the laughter of delight at the prospect of two elderly people resuming marital intimacy.''

In a project of such complexity, there were inevitably many points of disagreement. But Rabbi Kushner says the only one that eluded resolution concerned Leviticus 18:22: ''Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abhorrence.'' ''We couldn't come to a formulation that we could all be comfortable with,'' the rabbi said. ''Some people felt that homosexuality is wrong. We weren't prepared to embrace that as the Conservative position. But at the same time we couldn't say this is a mentality that has been disproved by contemporary biology, for not everyone was prepared to go along with that.'' Ultimately, the editors settled on an anodyne compromise, noting that the Torah's prohibitions on homosexual relations ''have engendered considerable debate'' and that Conservative synagogues should ''welcome gay and lesbian congregants in all congregational activities.''

Since the fall, when ''Etz Hayim'' was issued, more than 100,000 copies have been sold. Eventually, it is expected to become the standard Bible in the nation's 760 Conservative synagogues.

Mark S. Smith, a professor of Bible and Near Eastern Studies at New York University, noted that the Hertz commentary had lasted 65 years. ''That's incredible,'' he said. ''If 'Etz Hayim' isn't around for 50 years or more, I'd be surprised.''

Its longevity, however, may depend on the pace of archaeological discovery.

Photos: Excavations like this one at Khirbet Raddana, northeast of Jerusalem, have yielded evidence that makes it hard to take many Bible stories literally. (From ''What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?'' by William G. Deever [Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing])(pg. B9); ''ETZ HAYIM'' (''Tree of Life'' in Hebrew), a new Torah and commentary, offers new findings in biblical research, which cast doubt on stories like that in Raphael's ''Crossing the Red Sea,'' below. (Scala/Art Resource; top, Tony Cenicola/The New York Times)(pg. B7)

noetic2:

what differences? did the bible state anywhere in exodus that the new commandments from God was written on a stone?

Did you NOT see this or have you got problems with comprehension?


Exodus 34: 1 The LORD said to Moses, "Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke. 2 Be ready in the morning, and then come up on Mount Sinai. Present yourself to me there on top of the mountain. 3 No one is to come with you or be seen anywhere on the mountain; not even the flocks and herds may graze in front of the mountain."


And this

Exodus 27 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel." 28 Moses was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments.


Shall I rest again?

noetic2:


[size=16pt]where are these EVIDENCES from anthropology, history and science that suggest that Jehovah is a mythological figure? [/size]

Now that you have LEARNT to ask a question that relates to WHAT I actually said, I shall address this in the next few minutes.

noetic2:

is this not pure folly? is it not obvious that moses started a new conversation with God in verse 8 and 9. . . . . .why is this so hard for u to understand?

Please, address the case of the DIFFERENCES between the two sets of commandments.

noetic2:

why dont u answer this before we proceed. . . I have answered ALL your questions so far

[size=16pt]what anthropological, historical, and scientific methods lead to the notion that Jehovah is a mythical person?[/size]

That is not what I said.  This is actually what I said:

In the case of Jehovah, we examine the narrative about God using a number of methods - anthropological, historiogical, and scientific, etc, etc.  Evidence from these diverse disciplines suggests the Jehovah is a mythological figure from antiquity, just like Thor, Zeus, Wotan.  On this basis I have no choice but to disbelieve in the existence of Jevohah.

davidylan:

this thread is confusing, the focus (as i largely expected) is solely on noetic2's answers alone. Where has huxley attempted to answer ANY question?

What is this https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-327789.32.html#msg4603156

The benighted chasing the benighted, erh?

Analysis of Noetic's response to Question 4:

4) Why are the 10 commandments given in Exodus 34 so vastly different from those given in Exodus 20, given that Exodus 34 were supposed to be a
replacement of those that Moses broke in Exodus 20? Did God lose his mind when it came to re-writing what he had written only a few days earlier?

Noetic's Response

1. God asked Moses to come and receive the commandments again. . . that was his purpose of ascending to the mount.

2. when moses got to the top of the mount he did something else, (due to the events that happened in previous chapters). . .in verse 8 moses worshipped God and in verse 9 of exodus 34 moses made a request from God. . . . .all that God said from verse 10 of Exodus 34 was in response to what moses requested.

3. from verse 1 we know that God asked for moses to bring up new tablets for the 10 commandments to be re-written. , . . , in verse 32-34 moses was speaking commandments which were not written on the tablets to the children of Israel.

4. It is as such deducible that the commandments in exodus 34 are as a result of the request moses made in verses 8 and 9. . .not with standing the purpose for which moses went on the mount (which was to retrieve the 10 commandments) was also achieved.

These are the Verses of Exodus 34 examined:


1 The LORD said to Moses, "Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke. 2 Be ready in the morning, and then come up on Mount Sinai. Present yourself to me there on top of the mountain. 3 No one is to come with you or be seen anywhere on the mountain; not even the flocks and herds may graze in front of the mountain."



Now, look ar the highlighted words of God, viz, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke. So God said he was going to write on the new tablets of stones the words THAT WERE ON THE FIRST ONE THAT MOSES BROKE.

Could these worlds be any clearer?

But Noetic claims that God gave Moses the new sets of commandments in accordance with some request Moses made in Verses 8 & 9. "It is as such deducible that the commandments in exodus 34 are as a result of the request moses made in verses 8 and 9. . .not with standing the purpose for which moses went on the mount (which was to retrieve the 10 commandments) was also achieved."

But verses 8 & 9 does not actually say that this had any bearing on the content of the commandments. These are verses 8 & 9;

8 Moses bowed to the ground at once and worshiped. 9 "O Lord, if I have found favor in your eyes," he said, "then let the Lord go with us. Although this is a stiff-necked people, forgive our wickedness and our sin, and take us as your inheritance."


Can anyone detect anything here that had bearing on the content of the commandment?


Noetic makes the following claims:

3. from verse 1 we know that God asked for moses to bring up new tablets for the 10 commandments to be re-written. , . . , in verse 32-34 moses was speaking commandments which were not written on the tablets to the children of Israel.

Noetic says verses 32 - 34 has Moses speaking the commandments "which were not written on the tablets to the children of Israel.". This is a strange statement. Let us really examine what verses 32-34 say;

32 Afterward all the Israelites came near him, and he gave them all the commands the LORD had given him on Mount Sinai. 33 When Moses finished speaking to them, he put a veil over his face. 34 But whenever he entered the LORD's presence to speak with him, he removed the veil until he came out. And when he came out and told the Israelites what he had been commanded, 35 they saw that his face was radiant. Then Moses would put the veil back over his face until he went in to speak with the LORD.

How does Noetic know that Moses was speaking about commandments "which were not written on the tablets to the children of Israel."? Where does he get this? Is he making it up.



What is interest is that Noetic does not address the question at all. I asked why the commandments in Exodus 34 bears little resemblance to those in Exodus 20, but he says nothing whatsoever relating to the discrepancy I am alluding to.

The new 10 commandments in Exodus 34 are contained in versers 10 - 26, and even a casual examination will show that these diverges drastically from those in Exodus 20:



10 Then the LORD said: "I am making a covenant with you. Before all your people I will do wonders never before done in any nation in all the world. The people you live among will see how awesome is the work that I, the LORD, will do for you. 11 Obey what I command you today. I will drive out before you the Amorites, Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. 12 Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land where you are going, or they will be a snare among you. 13 Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones and cut down their Asherah poles. 14 Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.

15 "Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land; for when they prostitute themselves to their gods and sacrifice to them, they will invite you and you will eat their sacrifices. 16 And when you choose some of their daughters as wives for your sons and those daughters prostitute themselves to their gods, they will lead your sons to do the same.

17 "Do not make cast idols.

18 "Celebrate the Feast of Unleavened Bread. For seven days eat bread made without yeast, as I commanded you. Do this at the appointed time in the month of Abib, for in that month you came out of Egypt.

19 "The first offspring of every womb belongs to me, including all the firstborn males of your livestock, whether from herd or flock. 20 Redeem the firstborn donkey with a lamb, but if you do not redeem it, break its neck. Redeem all your firstborn sons.
"No one is to appear before me empty-handed.

21 "Six days you shall labor, but on the seventh day you shall rest; even during the plowing season and harvest you must rest.

22 "Celebrate the Feast of Weeks with the firstfruits of the wheat harvest, and the Feast of Ingathering at the turn of the year. 23 Three times a year all your men are to appear before the Sovereign LORD, the God of Israel. 24 I will drive out nations before you and enlarge your territory, and no one will covet your land when you go up three times each year to appear before the LORD your God.

25 "Do not offer the blood of a sacrifice to me along with anything containing yeast, and do not let any of the sacrifice from the Passover Feast remain until morning.

26 "Bring the best of the firstfruits of your soil to the house of the LORD your God.
"Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk."





1. Thou shalt worship no other god (For the Lord is a jealous god).


2. Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.


3. The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep in the month when the ear is on the corn.

4. All the first-born are mine.

5. Six days shalt thou work, but on the seventh thou shalt rest.

6. Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, even of the first fruits of the wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end.

7. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leavened bread.

8 . The fat of my feast shall not remain all night until the morning.

9. The first of the first fruits of thy ground thou shalt bring unto the house of the Lord thy God.

10. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk.



My favorite of these new set of commandements is the last one (Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk.)


So these are the commandments which were at the centre of the Ark of the Covenant, one of the most holiest of things in antiquity. These commandments replaced those given in Exodus 20. Yet there is little similarity between them.

What happen to the injunction about killing, purjury, adultery, etc? Did Noetic's God lose his mind?

noetic2:

YES. . . . . . . All it required was obedience to God's laws. . ,  .Garden of Eden testifies to world without SIN and suffering. . . until man transgressed. . . . . . .
The new world to come also attests to this. . . .

YES - So if God could have done this, BUT did NOT do it, thus ensuring that there would be SIN and suffering (causing him to REGRET having created MAN), then he CANNOT be an OMNIBENEVOLENT being.

HENCE, a contradiction or internal inconsistency in this given ontology of God.  Existence does not admit of contradiction, thus God with the given properties CANNOT exist.

My case RESTS.

Thank you for helping me prove the non-existence of your God.

noetic2:

what is your understanding of predestination?. . . . . .cos it seems thats where your argument is leading to. ,  ,  .

No, that is not where I and heading.  I couldn't care less about it.  

But answer my question.

[size=16pt]Could God have brought about a state of affairs where there was no SIN.  And NO Suffering?
[/size]

noetic2:

@ Huxley
1. Your presumed "contradictions" are ridiculous? have u ever bothered to read a bible?
Suffering is the function of the absence of God. The world (which refers to the system of events) of God as created in the garden of Eden was WITHOUT suffering. Man sinned and was expelled from the world of GOD. The world we live in is NOT of God as originally desiigned. . . that is why
a. Satan is called the PRINCE of this world. . . . , cos Satanic schemes and policies are dominant in the political, business, economic and social arena as we see it today.
b. Jesus said that WE (believers) are the salt of this polluted WORLD. . . .that explains why the Christian ways of doing things is foolish to the carnality of the world we live in.

Suffering has never been the intention or plan of God. . . .suffering is part of the package u get from a world not of GOD. do u know of God's plan to end suffering?
why do u think heaven and earth would pass away? why do u think Christ would be back to reign? What do u understand by the kingdom of God?
All of this is the establishment of God's own world (system of events) where suffering, fear and war have no place.

2. I have addressed your killing concerns on sevearl threads including this one. Simply replace the children of Israel with the believers in Christ and the victims with unbelievers.
u come up with certain deductions/, , . .
a. God would do anything for the well being of His chosen and annointed. . .including the killing and destruction of the enemy.
b. We have a God who cares about the well being of His people
c. It is DANGEROUS to live outside the shield of God
. . .and many more

1. This sounds like a rebranded I DONT KNOW

2. All u have done is to tell LIES. . . . . .what anthropological, historical, and scientific methods lead to the notion that Jehovah is a mythical person?

Could God have brought about a state of affair where there was no SIN. And NO Suffering?

Hello Noetic,

My answers to your questions.  Pardon me, I cannot go into any depth cuz am a bit unwell today.  Anyway, here we go.

1. You are an atheist cos u believe in the non-existence of Jehovah God,  . . .the subject of your belief/disbelief is Jehovah God. ,   .so I ask
a. who is Jehovah God? what is His Ontology? what part of this ontology do u find impossible to gasp? what part of His ontology ascribes the notion of nihilance to Him?
note: your ontological definition must lay emphasis on His meta-physical attributes.
b. what is your scientific evidence that establishes that God does not exist?
c. where is your intellectual or logical evidence that supports your belief/disbelief?
d. do u understand that a lack of evidence for your belief/disbelief means that all u have is FAITH in the nihilance of God? are u aware of the consequences of this dogmatic faith? what makes u different from the Christians who u accuse of having a blind faith?

The subject of my disbelief is Jehovah, Allah, Zeus, Thor, etc, etc.

Jehovah - My knowledge of Johovah stems from the bible, according to which Jehovah is the God of the Jews firstly and then secondly thru Jesus, the God of the world. The ontology of Jehovah as presented the the Judeo-Christian tradition is as follows:  transcendence, omnipotent, omnipresence, omnibenevolent, wicked, Jealous, murderous, vindictive, has a mind, possesses freewill amongst others.

Mind you -  as I did not posit Jehovah, I can only give you his attributes as I have learned from the Judeo-Christian tradition.  Besides this tradition, I know nothing else about Jehovah.


The reason I do not accept this ontology is that is possess contradictions and internal inconsistencies, such as;

- Why is there so much natural suffering in the world in this Jehovah is omnibenevolent and omnipotent.  An omnibenevolent being is one who is only capable of good - omnipotence means he is capable of bringing about any state of affairs. So if Jehovah has these attributes why is there so much suffering in the world.

- Why would an omnibenevolent being called for his followers to murder innocent infants, rape and kill their parents, etc, etc?  It makes no sense in the light of his omnibenevolence.


-  And many other contradictions and inconsistencies.  


b, c, d)  I don't think there is direct scientific evidence that God does not exist.  I have NEVER argued this case and neither would any well informed atheist.  Think of it this way - is there scientific evidence that dragons, fairies, satyrs do not exist?

However, if you tell me what attributes an entity possesses, I could use any number of means to evaluate such attributes, including science.  So if you define a dragon as a fire-breathing animal, I would use my knowledge of biology and chemistry to determine the likeliwood of such an animal existing. It turns out that biology and chemistry says that it is very unlikely for a biological system to spontaneously produce fire from their internals.  So for all intends and purposes, dragons are unlikely to exist.

In the case of Jehovah, we examine the narrative about God using a number of methods - anthropological, historiogical, and scientific, etc, etc.  Evidence from these diverse disciplines suggests the Jehovah is a mythological figure from antiquity, just like Thor, Zeus, Wotan.  On this basis I have no choice but to disbelieve in the existence of Jevohah.



So in the light of the present evidence, I have no choice but to disbelief in his possessing this attributes.  So if he does not possess these attributes, then he cannot be God as currently construed.

2. You have repeatedly advocated evolution as the source of life as we know it today. . .so I ask
a. the commonest law of biogenesis says life begets life. Biology buttresses this.
Yet evolution claims that the first substance of life were formed from non-living substances refered to as "spontaneous generation". is this not a contradiction?
b. Darwin claims that all organisms on earth are descent from a common ancestor or a last universal ancestor.Whats the atheist's explanation for the mitochondria gene exception? what is the identity and nature of the last common universal ancestor?
c. Evolution traces life to phylogenetic tree that that postulates three domains of life namely bacteria, archea and eucaryota. What is the major consensus or common denominator to whom life can be traced to between these three?
d. Evolution claims that increasing complex chemical reactions that resulted from simpler chemical reactions are the last traces of life.
what was the singular first chemical reaction that kick started life? and what were the substances that made up this reaction? what was the structure of the first living things? what was the catalyst of this first chemical reaction? what were the components of this catalyst?
e. with regards to the pioneer formation of the RNA? how did it happen? which was the very first? what was its structure?
f. Since evolution is believed to be a continuous process. . ,  . .what has/will man evolved to, since man evolved from an ape?

a)  Why should we trust the Law of Biogenesis?  Does it reveal some universal truth about nature?  How was the Law of Biogenesis arrived at and What is it anyway?

If you think the Law of Biogenesis is Truth, what is it about it that contradicts with The Theory of Evolution?

Now, the law of biogenesis, if it is truth, has nothing whatsoever to say about The Theory of Evolution.   The Theory of Evolution ONLY explains how life diversified,  NOT how life started.  

Can you show me any scientific material that says that the Theory of Evolution addresses the origins of Life?


b)

Darwin claims that all organisms on earth are descent from a common ancestor or a last universal ancestor.Whats the atheist's explanation for the mitochondria gene exception? what is the identity and nature of the last common universal ancestor?

It is wrong to say that atheism postulates about mitochondria, gene, etc.  That is the jobs of biologists and other scientist.  The defintion of atheism does not address gene, cells, DNA, etc, etc.

I truly am not familiar with mitochondria gene exception, but in keeping with my commitment to minimise my saying of  "I don't know", I will have to turn to google.  Sorry, I could not find anything meaning from google.  So I would appreciate it if you explain this further to me.

As far as I know, the last common ancestor is probably the eukryotes.

c. Evolution traces life to phylogenetic tree that that postulates three domains of life namely bacteria, archea and eucaryota. What is the major consensus or common denominator to whom life can be traced to between these three?

Current scientific thinking would have eukaryotes, eubacteria and archaea as some of the earliest life forms of the planet. My scientific sources do not name any earlier sources.

d. Evolution claims that increasing complex chemical reactions that resulted from simpler chemical reactions are the last traces of life.
what was the singular first chemical reaction that kick started life? and what were the substances that made up this reaction? what was the structure of the first living things? what was the catalyst of this first chemical reaction? what were the components of this catalyst?

Evolution makes no such claim.   Can you show me any reputed sources about evolution where such claims are made?

e. with regards to the pioneer formation of the RNA? how did it happen? which was the very first? what was its structure?

Because I am not allowed to make things up, but refer to scientific source, I could not find an scientific sources that explains this.

f. Since evolution is believed to be a continuous process. . ,  . .what has/will man evolved to, since man evolved from an ape?

Where did you get your impression that evolution is a continuous process?  I need scientific sources.  And what does it mean to be a continuous process? Please explain with sources from books or journals written by evolutionary scientist.

Can you show me where the Theory of Evolution makes predictions about the particular outcome of a given line of evolution?   All TTE says is that as long as the conditions are right (selection pressures, mutations, gene flow, etc)  living organism will evolve, but it cannot predict the direction of evolution because the driving source, mutation, is a random event.

3. a. Is your trust/belief in science based on FAITH or based on science? whats the difference between faith and science? have u ever observed evolution? do u know the difference between faith and evolution?
b. where did human attributes and abilities like art, music, religion and sports evolve from?. . . . .please dont mention cranial evolution.
c. what is your explanation for man's ability to use "MEDIUMS" to decipher the past and predict the future?
d. Is absence of proof the same as proof of absence? is there a slight possibility that the existence of something cannot be known?

a. Is your trust/belief in science based on FAITH or based on science? whats the difference between faith and science? have u ever observed evolution? do u know the difference between faith and evolution?

a)  This is the best and most significant question (Is your trust/belief in science based on FAITH or based on science? ) you have asked so far.  The other parts of the question, like all your previous questions, are just another act of flailing about.

To address this question (Is your trust/belief in science based on FAITH or based on science? ) properly, we need to define the word FAITH and Science.  So I shall turn to a dictionary definition to help clarify the words:

I found the following defintions from dictionary.com

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.

I have FAITH in science in the sense given in definition 1 - I have confidence that science, with its very successful track record, is the way to uncover the truth about reality.   I do not associate science with the other definitions.  The other definitions are the province of theology, not science.


Science is the systematic raising of hypothesis and testing, verifying these hypothesis;  Rejecting the ones that comport with the facts.  So the key elements in any enterprise worthy of being called science are:  Hypothesis, collection of data,  check data againsts hypothesis,  accept or reject the outcome of test.  Thus science is an OBJECTIVE exercise

Faith on the other hand, allows for the acceptance of propositions in the face of contradictory evidence, or in the face of no evidence at all.  Faith is a subjective exercise and any faith proposition is subject to the whimps of any particular individual.  Thus a moslem has faith that Mohammed is the prophet of God in the same way that you have faith that Jesus is God.

I have not personally observed evolution.  But that does not mean it does not exist.  Have you ever observed a black hole, or a supernova, or a gamma ray burst?

Faith and Evolution - Faith is a condition of the mind.  Evolution is the change of state.

b. where did human attributes and abilities like art, music, religion and sports evolve from?. . . . .please dont mention cranial evolution.

Humans have these abilities in the same way that some animals also possess communicate, albeit in very rudimentary form compared to humans. So these abilities have the result of the slow and progressive evolution leading to humans and the evolution with human cultures.

Why were there no computers, satellite technology, mobile phones, cars, x-ray radiography 5000 years ago?  Why are these only modern inventions?

c. what is your explanation for man's ability to use "MEDIUMS" to decipher the past and predict the future?

Can you provide evidence that Mediumship accurates and correctly decipher the past and predict the future?  I am not aware that this is true and that what they do is not trickery.

d. Is absence of proof the same as proof of absence? is there a slight possibility that the existence of something cannot be known?

No. Absence of proof is not proof of absence, but this is a maxim that should be applied in a case by case basis.  Allow me to illustrate - supposing I postulate that right now next to you there is a 120 tonnes ping  whale.  Can you prove me wrong?

There you go. 20 Questions posted? Leave you to digest them. I am off to bed now. Am REALLLLLLY REALLLLY looking forward to yours. That would make my day when I wake up in the morning. Of some answers to my question would be nice as well.

noetic2:

YES. . . , but as soon as u tell me "I DONT KNOW" then there might be no point asking another question. . . , .or?

OK, I will try not to say "I don't Know". But do you expect me to know everything?


My questions are quite simple and straight forward. Here they come, in 2 minutes.

noetic2:

why is my answer so important? let us start with urs. . . . . .post your questions. . . I will then open a thread for my own questions. . . . . .

This is a YES, yes?

noetic2:

I dont see you answering 20 questions from me. . . . . ,  but I will indulge you.

so lets get rolling. .  .

I shall do my utmost to answer ALL you questions.

Are you gonna post your own 20 questions?   Yes or NO?   Just a one-word answer I want.  Yes or NO?

davidylan:

To start with you're not Nigerian.

Secondly atheists are not a very small minoritty in nigeria, there are actually a lot more who (unfortunately like you and numerous others on these boards) are cowards who dont have the conviction and guts to openly declare their godless status but prefer internet bullying.

Thirdly . . . and this goes to atheist too . . . i have often raised the fact that these spurious atheists are NEVER to be found tackling gods from other religions . . . they only seem most fixated on the bible, christianity and Jesus Christ. One would be tempted to think christianity is not a mere 1/6th of the world's population.

Face it . . . atheists are simply anti-christians.

It is a problem that he is not Nigerian? The minds (if indeed they can be called minds) of Christians are always turned towards sectarianism as surely as Jesus's was. You see how Christianity damages the mind?

Hello Noetic,

Here are my 20 questions  - placeholders for my questions.  If you promise to post your own 20 questions, I shall fill out my questions.  ALL I need is for you to say YES, that you are going to post your own set of 20 questions.



1)   What is the criteria for deciding which parts of the bible should be read literally and which parts metaphorically or allegorically?  The background
to this question is the widely held view in christian religions circles that many parts of the bible should not be read literally.  Examples are
a)  The Creation narratives
b)  The notion of heaven and hell
c)  The world (was it meant the entire earth or a restricted part of the middle east) during the flood or when the devil took Jesus up a high mountain so that they could see the whole world.

Are these to be understood literally or allegorically and by what criteria?


2)  If there is a God, what is his ontology?  How is he/she constituted?  Other secondary characteristic commonly assocaited with God are

a) Omnipresence
b) Omniscience
c) Omnibenevolence

How do you reconcile these attributes with;

i)  The presence of natural evil and suffering in the world
ii) God not knowing that Abraham was faithful and had to put him through the ordeal of attempted sacrifice of his son to test him.  Does this bode
with omniscience?


3)  Why is there a great deal of unwarranted bloodshed orchestrated by God in the bible?  Why would a loving God rejoice in dishing out barbaric
punishment to his beloved children?  The murder of whole tribes, with their innocent infants and animals is ordered by God and carried out by his followers. 
Why is such cruelty ordered by God? Why does God call for human sacrifice, ordered or compelled cannibalism and make people eat excrement?

4)  Why are the 10 commandments given in Exodus 34 so vastly different from those given in Exodus 20, given that Exodus 34 were supposed to be a
replacement of those that Moses broke in Exodus 20?  Did God lose his mind when it came to re-writing what he had written only a few days earlier?

5)  Why are there plenty of contradictions in the bible?

6)  Where did sin originate?  The bible paints the view that sin originated in god's own kingdom with the disobedience of Lucifer.  Does this mean that
Adam and Eve were really not responsible for sin and that sin has always existed?  If so, how can we be sure that God is capable of dealing with sin
given that his own kingdom is not free from sin?

7)  Why does God call for the stoning of Children if they were disobedient to their parents?  Is this something you would do?

8.)  The genealogy of Jesus. Was jesus's grand-father Jacob (Matt 1:1-16) or Levi (Luke 3: 33-38). Why are the genealogies in Luke and Matt so divergent with little or no correspondence? One has 27 generations to David and another has about 43. By the way, what is the point of proving that jesus was a descendant of david when he is alleged to not be genetically linked to david (virgin birth)? If jesus DNA was available today, what would an analysis reveal about his parentage?

9)  The birth narrative of Jesus.  When was Jesus born?  Was it on or before 4BCE as reported by Matthew or after 6CE, in the reign of Quirinius, as
narrated by Luke? 

10)  When was Jesus crucified?  Was it on the day before passover or the day of passover?

11)  Do you and other Christians abide or try to abide by the injunctions of Jesus?  Amongst a few nice and subtle words utter by Jesus, he also said
some very controversial words such as

i) Calling for followers to abandon their families for his sake.  He said "I have come to set brother against father,  mother against daugther". Are you in good family relation with your family?
ii) He called for his followers fo maim themselves in other not to fall prey to certain types of sin?  Is this a sensible way of avoiding sin/crime?
iii)  He called for his followers to not resist oppression from aggressors. Would you give a robber you coat if he only wanted to rob your wallet?
iv)  He called for his followers to not make plans for tomorrow?  Do you organise your life in this fashion?  If not, why not

12)  Jesus said that those who believed in him and are baptised will be saved.  How about those who have never had the chance of "knowing" about Jesus?
  How about your foreparents 1000 years ago - want dispensation will they have?
  If Jesus was to come today - how about the millions of children and infant who are not able to believe and be baptise, would they end up in hell?

13)  If you were a follower of Jesus when Jesus was on earth and were present at his trial, would you have called for his conviction and execution or would
you have called for his exoneration.

14) Why did Jesus say he was going to come back again in the life time of his followers? Even the apostle Paul preached the idea that Jesus was coming
back in the lifetime of his listeners. And has he come back?

15)  If you wanted the best scientific opinion about the structure of the atom, who would you contact and why?  If you wanted the best scientific opinion about
blood diseases, who would you contact and why?  If you wanted the best scientific opinion about the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection who would you contact and why?

16)  Where would you go to obtain information about the age of the earth and what is the currently accepted value of the age of the earth? How is petroleum fossils fuels derived and how long do you think it takes for organic material to become fossil fuel?

17)  Why are there no fossils of mammalian animals in pre-cambrian and cambrian rocks?

18)  What conclusion can you draw from the fact that you and your siblings share more genetic material than say you and me or you and Martin Luther?

19)  If you were not a Christian, what sort of person would you be?  Would you be a criminal, indulging in immoral and unethical acts? Give reason for each options.

20) What material advance and advantages has religion and supernaturalism conferred to humans?  Can you think of anything for which the best explanation was once
a scientific-rational based explanation but has now been superceded by a relio-supernatural explanation?  Similarly, can you think of anything for which the best
explantion was once along religio-supernatural line but that has now been replaced by a scientico-rational explanation?





As you can see, I an anxious that we settle this issue now and for all.   So just say YES, meaning that you commit to also post 20 question and I shall fill out these questions for your delectation.   Is this really hard?

This is Noetic Committment to open a thread of his 20 questions to Huxley:

noetic2:

[size=18pt]why is my answer so important? let us start with urs. . . . . .post your questions. .  . I will then open a thread for my own questions. .  . . . .[/size]

davidylan:

Declining to engage you in any form of debate does not preclude me from responding to other threads i wish to participate in.

Its nothing to do with cowardice . . . to accuse me of that is laughable at best, stupid hypocrisy at worst. Do we need to rehash the number of threads you have fled from when your own porous knowledge was exposed?

sorry there is nothing to take up . . . arguing with you (to borrow Barney Frank's quote) is like arguing with a dining room table.

When I get this sort of reaction I know I have touched a sore point.  This is great - so all by barbs are actually getting in.

davidylan:

To start with you're not Nigerian.

Secondly atheists are not a very small minoritty in nigeria, there are actually a lot more who (unfortunately like you and numerous others on these boards) are cowards who dont have the conviction and guts to openly declare their godless status but prefer internet bullying.

Thirdly . . . and this goes to atheist too . . . i have often raised the fact that these spurious atheists are NEVER to be found tackling gods from other religions . . . they only seem most fixated on the bible, christianity and Jesus Christ. One would be tempted to think christianity is not a mere 1/6th of the world's population.

Face it . . . atheists are simply anti-christians.

Did you not just decline my challenge for a 20-20 question debate? Coward! Be a man and take it up.

blacksta:

A fool in his heart says their is no God.

Anyone who calls another fool will go to hell. Matt 5: 22.

Atheists:

Originally l am from Zimbabwean and when l came here l didn't expect to find vocal free thinkers, skeptics, agnostics and atheists who start god bashing threads every five minutes and remind religious zealots about their stupidity Considering that Nigerian is considered the most spiritual country in the world this has shocked me

Unfortunately, we are a very very small minority in this sea of delusional and superstitious religionists. The least we can do is to up our activism. The arc is long, but it always curve towards rationality (to paraphrase M L King).

davidylan:

If i had time to waste i would have considered it.

Just what I expected to see.

davidylan:

he's offline . . . are you blind?

David,

How would you like to do a 20-20 questions marathon with me? I am sure you would enjoy it, C'mon.

davidylan:

he's offline . . . are you blind?

He has had many chances to respond but he keeps evading. What do you think he is likely to do? I can say now that he will never agree to post his own questions. All I want for him to say is YES (that he will post his 20 questions), then I shall post mine.

If he does not eventually post his, then I shall gloat in calling him a liar and dishonourable. He knows that, that is why he is having cold feet. But all this can be avert by a simple YES from him and by sticking to his word, as GOOD christians should always do.

blacksta:

Poor interpretation/deduction.

Sorry.

I knew you were gonna put your tail between your legs and run away from your own question. C'mon, go deal with them!

noetic2:

open a thread and post your 20 questions. . . .

Are you gonna post 20 questions also? YES or NO? What are you scared about? These will be really easy questions. Why are you afraid?

Deep Sight:

1. I came about that definition of God by contemplating space & time, and reflecting on known principles of Causation, juxtaposing that with the concept of Eternity, and studying the interesting realities within the cosmos.

Fair enough. There is room for a priori knowledge in this debates.

Deep Sight:

2. Ultimate Singularity means the unified convergence of all space and all time as one single essence.

What does this really mean? We know from physics that space is essentially a unity of space&time, called space-time. You use the word "convergence", which suggests two entities coming closer together and (possibly) finally intersecting. We do not have any evidence that this is what space-time is. Please, can you elaborate?

Deep Sight:

3. Yes, i meant beyond space and time because a cause naturally stands outside its effect, although it may also be inherent in it.

Can you explain how God can be beyond space & time and also be "inherent" in it? What does this really mean? For instance, can something that is beyond space & time be made to sit at my desk right now? Can god come and sit at my desk right now?

Deep Sight:

4. Yes, therefore God, being the "ultimate singularity" is both beyond and within the universe: (thus the theory of omnipresence)

This is an ad hoc association. Please explain how "ultimate singularity" leads to omnipresence? If God is omnipresent, can he make himself not to be omnipresent at some times?

Deep Sight:

5. Naturally he must interact with the universe in the sense that light rays from a candle spring forth from the fire? The Universe, as you know, is pulsating with something called "Dark Energy" and this can only be vibrations from the sustaining power of the energy that caused the Universe.

Are you saying that God interact with the universe through Dark Energy? Have you any evidence for this? Current theory suggests that Dark Energy will eventually rip the entire universe to a cool and dark place - all the stars, planets, etc, etc in the universe will be dissolved and become nothing. This is what Dark Energy is currently doing to the universe.

If your theory is right, then there will come a time when God will no longer be able to interact with the universe again? Does that sound right to you?

noetic2:

open a thread and post your 20 questions. . . .

Are you also gonna post 20 questions?

noetic2:

whats the difference between statements A and B?

A. Son of God

B. God

What is the difference between the following:

a) You?

b) Your Father?

If you know the answer to my question, you will be able to figure out the answer to your own question.

I have got my 20 question ready. If you answer YES to my previous question, signaling your willingness to also post your questions, then I shall post my 20 question within 10 minutes.

noetic2:

that would be suicidal for you . . .u CANNOT survive 20 questions from me. . .just present your own 20 questions. . I am waiting. . .

You cannot pre-judge my capabilities. Why don't you post and then judge later. Are you also gonna post? YES or NO? That is simple enough, isn't it?