Evolution is NOT science: A challenge

"Common view" until errors are pointed out. Then we deal with the explanations that men, while able to write what god said, were incapable of passing down the right meaning... usually that the poetics meant something other than what we THOUGHT they meant.Since you seem to believe in the scientific inerrancy of the Bible, and hold that everything IS from God, perhaps you can explain something I have only gotten dodges on so far.No nothing so spectacular as the beginning of the earth, or whether it moves. Just the little piece of skin between women's legs.In deuteronomy (somewhere ~21-23), God says that people will be able to judge whether a woman was a virgin on her wedding night if she bleeds (ie her hymen broke). This is a wive's tale. It could have broken earlier without sex, or may not break the first time.Forget the stars and floods for a second. Why doesn't God properly understand the workings of the human body he "created"? Or was he just being cruel to women?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Actually it is more on topic than discussions of how the earth was made and floods. If we are talking about evolution vs CREATION, then your side is positing God was the engineer and architect of the human body. This is to say he knows full well the way they work.And since the Bible is from God, and reflects his inerrant knowledge of the universe, all passages should be accurate regarding the LIFE he CREATED. Boy, I'm glad you like challenges. Read deuteronomy and what you just said above and compare them... they do not match.In deuteronomy, God is NOT preserving the sanctity of marriage at all. He is allowing a man to get out of a marriage and kill an innocent woman, just because her hymen did not break according to an old wive's tale. That is SPECIFICALLY what this is about... GETTING OUT OF MARRIAGE.If God intended to respect the sanctity of marriage, then he'd have made no way out of it, not many ways out of it over the dead body of his innocent wife.Or maybe he'd have actually made women's hymens break according to that rule?Are you really contending that God would lie in order to promote the sanctity of something? If so does that mean he'd be capable of say... creating something like the stories of Genesis and the Flood in order to preserve our wonder of him (even if that's not really what he did)?You seem trapped my friend. Now is when most creos cut and run. Let's see how you deal with most extreme evocreo challenge.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Ahem. Let me repeat this once again. Women bleeding the first time they have sex is NOT a sign of promiscuity. Thus the hefty penalty is NOT for promiscuity but for failing to live up to an old wive's tale.One could just as easily say that a man having an erection at night is a sign of promiscuity, and thus if evidence is presented he should be killed. Would that preserve the sanctity of marriage to you?And could you tell me why, if he was going to use wive's tales as a sign of promiscuity anyway, he didn't include a sign for men? Yes, as was whoever wrote that passage in the Bible. This suggests that either God is wholly fallible, that the writers of the Bible were fallible, or that God really hates women.Take your pick. In any case, scientific accuracy is NOT in the Bible, specifically regarding "his" creations.If you want to know more about hymens I suggest looking up some medical literature on it. As a brief synopsis: they are a stretch of skin covering the opening of the vagina. They vary greatly from one girl to the next. While sexual penetration can cause this skin to break, it may also break for a number of reasons/activities that are not sexual.And worse still for the poor young jewish girls, it may not break at all during sex, or bleed when broken. So a poorly endowed creep could burn through several young women before finding one with a hymen sensitive and bloody enough to be counted a virgin. No. That is not to be found in any of the laws. It is very clear what the law is. Red sheets good, clean sheets dead.Uhoh, this challenge is getting a little hot ain't it? Are you now going to DENY deuteronomy exists? The law is clear. There is none of this mumbo-jumbo you are discussing.And I really love that last line, he could take her at her word especially if she was not loose... Two problems:1) If humans were interested in taking the words of people then there would be no need for this law to exist in the first place.2) God just said that if she didn't bleed then she has had sex before!BWAHHHHH BWAHHHHHHH BWAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!Whoops, looks like if you are going to trust the girl then you are going to deny the word of God, right? I mean he is either right or he is wrong. It doesn't matter how RATIONAL people could get out of the predicament of a bad law, the point of this is that there is a bad law. It is a LAW BASED ON A SCIENTIFIC UNTRUTH!!!!!So I assume you will now admit something about scientific accuracies in the Bible? Hmmmmmm?Sorry if it hurt, but somebody had to pop your cherry on this.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

My point is that there is an error about human anatomy within the Bible. This is clearcut. This proves that the Bible is NOT to be trusted completely on specific factual statements.If God could let this slide in order to get to some "greater good", then why are we not to believe that stands for other factual statements as well when we find them in disagreement with scientific evidence? Are you talking about the specifics of a hymen breaking? I thought those were rhetorical, though pointed out you could find out more detailed info elsewhere if you wanted.Unless you are going to appeal to the argument from ignorance, which is to say if you don't know it must not be the case, then you are already lost. Yes, this is a very big problem for what you have asserted about facts within the Bible. It is clearly shown that at the very least God was willing to spread false statements regarding biology. That has some pretty dire implications about how Biblical "facts" should be handled. Oh I see, you meant was it a big problem that innocent girls could be killed because of errant statements regarding their physiology? Gosh that has nothing to do with the point of this argument at all.But if you want an answer, then it seems to me that even one person killed for no reason is a pretty big problem. Why didn't God simply leave women alone as he had done for men? Why this discrepancy, especially when it is based in error? Are we reading the same Bible? Perhaps you should go back through Mosaic law, especially deuteronomy. Those are pages and pages of all kinds of laws. And he goes in depth on animal sacrifices... so why not the hymen?And again, why did he mention it at all if it was false? Why create a false illusion that humans can know if a woman is a virgin or not, just to allow a marriage to be nullified, and not do this for men?Why include one falsehood at all.Oh which by the way brings us back to the topic... there is a falsehood in the Bible. Bible and God, errant. Admit it.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Whoa whoa whoaaaaa there. I want one example of me twisting anything.You have stated that the Bible is the word of God. You have stated that you believe God created life. You also believe in a literal translation of the Bible, such that every statement of truth is true.All I did... and in a straightforward manner... show a clearcut example of a statement in the Bible which is NOT TRUE. The ramifications of this are not me twisting anything. If anything you are the one twisting like a contortionist to try and make it sound not as bad as it really is.But I do give you some credit, most creos have silently bowed out by now. Heheheh... the same as for today. You CAN'T! All you can tell (at most) is when the hymen broke (when it breaks).The idea that one can use the hymen to measure virginity in order to measure promiscuity is bankrupt. Nonexistent. All a person can tell is intact and not.Oh wait, there are two reliable methods for detecting nonvirginity.The first is within a day or two of the intercourse. There could be abrasions inside the vaginal canal. But unless the girl is foolish, she wouldn't have sex right before her wedding night with someone else. (I might add she might even have her hymen intact and still have those abrasions from sex).The second, which is almost foolproof, is pregnancy. I suppose a girl could have had cum enter her vagina through other means, but this is not likely, and would tend to indicate her association with some sexual activity anyway.Of course I hesitate to mention the second method as we know full well from the Bible that pregnancies can happen without intercourse back in those days as a result of Gods having sex with kids. Heheheh. But this raises all the other questions I posed. If God is able to dumb down science in the Bible for any reason, why couldn't he have done so in matters beyond the hymen?The most reliable method to describe how he created life... to an unsophisticated people with no ability to detect things like DNA or chemicals... might just well be the Genesis account, right? I'm trying to figure out where you got the idea that girls are MORE ACTIVE today than in the ancient past where people had to work at much younger ages.Anyhow, you seem to have a one track mind. I have stated several times already that it is not just that a girl may have lost her hymen already, it may be that a girl's hymen is small enough or tough enough not to break during the first (or subsequent) penetrative act. Thus even inactive girls taking good care of themselves might not bleed at all.You've got to come to grips with this. There is a problem here. It doesn't matter what reason God put it in, or how often it would nail an innocent person. There is an inaccuracy stated as a reliable fact, one good enough for law.Thus inaccuracies do occur in the Bible, (again for whatever reason he may have had at the time), and we must be able to correct them with evidence WE gather about the world today, independent of the Bible.Yes?This message has been edited by holmes, 07-15-2004 06:31 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Exactly.Hypothesis: God created life and God says that a way to tell if a woman (something he created) is a virgin or not is if her hymen breaks on first sexual penetration. Thus women's hymens should break on first sexual penetration and at no other time, nor defy breaking.Prediction: It will be observed that women's hymens have and shall break on first penetration without fail.Result: Dismal failure. Hypothesis falsified.Hope you're not doing the usual disappearing act. You don't get to pick and choose what must be looked at in the Bible, in order support your case.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This is totally untrue, unless you are talking about mating to have fertile offspring.Dogs, for one example, are notorious for attempting to engage in sex with other animals. There are others as well, and the most curious are dolphins. They will actively try to mate with other species, even when well out of captivity (so its not an issue of domestication breeding confusion). They are known to mate out of apparent boredom and human swimmers can be fair game.What's more "animal kingdom" is a rather large field, especially when we leave the macroscopic world, and what counts as sex "with other species" at other levels is probably staggering. Heheheh... even concepts such as bisexuality become limited in comparison.And, if that is not enough, humans are animals and have had sex with other species throughout all known human history. So even if you were right about other species (which you aren't) there is at least one species which clearly does.This is not to give any moral imperative to sex with animals, just to note that there is no "rule" in the animal kingdom regarding sex, other than they all seem to have a basic urge to do it.This message has been edited by holmes, 08-04-2004 02:57 PM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Uhmmmm... sorry about the confusion, but if this is ALL you meant, then you weren't criticizing the other poster's point.He certainly wasn't claiming exclusivity to extraspecies sex or majority extraspecies sex. All he was saying was that if we look to nature as to what is allowed, then he should be able to have sex with animals (nonhuman variety) because others do this.The only way your statements (you said it twice) would have worked as an argument against his position is if none ever chose to, and that was the "rule".Sorry to interrupt your post. I agreed with most of it, but that one stuck out as a sore thumb.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

You have moved way off topic with this, which is essentially the entire theme of your post, and I believe there is already a thread somewhere debating it.I'd love to debate you on that subject but I won't go off topic to do it. Maybe you should find a more suitable thread or start a new one?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)