Preserved Topic: Dinosaur Adventure Land! (or, how the Creationists explain the Dinosaurs) (Page 8 of 9)

It's funny, but between the last time and this one, I met many people who were religious in life - they had a hard time adjusting to the next plane. They kept thinking it was some sort of a test of their faith, as though their god was showing them a false after-life to guage their reaction (e.g- "I knew there was no god").

The ones who adjust most rapidly are those who were fairly agnostic - a view shared by most in that other place. We are unaware of anything more than you are in this plane; when we move on (possibly up), we are as out of touch with those in the next world as those in this one with us.

Maybe it is all about layers. As one is reunited with their spirit in the next world, perhaps each spirit is reunited with their host in the next again, and so on until their is only one great consciousness (that one might consider 'god' in that it is the source of all spirits).

Then again, maybe there is only that one plane and this, and when one of us finally passes beyond that plane, there is nothing more.

Don't get the hump - it is an asylum, after all!


___________________________________________

I didn't believe in reincarnation the last time, either...
___________________________________________

Seriously though - if everyone goes to heaven or hell, wouldn't one or the other be a little crowded by now? Perhaps, when the last parking space in hell is reserved, that is when Armageddon will begin?

On the other hand - what if this is hell? The London Underground (not a rebel movement) seems like a fitting torture, and work is often hellish.

(Edited by White Hawk on 06-10-2004 02:00)

quote:

---

of course, i reserve the right to change my opinion at any moment

and yes, i just might be as crazy as you

---

Good - so we're on the same page at least

Now, as far as the "maybe this is hell" - I am sure it was in jest, at least partly, but I *really* hate that argument.
I think mainly I hate it because the people I most often hear saying it are the people who have practically nothing to complain about, nothing to equate their lives to any form of hell. The ones who can make that connection are usually beyond such things.

That doesn;t reflect on you, WH - just a pet peeve of mine based on people I see and hear too often.

No problem. I'm pretty damned hard to offend, but realise I may offend others easily.

Yes, the "is this hell" question was in jest, and it isn't the most original thought I've ever had - though it wasn't intended as an argument of any kind.

Here's an argument:

I think that science is all inclusive in that it attempts to explain the 'how' of things while disregarding the 'why' of them. In this capacity, it neither promotes nor discourages a belief in God and Creation.

Christianity, on the other hand, couldn't possibly accept the claims of science! If the bible is to be believed, for instance, then God has made some serious revisions to the way he constructed the world since science started to catch up wth him:

God's flat earth (or the deceipt of Satan?):

quote:

---

Again the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.
(Matthew 4:8)

---

You'll want to rust-proof that pond (and pi equals three-point-zero-zero?):

quote:

---

He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim ... It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it.
(1 Kings 7:23)

---

Should have got planning permission for this (immovable Earth?):

quote:

---

He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.
(Psalms 104:5)

---

In view of such pearls of biblical wisdom, intelligent theological discussion seems a bit of an oxymoron.

But then, being a scientific person, I wouldn't know one edge of the Earth from another...

______________________

Onwards & Upwards..?
______________________

Bugs is going to have a field day with that post...hehe. I can hardly wait to see his reply...be prepared for a good whacking, White Hawk. In specific

quote:

---

Christianity, on the other hand, couldn't possibly accept the claims of science!

---

If there is any Christian that I know, who hasn't embraced science like Bugs, then I don't know who it is. But you are new here...I guess a few sound spankings are in order...hehe. I've tusseled with Bugs quite a few times, using science to debate against his beliefs. Believe me, I never resoundingly won. At best, it was a draw.

Needless to say, even I disagree with that statement. I believe that someone can be a follower of science, and the scientific method, and still believe in God (and be a Christian). Albert Einstein is a great example of this, I think.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

*debates on whether to say anything or wait on bugs...realizes it's time to go home...figures he'll check this a bit later...*


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

Stephen Hawking is another. I know that he believes in God, but I don't know if he is a Christian. In fact, there are many scientists who believe that the universe is too orderly to have been accidental. And even if you believe in the "big bang" theory (which I do), in the beginning there was a void. Something had to have blown up. Where did it come from? But then, I guess I probably shouldn't even be discussing this. I'm terribly right-brained.

Besides, this whole argument is moot. Didn't you see the Sun this week at your local friendly grocer's? We only have a hundred days 'til Armageddon (Sorry, since I really didn't read the article, I'm not sure if that is dated from the day the reporter got the story, or the day it hit the streets. It could make a several day difference!) So White Hawk, you're going to look pretty silly when the world ends in three months!

Dragonlady

Only 100 days?!? Oh, well... at least Armageddon happens after my birthday!

At any rate, I just wanted to add my thoughts on the Q source...

The discussion here in this thread has been my first exposure to the concept of Q (except for John DeLancie anyway...) and I find it fascinating. What an incredible find it would be should it truly be found to exist! I think it would be an exceptionally important piece of a complex puzzle. Here is the reason why I believe it would be so important: The basis of Christianity is the divinity of Jesus. (Yes, I know there is more to it than that...) but, without the belief that Jesus was divine, we simply have another Jewish prophet and history would have maybe taken a different turn.

I think at that time there was a serious desire for the delivery of the foretold Messiah. As the Bible currently stands, I don't find it convincing enough to support the divinity of Jesus. The reason is this: the canonization was an act of men, who picked and chose through who knows how many "sacred" documents to determine what they felt was relevant 300 years after the events that founded their religion. They could choose which documents would most conveniently support this Savior they stake their souls on. It's almost in a way like looking at Nostradamus' prophesies - we can read them now, and find many that would fit past events. Does this mean that he really foretold that specific event? We can really never know - it has to be taken on faith that the person interpreting that prophecy hundreds of years later actually knows what he is talking about - and is maybe not pushing his own agenda.

The men who canonized the bible had the power to shape history - to shape the society they lived in to be what they believed it should be.

quote:

---

Mobrul-If this problem with Q and the gospels exists, it must also exist for every other story, every other book...the entire religion then stands on shaky ground

---

This is very much what I believe. There have been so many hands in the shaping of the book called the Bible that no one can really say with certainty that what exists now is the Word of God. You first have Oral tradition: Rather a lot like playing the game "telephone". With the way language evolves and words take on new meaning through time, even should a story be told verbatim - a thousand years down the line, the subtleties (sp?) would be lost. Then you have the writing: how much of the "Word of God" has been lost through decomposition, destruction and the like? What has been misinterpreted, misunderstood and just plain altered through time? A Q source could clear up a lot of things....

that took a rather round about way of getting to why I thought it was important...

But then again, I have to be honest with myself and with you in saying that even should the Q source substantiate the Gospels as they currently exist - I don't think I'd be changing my religion...

Nice post, Moon Dancer.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

Okay WebShaman, I admit that I made the argument for the sake of being a little contraversial, and it isn't the strongest argument I could have made. I just thought it interesting to note that the Bible contradicts currently understood scientific facts (hence, the carefully chosen quotations). Perhaps the whole design of the Earth was reviewed?

Downloading Earth patch v2.0.1...

It really was just an attempt to throw another spin on the whole argument over whether or not Darwinian and Creationist theories could co-exist.

Bugs, you have the floor, with my pleasure!

Ok, ok. I can't keep up with this place anymore! The discussions are really moving along.

Anyway this is for you, White Hawk. I was in the middle of replying when I read your most recent post. I can see you were looking for a few buttons to press but I'll continue in the vein I had begun.

It would seem you're point comes down to this from you

quote:

---

In view of such pearls of biblical wisdom, intelligent theological discussion seems a bit of an oxymoron.

---

Like I mentioned in the other thread, An eye for an eye, I don't agree with reading the bible with a complete ignorance of its cultural, historical, and theological context. I know that is common with many people but I find it strange coming from someone who claims to be a scientist. Now I know that you are probably used to smacking down Christian fundies and having a good laugh. Well, it may surprise you to know that I do my fair share of smacking them down to, but I cry that I feel the need to do so since we share a common faith.

You are aware that there are a great number of very competent scientists who are also theists, right? Put simply, they do not see any problem embracing religion *and* science. I have stated several times here before that some of the great scientists of our western culture were religious people. I'm going to quote from a section of the formal debate we did a while back on the existence of God:

quote:

---

To use the words in the question, ?my personal dogma? is based in Christianity. I understand that it is a foregone conclusion to many that my faith is only concerned with propagating ignorance and preventing the search for truth, but I must strongly disagree with that. While it is certainly true that the history of the Christian faith has been tainted by misguided brethren, it does not change the fact that the Christian faith is founded upon the love of truth and using God?s gift of intellect to its fullest capacity. I am trained in a field of science and so looking back to the contributions fellow theists have made to science demonstrates that there need not be any enmity between science and faith. I will allow the following quotations speak for themselves in this regard.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."
--Galileo Galilei

"I give you thanks, Creator and God, that you have given me this joy in thy creation, and I rejoice in the works of your hands. See I have now completed the work to which I was called. In it I have used all the talents you have lent to my spirit."
--Johann Kepler

"The universe has been wrought for us by a supremely good and orderly Creator"
--Copernicus

"I do not approve either the theology or the science of those who are prompt to invoke the supernatural to cover our ignorance of natural causes."
--Asa Gray (Harvard biologist)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So I feel entirely comfortable basing my research on a belief system shared by such esteemed individuals who found no problem with pursuing truth with vigor. I would hope all of us here would expect nothing less.

---

Now consider that I only focused on western science since its rise to prominance but what about the high culture of the Arabs around the 7th century? You know the Muslims who were far more advanced in mathematics and related sciences while many Europeans were still arguing over who had larger piles of filth (yes that is a blatant allusion to Monty Python's Holy Grail ). The Muslim world has been intensely religious since its founding and since scientific learning flourished under those conditions should leave no one in doubt there is no problem with embracing both.

I will explain that I do not believe God revealed to the Hebrews who lived under the Old Covenant the details of the physical universe. I believe He revealed profound and eternal theological truths to them and that they were the stewards of those truths for a few thousand years. I believe they wrote and spoke of these truths in the context of their own culture and understanding of the world.

Galileo really put it best in the quote I show above. The bible is not a scientific treatise on the creation of the universe, it is a road map to our reconciliation to the Creator. The physical world is what it is and is here for us to study and learn about its functions. And consider just for a moment what the would actually have to contain for it to describe things to you, White Hawk, in a way that you could understand.

It would have to be written in a context and cultural frame of mind that you could consume. It would have to dumb down the reality of reality for you (that was not a slam). Assuming we're still here 10,000 years from now, can you imagine how advanced our understanding might become of the universe? Do you really believe you could take in what will be known then? Now consider how primitive and silly the people living then will consider the scientific writings of our day. If they are fair minded, they will read what we say now in its historical context to keep from laughing, right? We should afford the people who lived 4,000 years ago the same courtesy as far as I'm concerned.

I need to add that I agree very much with this:

quote:

---

I think that science is all inclusive in that it attempts to explain the 'how' of things while disregarding the 'why' of them. In this capacity, it neither promotes nor discourages a belief in God and Creation.

---

I have said as much many times before. Religion deals with the why which is why it is so important.

That was probably a bit long winded but it was fun Now we need to get back to Q.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 06-11-2004 10:38)

I've been taking a closer look at those quotes from the OT. What was your point about the 1 Kings 7:23 reference? What does it have to do with the creation of the world? It's dealing with the construction of the Temple built by Solomon.

Now about the earth not being moved. This goes back to what I was talking about how all the cultures of southwestern asia understood the physical world. It was believed that the earth rested on an immense subterranean ocean. It was also believed that the heavens were fixed above the earth like a large inverted bowl. If you compare the creation stories of the Assyrians and Babylonians with that of Genesis, you will see this as common view of the physical world.

I hope that helps put some of this poking fun at the OT to rest.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

So, what you are saying, Bugs, is that this particular story is not true?

I can accept that.

I guess part of the problem for me comes down to this seemingly arbitrary distinction between what should be, and what should not be, taken literally in the bible.

To pick and choose "this is parable, this is truth" is obviously a big part of the problems between different schisms and sects of christianity.

I certainly agree that context is extremely important, and that is a big cause of problems on both sides of the fence. But context is also what leads me to hold the stories of Jesus so suspect.

I hardly think that scholars both secular and religious who dedicate their careers to studying the scriptural texts would characterize their findings as arbitrary, DL. There is a lot of work that goes into critically analyzing the scriptures and their historical merits.

But just earlier you did witness a major difference in how outcydr and myself view the Revelation of John. But I don't find this anymore unusual than the disagreements and squabbles we find in any field for scientific research. I think it is quite normal and healthy and it helps some of us to dig deeper into finding the original intent of the biblical authors.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

WH, i think you're taking the word "sea" in its english meaning and not what its actually referring to. from easton's bible dictionary:

quote:

---

Sea, The molten

the great laver made by Solomon for the use of the priests in the temple, described in 1 Kings 7:23-26; 2Chr 4:2-5. It stood in the south-eastern corner of the inner court. It was 5 cubits high, 10 in diameter from brim to brim, and 30 in circumference. It was placed on the backs of twelve oxen, standing with their faces outward. It was capable of containing two or three thousand baths of water (Compare 2 Chronicles 4:5), which was originally supplied by the Gibeonites, but was afterwards brought by a conduit from the pools of Bethlehem. It was made of "brass" (copper), which Solomon had taken from the captured cities of Hadarezer, the king of Zobah (1 Chronicles 18:8). Ahaz afterwards removed this laver from the oxen, and placed it on a stone pavement (2 Kings 16:17). It was destroyed by the Chaldeans (25:13).

---

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

Fair enough - scratch one quote.

Ten cubits across still isn't 30 cubits around, however, but I doubt this makes a compelling argument. Perhaps Solomon's building firm had no way of measuring the completed project, and they undoubtedly had no idea of the value of Pi in the planning stages either.

No matter...

WH - depends on whose cubits they're using to measure which depth! (cubits being the length of a person's arm from elbow to wrist... )


While I agree that there is a great deal of merit in biblical studies, and also a great deal of truth in the historical basis for the Bible's content, you would be hard pressed to convince me that the Bible can be taken entirely as a literal historical document.

Archaeologists have managed to unearth a great deal of evidence that can be (and has been) interpreted as "proving" the Bible - but they have not turned up anything that could be considered "conclusive" evidence that the Bible is indeed, factual. I think I see where DL's coming from here.

Whether it's actually arbitrary or only seemingly arbitrary, it's still difficult for the average person to make this determination on their own. Much of that comes from your own individual faith. Bugs, you believe in Jesus' divinity. Therefore, you are more inclined to believe that the stories recounted in the Bible are, indeed, historically accurate (to some extent). DL, on the other hand, is skeptical of the whole basis of your faith from the get go (meaning Jesus' divinity) and so is less inclined to believe the Bible to be historically accurate without some hard and fast proof. (Hope I've read everyone aright... I might be making it more simplistic than it should be... what with the variations in belief and all... apologies if I've taken someone wrong - feel free to make corrections!)

quote:

---

Bugs, you believe in Jesus' divinity.

---

But I didn't just pull that out of my anus.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

Well, no. Of course not. That wasn't the point at all.

Your faith in Jesus' divinity assists in your ability to believe that the contents of the Bible are true.

Whereas DL's skepticism of Jesus' divinity means he requires some substantial evidence if one is to convince him that the contents of the Bible are true.

Again, there is a definite historical basis for the contents of the Bible. The trick is attaching the written words to a physical place and moment in time. Making the first step, believing in the divinity of Jesus, just makes the rest of the leap easier.

I'm sure I'm oversimplifying the issue...

Actually, I think you've made me look at it all with a little more care. Thanks.

So, which particular set of beliefs is the right one?

Whichever one works for you!

No, that just is so wrong. You don't believe in something just because. You believe in things that have a higher chance of actually being true. bodhi23, I think you're putting the cart before the horse on this. You, WH, and everyone else should pick beliefs that are more likely true than those that are not. I'm very sorry if I'm misreading your point here, please correct me if I am.

I'm sorry for pulling out all these quotations lately but I can't help but see relevance:

quote:

---

It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.

--Carl Sagan

---

quote:

---

The well-meaning contention that all ideas have equal merit seems to me little different from the disastrous contention that no ideas have any merit.

--Carl Sagan

---

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

No, that was the point. ;)

Yes, it wasn't.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

quote:

---

Fair enough - scratch one quote.

---

hehee! i'm certain that if people were'nt so biased and did a little digging (pun) we could all have a pretty good backcratching.

quote:

---

No, that just is so wrong. You don't believe in something just because. You believe in things that have a higher chance of actually being true.

---

says: "duh!?" at bugs again.

quote:

---

I'm sure I'm oversimplifying the issue...

---

that's what's so stupefyingly beautiful about it.

ed/ only ribbing you bugs as in DNA curve

(Edited by outcydr on 06-16-2004 01:49)

When determining wrong from left, it is definitely maybe.

Or, to put it another way - it's all bollocks anyway, until it isn't.

I like to beat at dead horses, and reawaken old discussions that were done while I was away, so if I say anything that has already been clarified, please stop me.

quote:

---

bodhi23 said:

you would be hard pressed to convince me that the Bible can be taken entirely as
a literal historical document.

---

It is true. The bible is an entirely literal documentation. It explains how the universe was created (the hows are for you Sangreal), where the first people came from, what happened to them, and the Jews and so on until Jesus and a little afterwards. You see, this is a hard subject for most Christians, because as soon as you say that the entire Bible isn't true, you have just opened the door to total annihilation of what the Bible says, if you try to reintrepret just one part of the bible, then you say that others, including Jesus's birth, death, and resurrection. For instance:

-How do you know that Jesus rose from the dead? How do you know that He is the Savior?
-Well, it says back in Matthew...
-Oh, you are quoting that book? Well, what about the six days?
-Well, you don't need to believe in that.
-Oh, I see, so you want me to believe in this part, but not in this? That's real consistant isn't? What about the virgin birth?
-Well, it says back in Luke..
-Oh! You're quoting that book again! (turns and walks away)

You see my point? You can't say that one part of the Bible is wrong, and expect people to believe in another part of it. It opens the door to unbelief and the loosing of souls.

And about the dinosaur adventure park, I didn't really get to read all of it for lack of time, but if it says what I think it says and that dinosaurs lived along side humans back during Adam and Eve's time, I would agree with that. Anyways, there isn't any proof that the dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago. Just conjectures. Dinos don't come out of the ground with little tags on them that say "hello, I am 65 million years old", no. They are in the present, and we try to figure out what happened in the past to see what brought them there. (and if any of you recognize these arguments, it is because there is a man called Ken Ham who is one of the leading people with Christian answers. He has a web site called answersingenesis.org if anyone would like to see his arguments about dinos.)

Do not rebuke a moker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

I like to beat at dead horses, and reawaken old discussions that were done while I was away, so if I say anything that has already been clarified, please stop me.

quote:

---

bodhi23 said:

you would be hard pressed to convince me that the Bible can be taken entirely as
a literal historical document.

---

It is true. The bible is an entirely literal documentation. It explains how the universe was created (the hows are for you Sangreal), where the first people came from, what happened to them, and the Jews and so on until Jesus and a little afterwards. You see, this is a hard subject for most Christians, because as soon as you say that the entire Bible isn't true, you have just opened the door to total annihilation of what the Bible says, if you try to reintrepret just one part of the bible, then you say that others, including Jesus's birth, death, and resurrection. For instance:

-How do you know that Jesus rose from the dead? How do you know that He is the Savior?
-Well, it says back in Matthew...
-Oh, you are quoting that book? Well, what about the six days?
-Well, you don't need to believe in that.
-Oh, I see, so you want me to believe in this part, but not in this? That's real consistant isn't? What about the virgin birth?
-Well, it says back in Luke..
-Oh! You're quoting that book again! (turns and walks away)

You see my point? You can't say that one part of the Bible is wrong, and expect people to believe in another part of it. It opens the door to unbelief and the loosing of souls.

And about the dinosaur adventure park, I didn't really get to read all of it for lack of time, but if it says what I think it says and that dinosaurs lived along side humans back during Adam and Eve's time, I would agree with that. Anyways, there isn't any proof that the dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago. Just conjectures. Dinos don't come out of the ground with little tags on them that say "hello, I am 65 million years old", no. They are in the present, and we try to figure out what happened in the past to see what brought them there. (and if any of you recognize these arguments, it is because there is a man called Ken Ham who is one of the leading people with Christian answers. He has a web site called answersingenesis.org if anyone would like to see his arguments about dinos.)

Do not rebuke a moker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

quote:

---

It is true. The bible is an entirely literal documentation.

---

Oh, ok - that clears it up. Thanks for the final word on that, I was beginning to doubt

quote:

---

You see my point? You can't say that one part of the Bible is wrong, and expect people to believe in another part of it. It opens the door to unbelief and the loosing of souls.

---

No. I don't see your point.
First of all, this assumes that the bible is one book. It is not. It is a very big collection of stories, all from very different time periods and sources. The romans took it upon themsleves to decide which ones would be included that would best fit their view of what Christianity should be.

To say that a person must believe that the entire bible is meant to be literal simply because not doing so leaves room for doubt is the absolute pinnacle of ignorance, and epitomizes the evils of religion, IMO.

Without room for doubt, your "faith" means absolutely nothing. In the same way that fear is necessary in order to produce courage, room for doubt is essential in order to call something faith.

quote:

---

Anyways, there isn't any proof that the dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago. Just conjectures

---

Ah, yes. As opposed to cold hard facts that tell us that dinosaurs don't predate humans?

There is a great deal of fact that relates to the dating of such things, and although it may not be an entirely precise enterprise, we can certainly determine that many things predate humanity.

Sorry DL, I guess that first quote was a little blunt. Sorry about that.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

No. I don't see your point.First of all, this assumes that the bible is
one book. It is not. It is a very big collection of stories, all from
very different time periods and sources. The romans took it upon themsleves to
decide which ones would be included that would best fit their view of what
Christianity should be.

---

The part about how the Bible is not just one book is partly true, yes. The Bible is many books in one book. The thing is, though, that the other books in the Bible build onto each other. The whole basis of the Bible starts in Genesis. Many questions are answered in Genesis 1-11. Like:
-Why is there sin in the world? Genesis 1-11.
-Why is Jesus called the last Adam? Genesis 1-11.
-Where did people come from? Genesis 1-11.
-How was the Earth created? Genesis 1-11.
-Why is marriage one man for one woman? Genesis 1-11.
Do you think Genesis 1-11 is importent? Jesus Himself quoted from Genesis. If you cannot believe Genesis 1-11, if you can't believe the Earthly things, how can you believe the Heavenly things the Jesus teaches? And if you think that it is the Romans that did that you have got to be kidding me. Most Romans were selfish and were pagans, I should know, I have been studying their culture for the past 3 years, and they weren't the nicest people in the world you know. And if they did pick the books, why did they not change them? There are things in the Bible that are totally against what the Roman philosophies were back then. In addition, not a great deal of people knew how to write back then before the Industrial Revolution. I don't see a great validity in the Romans or any other nation or person changing the Bible. Not in that time period anyway. Not to make people become that religion. For instance, did you know that there is a bible seminar in the University of Notre Dame of about 30 Intelligent scholars. These scholars are meeting at this school/church to make a "politically correct" Bible. Did you know that they are editing out most of the Bible? They have completely taken out the book of John. If those scholars are taking that out, why wasn't it taken out by the Romans?

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

Ah, yes. As opposed to cold hard facts that tell us that dinosaurs don't predate
humans?

There is a great deal of fact that relates to the dating of such things, and although it may not be an entirely precise enterprise, we can certainly determine that many things predate humanity.

---

This depends on what side of the argument you are on. There are a ton of cold hard facts. These facts are being used by both creationists and evolutionists. They are the same facts, just looked at with different history. And, I would agree that many things predate Humans on this Earth, just read the Bible: everything that swims in the water, flys in the air, or crawls on the Earth. That was said in the Bible. On the sixth day, though, He made man to have dominion over the Earth and all that was in it. I'm not arguing, I am agreeing with you! I just want to say that They only walked the Earth one day (or three or two depending on the type of animal) before man was on the Earth. If you want to read about carbon dating, and other such methods and how they are really used, please feel free to go to the web site answersingenesis.org for the details. There are many good facts interpreted in the Biblical way. I just hope you don't go there with a closed mind. I hope that I have answered the questions you asked. If not please tell me.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

quote:

---

And if you think that it is the Romans that did that you have got to be kidding me.

---

I wish we had a slack-jawed/speechless slimey. We don't; pretend we do and I inserted it <there.

quote:

---

I have been studying their culture for the past 3 years, and they weren't the nicest people in the world you know.

---

Yeah? And have you studied any other culture in the world? In case you haven't noticed, most people from most parts of the world and most time periods have not very nice as a whole...

quote:

---

There are things in the Bible that are totally against what the Roman philosophies were back then.

---

Again, insert speechless slimey here....

Are you not aware of the history of your own religion???

Does the phrase "Roman Catholic" ring a bell at all???

The Romans did most certainly put together what we today call the bible. The texts which comprise it come from a very wide range of sources and times. Many aspects of the bible mimic or build on earlier Sumerian myths. Many are texts that speak to a specific set of people, laying out rules for various things. There are *many many many* texts from the same sources/times relating to the same subject matters which the romans decided would not be a part of the bible.

quote:

---

I don't see a great validity in the Romans or any other nation or person changing the Bible.

---

>speechless slimey<

What I'm saying is....there was no bible to change. They selected the texts that would comprise it. You can also be quite certain that in so doing they altered certain things to their tastes.

quote:

---

If those scholars are taking that out, why wasn't it taken out by the Romans?

---

Ok, at a total loss on that one. What does one group of people trying to make a "nicer" bible have to do with what the romans did 1700 years ago when they compiled it in the first place?

Again, the romans would not have "taken it out" because they are the ones who "put it in".

quote:

---

I just want to say that They only walked the Earth one day (or three or two depending on the type of animal) before man was on the Earth. If you want to read about carbon dating, and other such methods and how they are really used, please feel free to go to the web site answersingenesis.org for the details.

---

I know fairly well how carbon dating works, and let me just say that a "biblical interpretation" (read: twisting things to fit your pre-existing ideas rather than looking at what's there to determine what happened) of the evidence is niether here nor there.

You can't interpret things with the intention of proving a point that you think you already know.
You have to look at the facts and see where they lead.

I am sorry. I have been too caught up in the argument to really think. I apologize. I can practically feel the sting from your key strokes, so, I want to be in the right with you and not the wrong. If it was something I said please tell me so that I can make ammends with you.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

Yeah? And have you studied any other culture in the world? In case you haven't
noticed, most people from most parts of the world and most time periods have not very nice as a whole...

---

True. I will give you that. And about the Romans, I guess when you said Romans I thought of the Roman government. I thought that it would be pointless to make the Bible from a Roman Government stand point (other than to take advantage of people). Now that I think about it, It had to be compiled by someone between 40Ad-400Ad. I will have to research that, thanks.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

There are *many many many* texts from the same sources/times relating to the
same subject matters which the romans decided would not be a part of the
bible.

---

Could you help me out here? I don't know any of these "other texts". I would be interested to know. I am not doubting you, I just want to understand these things. If you could help I would appreciate it.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

You can't interpret things with the intention of proving a point that you think
you already know.You have to look at the facts and see where they lead.

---

Ok, I see your point. You have to look at facts you already know, for instance that there are fossils, and go with it from there. It propably doesn't come as a suprise to you, but Creationist scientists do that, too. They look at the evidence and hypothosize what happened in the past to cause the fossils to be there. Their answers are a little bit different from Evolutionists mainly for the reason of the basis for the research. Evolutionists look at a fossil and say when did it die, must be millions of years ago from the different rock layers. Creationists look at a fossil and say when did it die, must be thousands of years from the different rock layers. Just a different interpretation. Different way of looking at it. I know that is a rather weak argument, but if you want to know more about Creationist science I would really suggest looking at AnswersInGenesis.org. It is a great web site.
As for carbon dating it cannot be trusted. I know that many people just use it for a generalization, but that doesn't mean that even the generalization is right. I personally think that after all I have heard that carbon dating can't be trusted. If you go to answersingenesis.org, you will have a better understanding of what I mean.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

I am sorry. I have been too caught up in the argument to really think. I apologize. I can practically feel the sting from your key strokes, so, I want to be in the right with you and not the wrong. If it was something I said please tell me so that I can make ammends with you.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

Yeah? And have you studied any other culture in the world? In case you haven't
noticed, most people from most parts of the world and most time periods have not very nice as a whole...

---

True. I will give you that. And about the Romans, I guess when you said Romans I thought of the Roman government. I thought that it would be pointless to make the Bible from a Roman Government stand point (other than to take advantage of people). Now that I think about it, It had to be compiled by someone between 40Ad-400Ad. I will have to research that, thanks.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

There are *many many many* texts from the same sources/times relating to the
same subject matters which the romans decided would not be a part of the
bible.

---

Could you help me out here? I don't know any of these "other texts". I would be interested to know. I am not doubting you, I just want to understand these things. If you could help I would appreciate it.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

You can't interpret things with the intention of proving a point that you think
you already know.You have to look at the facts and see where they lead.

---

Ok, I see your point. You have to look at facts you already know, for instance that there are fossils, and go with it from there. It propably doesn't come as a suprise to you, but Creationist scientists do that, too. They look at the evidence and hypothosize what happened in the past to cause the fossils to be there. Their answers are a little bit different from Evolutionists mainly for the reason of the basis for the research. Evolutionists look at a fossil and say when did it die, must be millions of years ago from the different rock layers. Creationists look at a fossil and say when did it die, must be thousands of years from the different rock layers. Just a different interpretation. Different way of looking at it. I know that is a rather weak argument, but if you want to know more about Creationist science I would really suggest looking at AnswersInGenesis.org. It is a great web site.
As for carbon dating it cannot be trusted. I know that many people just use it for a generalization, but that doesn't mean that even the generalization is right. I personally think that after all I have heard that carbon dating can't be trusted. If you go to answersingenesis.org, you will have a better understanding of what I mean.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ should be a good start.


this is a great book too:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195141830/103-9801610-4931016?v=glance

I have seen the 'answers in genesis' site before.

The big problem I have with it is that, yet again, it tries to use the bible as science. We must check the facts against scripture, in regard to the age of things? Totally absurd.

If the facts in front of you dispute a book that has been touch ed by countless hands, and parts of which have been hopelessly warped as they passed by word of mouth for generation upon generation, and eventually passed from one society onto others, and which has been compiled from a wide variety of religious and mythological texts over the course of a long period of time....

Well then you have to accept that the facts may well be just that......facts. Whereas the scripture is simply stories. If you choose to accept stories that have had the evolutionary course described above as absolute fact in the face of actual fact that you can see in front of you....then so be it. But I have to say that it is completely foolish in every regard.

quote:

---

Evolutionists look at a fossil and say when did it die, must be millions of years ago from the different rock layers. Creationists look at a fossil and say when did it die, must be thousands of years from the different rock layers.

---

So everything in life boils down to black and white? It must be "evolutionist vs. creationist"?

What about people who are simply scientists without such a big point to prove? Are they to be ignored because they don't fit into this "argument"?

Yes, sadly, most everything boils down to black and white, for or against, right and wrong. And we could be here for millions of years debating that so to clarify I said most. Hey, if there was a half way point that was logical and feasible for hard questions, that would be ok on some levels. But, in most cases there isn't. And, if it isn't Creation or Evolution, what are you trying to prove? Where are you (not you literally, just in general) trying to go with the facts?
Another thing is that in the research I have read from Answers in Genesis isn't disputed in the Bible. The facts are actually confirming what the Bible has been saying for a long long time. And the Bible isn't just stories. It is a collection of love, teachings, laws, history, Biology, Geology, Anthropology, Astronomy, Physics, Chemistry, and many other things as well. It isn't just stories. And I will say that I have no doubt in my mind that the Bible should be taken as a literal history book. All the little books are "God breathed" and were stood on by Jesus. If you say that Genesis is wrong, then you say that Jesus was wrong. He quoted Genesis in Matthew when asked about marriage. If you say that He was wrong, then He must be insane. The reason that He died on the cross was defined in Genesis. The reason He died was to take out the sin that Adam put into the world. If Genesis is wrong, then Jesus, the Son of God, died in vain.
And about the authority of the Bible I still need to do research on it. As I said before I believe everything in it (especially emphasizing Genesis1-11) because it has been proven by cold hard facts. The only question in my mind is about the books not put into the Holy Bible. The ones not in the OT canon and NT canon. That is what I have been and will continue to research.
As for the web sites, I will look at them thoroughly. Thank you very much for the help.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

quote:

---

Yes, sadly, most everything boils down to black and white, for or against, right and wrong.

---

No.

You stated above two sets of people who came to different conclusions.

The problem: there are not only two sets of people researching such things. Not everybody is out to prove a religious (or anti-religious) point. Some people actually have the object purpose of learning. Learning totally seperate from any religious debate or influence. Learning for learning's sake.

Anything I have seen on the 'answersingenesis' website are so absurdly biased and defiant of fact that it is impossible to believe them.

Again - if you set out in a scientific enterprise with a conclusion already formed in your head, you will fail. Period.

Now, as to your point of Jesus dying in vain if genesis is not true -

1) it means little to me either way, as I believe very strongly that there is no god in the first palce, and hence whatever sccomplishments Jesus may have made, he could not be anything more than a mortal man.

2) assuming that there were a god, and that Jesus was the son of said god, it still does not make it requisite that genesis be taken literally for Jesus' sacrifice to have been effective/noteworthy/necessary (or however else you would like to classify it).

Genesis being a story used to illustrate in simple terms the origins of a very complex world would not nullify the idea of sin being caused by man and Jesus dying to cleanse the world of those sins.

I cannot see any possible conflict except for those of very simple minds.

Again, I must reiterate - to accept something as fact simply because to not do so would cause confusion is the absolute pinnacle of ignorance.

It is also noteworthy to add that many scholars have said that the actual word used in genesis to describe the time in which god made things does not translate literally to "day", but rather to any length of time with a fixed beginning and end.

I am not a linguistics expert, and cannot verify this off hand, but if that is the case it certainly blows your theory of time spans away.

Which scholars are saying this? They need to become more scholarly before they publish their findings. You see, the Hebrew word for day translated there is yom. That is the same word used in the rest of Genesis for day. Yom can stand for an ordinary day, an age, a year, but mostly means day. Do you know how you know for cretain that it is an ordinary day? Usually it is followed by evening, morning, number, night. Do you know what it is in the Bible? Followed by evening, morning, number, night. You can check for yourself. Of course those are ordinary days.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

You don't read the Bible much do you? I'm sorry that you don't believe that Jesus died for you. A lot of people don't when they are faced with scientific facts that seem to disprove the Bible.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

You stated above two sets of people who came to different conclusions.

---

Yeah kinda. It is more illustrated by this:
C____ ____E
V
F
F
F
^
Creation Evolution

(Pardon my extremely bad programing skills)
The two theories both have roots in different findings, and both have different answers. The thing is that they both use the same facts to verify thier hypothiesis. Only, Evolutionists must adjust their opinion of the world after many finds, but Creationists have the same base since Moses. The only difference is the base, or history. That is what makes the answers come out different.
And if learning for learning's sake was something that people actually did then that would be astounding. But, the facts found are very seldomly used that way. They are more often used to form a theory of what happened. I understand what you mean that people go out into the world to try and find clues to, say, what happened to the dinosaurs. But, when they find the clues it is very seldomly put on exhibit to "make your own conclusions based on your own knowledge of the situation." Scientists will look at those facts an make a theory about what happened to get them there. Normally it is one of the two above arguments. I have not, but maybe you have, heard of any instances from which a theory about ancient history was detached from one of those two bases of thought. Maybe you can help me by pointing me towards some of these scientists that learn for knowledge's sake (without a base).

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

he [Jesus] could not be anything more than a mortal man.

---

If you think so that is your idea, but there are many facts to prove other wise...

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

assuming that there were a [G]od, and that Jesus was the son of said [G]od, it still
does not make it requisite that genesis be taken literally for Jesus' sacrifice
to have been effective/noteworthy/necessary (or however else you would like to
classify it).Genesis being a story used to illustrate in simple terms
the origins of a very complex world would not nullify the idea of sin being
caused by man and Jesus dying to cleanse the world of those sins.

---

Yes it would. The Earth was made in six days (you can read this in your Bible).
God then said after it was done that it was very good. Lets look at that for a minute. If a loving, caring, God said that death, suffering, disease, thorns all came before the Curse, then we have a real problem. Then His holyness isn't what He said it was and Jesus died in vain. Another thing is that those things happened after the Curse. The Curse was initiated when Adam sinned. Then God separated the Earth from Him. That caused death, suffering, disease, thorns, etc. If that happened, then Jesus came to give atonment to a race that didn't need it. Plus, Adam, having brought sin into the world, needed atonement as much as we did. That is why God made the first sacrifice for him, and Jesus made the last sacrifice for us. Which brings me to a question. If Jews don't sacrifice blood anymore, what do they sacrifice? Always been a curiosity to me.
And, Genesis was not a story. It was a revelation of what happened to form the Earth by a Being that was there in the beginning. It is a Jewish history book part one of five in the Torah. It was adopted by the Christians, and later wrongly portrayed as a "story book".
And, what in answersforgenesis did you look at? And by the way, everything in this world is biased. Just to give you a heads up if you though that that science page was biased.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.