Topic awaiting preservation: owwwwwww.....it hurts bad

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/10/15/halloween.sabbath.ap/index.html

I am left a little speechless.....

{{edit - okay, so not speechless., just immensely confused by the huge jumble of things that leap to the front of my brain at reading this!

quote:

---

"That's Christ's day. You go to church on Sunday, you don't go out and celebrate the devil....

---

So...it's okay for good christian folk to go out and celbrate the devil if'in' it ain't sunday????????

Arrrrggggggghhhhhhh

quote:

---

That'll confuse a child."

---

Oh lordy, won't it ever, when it's looked at like that!!!!

quote:

---

"We don't need to confuse people with this," Councilman George Alexander said.

---

No, no we surely don't.....

quote:

---

The patchwork of trick-or-treat zones could work to children's advantage: Some might go out on both nights to get all the treats they can.

---

ahh....now, maybe this could work out after all...


I mean.....if you have a problem with halloween on sunday. it should really be because you have a problem with halloween no matter what day it falls.....if you can "celebrate the devil" (which of course has nothing to do with what halloween has *ever* been about anyway) on a weekday........but not on sunday............you've got bigger problems than what day halloween falls on in the first place.


god help us all......







(Edited by DL-44 on 10-16-2004 03:26)

quote:

---

"Moving it, that's like celebrating Christmas a week early," said Veronica Wright...

---

Equating Christmas with Halloween?

quote:

---

You go to church on Sunday, you don't go out and celebrate the devil.

---

Little kids asking for treats is celebrating the devil? So it's OK to celebrate the devil as long as you don't do it on Sunday?

actually trick or treating isnt celebrating the devil at all, it is innocently going out and getting free candy. like come on how many kids go out and are like, im the devil worship me? how many kids really really know of/about the devil?

8 Weeks cut free
Cleaning mind: 8 bars of soap
Being hit on: One shirt and one pair of shorts
Being scared to death by Lego: Priceless

quote:

---

speechless., just immensely confused

---

I submit you are neither, probably more like you're shocked that you're so shocked

more silly shtuff from the Pharisees

*shakes head sadly*

WTH is going on in the States?

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

Some of those silly peole need to be reminded just how much paganism is in the 'Christian' holidays.

Easter bunny with eggs?
Decorating a pine tree?
Hello!

I don't understand why Halloween spooks day is so misunderstood. Its just for pure fun. True to say some devil worshipers have used this day for their purpose. But, their is a Christian Mexican day called " Dia de los Muertos" (Day of the Dead) where families go to cemetaries and sit around the grave sites and make a feast of it. Its celebrated right after Halloween. We pray for the dead. I have seen some skelton prepared cookies for this special day. Special foods are prepared and special masses or services are said. In our church we set aside a place where parishioners bring pictures of their loved ones who have passed on and they are put around flowers and candles and sweets. Its a beautiful ceremony. Here in Houston where there is a heavy hispanic population the cemetaries are visited through out the day with flowers.

I have many fun memories of Halloween since I was a child, trick or treating till today. I went with my kids not too long ago and dressed up myself. I am big kid. We are also having a big annual Halloween with a spook house the Sat before. I think most parties will fall on Saturday anyway. Here in my subdivision there are hardly any children out anymore on this day, but people want to give candy and are waiting because they have their lights on. I think the real message of halloween is that is fun to be someone else that day and spook people out or fool people. I work for the Harrris County District Attorney's office and many offices are decorated for Halloween already wiith witch pictures, pumpkins and skeletons, etc. And these are grown adult ladies and men. So, that being said, Halloween is harmless to you if its all in fun.

http://www.mexconnect.com/mex_/travel/jking/jkdayofthedead.html

Is USA really becoming no different that Middle East?

Christians being concerned about Halloween falling on a Sunday is a waste of energy. As far as I'm concerned it's based in superstition and not sound theology.

WS and Ruski, this is really nothing new at all for this country. I'm sure if you look back to the early days of our history you will find plenty of cases similar to this.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

look back to the early days of our history you will find plenty of cases similar to this.

---

Yes, I am aware of the Puritan heritage of the States, Bugs. I think just about anyone who has had high school history should be, right? Isn't stuff like Thanksgiving and Plymouth Rock and the Salem Witch trials still taught in High School?

Now, what has that got to do with now? It may not be new, but it sure is surprising to me to see it in this day and age. Maybe the Inquisition is also returning?

Or bring back the Crusades?

How about convert the Native aboriginal peoples, or put them to the sword?

I don't mean you any disrespect Bugs...but just because it has happened before, is not a reason for it to happen again.

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

It's important to bear in mind that this is a story about rather isolated incidents - this is not a wide spread concern here in the US.

This kind of mentality is not only something that is 'now new', as in 'has happened before', it is something that has never gone away.

Parts of this country are truly frightening in the religious aspect. They don't call it the 'bible belt' for nothing after all...

Just a few months ago there was the issue in (georgia?) where they voted to change the term 'evolution' to 'organisms changing over time' or something like that...

There are constantly issues like this, ranging from silly to harmful in certain areas.

I was just pointing out that since this is nothing new, that comments like "WTH is going on in the States?" and "Is USA really becoming no different that Middle East?" seem out of place to me. I don't like this sort of mentality at all but I don't think it represents a widespread or serious problem in this country.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

I find it troubling but not unexpected. I feel so badly for the little kids who are brought up (brainwashed?) in a fundamentalist home. Imagine being so paranoid about God and Satan that a fun kiddie holiday is changed. Wow... I have such a hard time imagining that people actually take "demons" seriously.

I don't understand the fundamentalist mindset at all. And they're so very vocal in the US too. I can't imagine living in a town that would change Halloween - what about the non-Christians and non-religious? I guess they're stuck with the changes?

Amerasu |

Bugs you have to understand that I am still young and I was not raised or lived in the States until recently, when I just moved to Florida, Sarasota to attend college. Since I am growing up and still am full of energy I get involved in politica, religious, social, domestic issue's discussions and observations.

Honestly the only thing I used to hear about USA is how great and powerful it is and how full of freedom, education, and opportunities it is. But things are not alwasy what they are heard.

Don't get me wrong, I do acknowledge that USA is full of opportunities and it is indeed very powerful country in terms of military power....pretty much because of riches and span of the open market capitalism. Yes, indeed the real people who make this country what it is are the ones you never see or hear about. But that is only economy.

What scares me the most is how fundies here have so much power. Yes, USA has strong seperation from church and state, but most fundies are not governed by giant human institution which is full of flaws, dark history and can be easily tackled. (Hence why most catholics are pretty liberal) They are governed by their own superfluous, superstitious, irrational, overzealous minds. It's scary... they refuse to read history, they want creationism in the classroom of public schools, showing no tolerance to homosexuality, banning steam cel research because of feared superstition that dominates their minds. No wonder they want to bad everything objectively because they are not capable of teaching their own offsprings comprehension of reality, humanity and the world that surrounds us. They throw away constitution of the USA out of the window and make Jesus Christ Supreme Ruler of the land (Alabama).


I couln't believe when I heard that Missouri still does not acknowledge Texas as official state of USA. If you got a woman pregnant in Texas you can move to Missouri and not pay any child support. (It happened to my friend)


See how some of the members here fanaticaly express their desire to ban abortion. It's crazy! what good will it do? Women are not going to stop practicing it, they will do so in even worse conditions underground and "illigaly".
Do I need to point out how many people have desire to eliminate "all the muslims"? Some baptist's church even call them evil, spawns of satan.
What tolerance and act does it show? No different than the terrorist themself, no different to what Nazis did.

I see alot of "rebellion" going on amongs modern youth and their fear of isolation, wanting to be loved, confusion, practice of sex at younger ages, consumprion of drugs and superstition desires, lack of parental involvement in their lives and how parents let TV and streets educate their kids.

No wonder fundies are trying to bring back the morals and values of dark ages, which causes fear confusion and lack of tolerance
to others. Companies, Television stations, video game industries and other products here are sued becasue of peoples' stupidity.



And since I am becoming a resident of the USA, I will do all I can to make this place a better country, I will try to be a spokesman of my generation rather than trying to bash particular side, or migrate and look for "better" place. There is no better place, we have to make it better. Things have to change, vaules we pass on have to change, the view on the world has to change, the way of thinking has to change.


Just keep in mind, this is not attack insult or whatever to any particular group(s), it was not rant either. Just an objective analysis on how I see society for now.

quote:

---

Just an objective analysis on how I see society for now.

---

umm, yeah. completely objective

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

Ouch, umm, yeah I guess I already had somehting else in mind by the time I finished typing. Ignore the last sentence, or replace it with "subjective" if you will *shrugs*

Wow that was long Ruski (almost as long as some of mine).

First off, this whole thing is a little wierd because I have discussed with many that Sunday is not really the Sabbath, just a day to worship God. The real Sabbath, according to the Jews who started it, is Saturday not Sunday. Any way, I agree that saying something is bad on one day and not bad the next is a little foolish. It is like waiting until 12:00 on Sunday to drink beer. But I see the reasoning behind it. The main thing is that these people are seeing many religious things taken away from them, and they are losing many important religious battles, so why not go for an easy hit? They need something to stay sacred in the day and age of thinking. That is chosen as Sunday.

Now back to Ruski...
You made some good points, and I do recognize that some things are getting out of hand, but I think you and I see on two different planes. I do understand that fighting the fight against abortion and sex and drugs is hard, nearly impossible, but it is the job of Christians to fight it. Abortion is killing a baby, sex is adultry, and drugs are bad for your health. They are all bad things. (stem-cell research isn't a superstition, it goes under the same category as abortion) Christians are finally waking up and realizing how far down the drain the United States is going on good morals. Even some countries that were previously looked down on have better morals than us.

As for Creationism, it really should be reinstated in the curriculum as long as Evolution is. Creationsim and Evolutionism are just two theories to how the world was created. One should not be hidden from children more than the other should. They both have been justified yet not completely, and until there is a law of how the Earth was created, then the theories should all be taught.

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

quote:

---

Gideon said:

do understand that fighting the fight against abortion and sex and drugs is
hard, nearly impossible, but it is the job of Christians to fight it. Abortion
is killing a baby, sex is adultry, and drugs are bad for your health. They are
all bad things. (stem-cell research isn't a superstition, it goes under the same
category as abortion) Christians are finally waking up and realizing how far
down the drain the United States is going on good morals

---

I have nothing to say to this...for me you simply demonstrate just what I have mentioned above.
You are not relizing anything, you are simply refusing to think and take responsibility raising your children.

quote:

---

Gideon said:

As for Creationism, it really should be reinstated in the curriculum as long as
Evolution is. Creationsim and Evolutionism are just two theories to how the
world was created. One should not be hidden from children more than the other
should. They both have been justified yet not completely, and until there is a
law of how the Earth was created, then the theories should all be
taught.

---

Really? well, I am not going to start the argument, but lets put it this way:



edit: first of all you show sheer amount of ignorance on biological evolution, but that's ok we are not born with knowledge.

You say that there are different theories, right ? And they all should be taught...To apply the concept of logic... well, then why don't we teach Native American creationism theory? or Ancient Greek/Roman? Why not Mayan? Or Messapotanian, thats where Jewsih actually barrowed from alot, you know? ( Yup, try few art history books. The development of Jewish influence in literature from Mesapotaniasn, Egyptians and other cultures.)

Or perhaps that aliens created us?!!! and we should worship them and have faith in them because if we don't they will blast us with a gian laser like in "Independent Day"

All those ideas fall under the same category.

If you put Jewish mythological text (and refuse to look at it's development as by modern history ) in par with modern biology...that exactly what scares me.



Here is an Interesting comparison of USA and Western Europe in terms of religiosity.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_2_28/ai_114090210/print



I hope USA someday will be as influenced as Western Europe.

edit: tag

(Edited by Ruski on 10-17-2004 07:39)

(Edited by Ruski on 10-17-2004 07:47)

quote:

---

Evolutionism are just two theories to how the
world was created.

---

Evolution is not a theory, it is a fact. The exact model of Evolution is a theory. I wish some people would finally get that straight.

Bugs, in my travels and living in all the different parts of the United States (the 4 cardinal directions...I have been in 48 states, in all), I have never, ever heard of banning Halloween, just because it falls on a Sunday. Thus, my reaction. Maybe I just didn't contact the right people, or something.

Now, a few refusing to celebrate wouldn't catch my attention (in fact that is quite normal) - but whole communities? That is something entirely different.

And DL, first you say

quote:

---

I am left a little speechless.....

---

Then you say

quote:

---

This kind of mentality is not only something that is 'now new', as in 'has happened before', it is something that has never gone away.

---

If you are aware that this kind of mentality has been around since the Founding, then why does this sort of thing leave you speechless?

I must say, the article surprised the living hell out of me. And since I have been out of touch with the country for over 12 years now, I asked what the hell is going on over there.

And that is why I replied the way I did so you didn't get too alarmed

I've known a few people in my time that would favor banning Halloween if enough of their fellow citizens agreed. I think I understand the mentality pretty well.

The funny thing is that there are plenty of people in this country willing to impose their views on others through laws and it is certainly not limited to religious types living in the bible belt.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

The funny thing is that there are plenty of people in this country willing to impose their views on others through laws and it is certainly not limited to religious types living in the bible belt.

---

Very good point, Bugs! Well said!

I'm afraid I don't understand your confusion, WS...


Yes, this kind of mentality always suprises me to some extent, and yes this kind of pure ignorance is frightening.

The point in my second post is that this is an isolated thing, and this is not a "suddenly the US is becoming this way" kind of thing.

~shrug~

Thanks for the clarification, DL. That pretty much clears up any confusion that I had.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Evolution is not a theory, it is a fact

---

Evolution is a theory based on facts that were discovered, not the other way around.

quote:

---

Theory- 1. A speculative plan 2. a formation of underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which has been verified to some degree 3. the principles of an art or science rather than its practice 4. a conjecture or guess.

---

quote:

---

Ruski said:

You are not relizing anything, you are simply refusing to think and take
responsibility raising your children.

---

First off, I have no children, not yet, and if and when I do I will try my hardest to be a good father. I am a child of my parents, though, and they raised my well, I would say.

quote:

---

Ruski said:

first of all you show sheer amount of ignorance on biological evolution

---

Except I did whole heartedly believe in Evolution and Darwin's theory throughout Junior and half of Senior High. I know Evolution. I used to be a Christian advocate for it even. But, I had an epiphany, and I read Genesis, and I listened to what a very intelligent man had to say, and I realized that Creation is a plausible theory.

As for teaching all of those other theories of how we got here: 1.) I did get taught most of them in school and 2.) if they have been as thoroughly researched and contemplated as Evolution and Creation has been, then sure why not? Information is not to be kept from society. That is what freedom of the press is all about. Why shouldn't all these researched theories be taught to children. Keeping information from them is about as bad as saying that getting hit by a train won't kill them.

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

Gideon, you are wrong. Period.

We have debated this before. Evolution is fact. The actual mechanisms of Evolution are currently in the theory stage. If you so wish, I can dig through all my stuff, and demonstrate this to you.

You obviously are not aware of what Evolution really is, otherwise, you would know that it is a fact. I think you are getting the different theoretical models of Evoution confused with Evolution itself. No amount of belief, can disprove this. It can only deny the truth.

I'm curious, as to what has blinded you. You mention Creationism, that from the Bible. I would be very interested to know, why you can't accept Evolution in a Creation-type frame, as Bugs does.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

The actual mechanisms of Evolution are currently in the theory stage.

---

That is what I have been trying to say. Evolution is a Theory based on facts. Nothing more nothing less.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

You obviously are not aware of what Evolution really is

---

I am whole heartedly aware of what Evolution is. I am hitting the topic of how we came into being. I just can't see the how we could have evolved from some sort of soupy thing over millions of years.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

you can't accept Evolution in a Creation-type frame

---

Well, yes and no. I accept Macro-Evolution, not Micro-Evolution. Macro is a horse with tall legs changing into a horse with shorter legs or the other way around. I don't believe that a horse come from a frog millions of years ago (or a fish, or whatever else it was).

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

Of course, more important than anything -

quote:

---

Creationsim and Evolutionism are just two theories to how the world was created.

---

'evolution' has absolutely nothing to do with how the world was created.

It has to do with the simple concept of species changing over the course of generations, usually in adaptation to their environment.

How this has anythnig whatsoever to do with how the world was created is beyond me.

'Creationsim' should be taught in school, I agree. But it most certainly does not belong in a science class - it belongs in a literature class or a mythology class, or an 'ancient cultures' class, etc..

Why can't it be in a science class? It has been researched as much as Evolution has been. It just came to a different conclusion.

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

Ok, time to dig out all my stuff on this...*sigh* I'll post back, when I get it all together.

Ok - Evolution is a Fact and a Theory and The Evolution Fact FAQ and Evolution: Fact and Theory

quote:

---

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

---

And from Stephan Jay Gould Evolution as Fact and Theory

quote:

---

The basic attack of modern creationists falls apart on two general counts before we even reach the supposed factual details of their assault against evolution. First, they play upon a vernacular misunderstanding of the word "theory" to convey the false impression that we evolutionists are covering up the rotten core of our edifice. Second, they misuse a popular philosophy of science to argue that they are behaving scientifically in attacking evolution. Yet the same philosophy demonstrates that their own belief is not science, and that "scientific creationism" is a meaningless and self-contradictory phrase, an example of what Orwell called "newspeak."

---

Furthermore, we need to decide, what Evolution's meaning is, when we speak of Fact and Theory.

quote:

---

"Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved."

First, we should clarify what "evolution" means. Like so many other words, it has more than one meaning. Its strict biological definition is "a change in allele frequencies over time." By that definition, evolution is an indisputable fact. Most people seem to associate the word "evolution" mainly with common descent, the theory that all life arose from one common ancestor. Many people believe that there is enough evidence to call this a fact, too. However, common descent is still not the theory of evolution, but just a fraction of it (and a part of several quite different theories as well). The theory of evolution not only says that life evolved, it also includes mechanisms, like mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift, which go a long way towards explaining how life evolved.

---

And as DL has already commented on, Evolution has nothing to do with how the world was created.

quote:

---

I just can't see the how we could have evolved from some sort of soupy thing over millions of years.

---

Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean that it is not true. I take it, it is easier for you to believe in Magic and Myth, then it is for you to believe in a natural process?

How strange.

quote:

---

Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean that it is not true.

---

i'll be quoting you on that in any faith discussions we have in the future, just fyi

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

^ hehe

Gideon: something having been researched does not make it science. All ancient literature has been researched to verying degrees, most often to very extensive degrees. But it's still literature - not sceince.

As Ruski pointed out, if we are to take a religious/mythological story of the creation of the world, and introduce in a science class, then we must include the greek accounts, the norse accounts, the various asian accoutns, those of the mayans, the incas, the Hopi, etc etc etc....

Before you know it, we'll be sacrificing goats to stop the gods from plaguing us with earthquakes again.

quote:

---

i'll be quoting you on that in any faith discussions we have in the future, just fyi

---

As long as it is in context, sure.

For example, the soul, or spirit...my people believe that everything has one. Science hasn't been able to prove or unprove this yet.

(Edited by WebShaman on 10-18-2004 23:09)

...and God? WS, I think we should quote that in or out of context from now until the end of time I love it!

...and now let's go back to our regularly scheduled discussions.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

Worried About Witches

The Puyallup School District (search) in Washington State has canceled its annual Halloween parade and banned all other Halloween activities, insisting the costumes may be offensive to real witches and followers of Wicca (search) ? a form of Paganism.

A school district spokeswoman, quoted by local KOMO-TV, says, "Witches [masks] with pointy noses and things like that are not respective symbols of the Wiccan religion, and so we want to be respectful."

But, aside from that, school officials say Halloween activities are a waste of valuable class time and too expensive for some to take part in.

? FOX News' Michael Levine contributed to this report
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136303,00.html

---

What a treat that we would actually get the same kind of action from the secular fascists as well in the same season. This just confirms what I said earlier about there being a lot of people in this country that love to do the "impose my views on others" mambo

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Wow.

Just.......wow.....

I don't have much to add to the conversation, but to say these school districts need some serious work in the public relations departments.
Who do they have talking to these reporters?
Are their press releases written by the grammer school library assistant?
...or maybe a 7th grade writing project?

What a joke.
If Tylenol can come out of a poisoning scare with boosted sales, certainly these idiots -- the ones educating our children -- can cancel a bloody holiday party without becoming the laughing stock of the country.

off to send my resume...

*Shakes head*

Hoboy.

quote:

---

warjournal said:

Some of those silly peole need to be reminded just how much paganism is in the 'Christian' holidays.Easter bunny with eggs?Decorating a pine tree?Hello!

---

Heh, I agree Warjournal.

For example :

Hallowe'en, otherwise known as Samhain.

Then there is Candlemas aka Christmas aka Imbolc or maybe it's just the Yule holiday.

Hallowe'en and Samhain.

Also this page has this quote:

quote:

---

Pope Gregory II moved the christian holiday of "all Hollows Eve" from May 13 to November 1st to coincide with the Feast of Samhain. This was an effort by the catholic church to downplay the pagan festival. Hopefully, they reasoned, it would replace Samhain and the pagan celebration would fade away. The pagan festival continued to be celebrated and Halloween evolved largely from it. Today, the Catholic church tolerates the Halloween, recognizing it is a fun holiday and not intended to hold religious or other supernatural beliefs or religion.

---

Those are just the quickie links I grabbed off a quick google search.

_____________________

le coeur du feu
Qui sème le vent récolte la tempête!

Like they say : " Only in America "

Witches, I only recently learned about Wicca and I was suprised to see that someone I knew was a witch. It was very interesting what she said and the research I have done on the topic.

quote:

---

RhyssaFireheart said:

Then there is Candlemas aka Christmas aka Imbolc or maybe it's just the Yule holiday.

---

First off I would like to know what you think Candlemas has to do with Christmas, and also what Halloween has do with "pagan" holidays. The sites aren't really specific as to the origins of the now practiced Halloween. I would like to know if you have anything to add.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Evolution has nothing to do with how the world was created.

---

Not in the literal sense of Earth, no, but in the sense of how the Earth is populated by so many diverse species, Yes.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

I take it, it is easier for you to believe in Magic and Myth, then it is for you
to believe in a natural process

---

Actually it is quite easy to believe in some magic and myth with what I hear from friends/missionaries. Also, the Bible and what it has to say is not myth. As for natural process, I understand most of it and am continuing my education to understand more. It is a never ending process.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

something having been researched does not make it science

---

No, absolutely correct. Something being researched does not make that something science. The way it is being researched is science.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

As Ruski pointed out, if we are to take a religious/mythological story of the
creation of the world, and introduce in a science class...

---

Well, I just don't think it is fair to tell children that the Evolutionary model given by some scientists is the end all proof. I just see a need for children to be given an option to draw thier own conclusions. I am all for free thinking, but children can't think freely if one theory is the only one they know.

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

quote:

---

Also, the Bible and what it has to say is not myth.

---

Would care to corroborate that?

You will find a very large number of "bilbical" stories present in assyirian mythology, which predates what we know as the old testament. There is no qualm by anyone I know in continuing to refer to these assyrian texts as 'mytholigy', yet when we refer to the same story in the bible as mythology, a great number of people have a problem with it....

Interesting.

As for Halloween, there are mnay examples of such pagan celebrations which are very clearly the origins of the modern holiday.

The same is true of alll major christian holidays.

Christmas has paralells in many pagan cultures, as the celebration of the winter solstice which went by a variety of names in different places and times. Going back to the romans, it was known as 'saturnanian', many germanic tribes used the term yule. One aspect of such celebrations was the veneration of evergreen trees, which were seen as symbolic of everlasting life, sometimes seens as actual deities even. Thus the modern 'christmas tree'. Making it 'christmas' was simply another ploy by the catholics to try to further the christian way by assimilating aspects of pagan practices.

"eastre" was a germanic diety of spring, who - not surprisingly for anyone paying attention - came to earth in the form of a rabbit.

And the list goes on....

"wicca" of course, is (IMO) a farce created in the 19th century by an overly romantic yet under astudious enthusiast in celtic culture.

quote:

---

Well, I just don't think it is fair to tell children that the Evolutionary model given by some scientists is the end all proof.

---

Wow...

Ok. So, it isn't fair, to teach just Physics, either, as "the end all proof" (whatever that means)? Instead, as an alternative, we should teach that the world is flat as well?

I am really not understanding something here, Gideon, and I think you are really not understanding something here, either. Evolution is not up for grabs, as a theory. I have already said that now, a couple of times. You trying to say it is something other than what it is, will not change that anymore than you saying that Physics is also wrong, and the world is flat will change the fact that the world is round. And the current theoretical models of how this Evolutionary process works are by all means not set in stone. Where ever did you get that idea?

Second, Evolution and Religious faith can exist in harmony side-by-side...just ask Bugs. One could still believe in a Creator, and see Evolution as part of its design.

I fear there is not going to be any reasoning with you, when you fail to identify and seperate Fact from Myth. And as DL pointed out above, your "solutions" to the "problems" that you evidently see, are unfortunately only bent in one direction : to that of your Faith! And then you attempt again, to "belittle" the facts

quote:

---

I am all for free thinking, but children can't think freely if one theory is the only one they know.

---

Again, Evolution is not a theory! And giving them a choice, between Fact, and some Myth out of a religious book is somehow promoting free thinking?

Who chooses which religious book? And which Myth? You mention Creationism...I assume you were talking about the Creationism from your Religious Faith (that in the Bible), right? Why should anyone use that? The Aborigines of Australia have a much longer history of their Myths and Legends, why not use them? It is also based on Creationism, albeit a bit different than that which is in the Bible!

So which version of Creationism is right? Yours? The Hindus? The Buhddists? The Aborigines? My peoples version? The Incans? The Mayans? The Egyptians of old? (Sorry for leaving others out...the list is just too long!) Wow...that is a huge can of worms there!

I'm sorry, but maybe we should just stick to the facts in school, and let the children get their "free thinking" at home.

I will respond to your second post in a minute. As for your first post:
I had a sneaky suspicion that many of the observed days in the Christian faith were somehow related to "pagan" religions. I did remember hearing somewhere about how the Church before the middle ages tried to envelope all the other religions and change people's minds toward Christianity. I do understand that it is very bad to compromise beliefs, but I see their position. These new members were so stuck in their tracks that maybe they could only be swayed with the compromise of religious holidays.

I do recognize most of the blunders of those holidays, but I now understand why we decorate a Christmas tree. Thanks.

As for your second post, wow:
I think I understand what the problem is now. Okay, the changing of the physical structure in organisms to pass on new and better traits to their offspring is evolution, correct? Okay. If you take that just a few hundred years you already see differences in traits. Now, some scientists came up with the Theory of Evolution that explains from Darwin's Theory how all life forms are descended from one organism. Am I correct in this? Okay, I agree that organisms change over time. What I don't agree with is the theory that they changed into totally different organisms over millions of years. Is this a satisfactory explaination for you or do I need to go further. I think you saw my disagreement as against all evolution, when I meant it against the Theory of Evolution which spans millions of years.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Evolution and Religious faith can exist in harmony side-by-side

---

Yes, I believe I have already stated this. I believe in macro-evolution, not micro. I believe that God put many kinds of animals on this Earth. Then the flood happened and two of each (with a few exceptions) were saved. Then those kinds evolved into different groups to better fit their environment. I do not believe that those kinds changed into different kinds. Do you understand?

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Again, Evolution is not a theory

---

Okay, I guess this is one thing that we are going to just have to agree to disagree upon. I believe what was stated above about kinds, and that the different forms of life seen did not come around from millions of years of evolution. That is my belief. You can attack it as much as you like, it won't change.

I would like to say one thing: My beliefs aren't easily changed. They take many hours of research and proven facts to change them. As I said before, I used to believe that the Theory of Evolution (micro not macro) was 100% true. Then, my beliefs changed.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

I'm sorry, but maybe we should just stick to the facts in school, and let the
children get their "free thinking" at home.

---

First, children spend the majority of their waking hours in school, so that place should not be taken very lightly. It has a very big impact on young people's lives.
Second, if worse comes to worse and those different theories aren't able to be taught in school (the theories backed by facts that is) then none of them should. If you think that children should just be taught facts, and not given any conclusions to descern from those facts then that is more desireable than giving them just one. You see, the Theory of Evolution is a conclusion theory about how things are what they are. It is not a fact, merely a speculation from observing things in this time.

Very easy to grasp both sides of the argument from my point of veiw. I do understand them both. I only agree with one, but understand both. Do you follow?

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

^why is he such a doofus?

OK... personally not going to enter inot this debate, but I would like to state one thing about fact, theory and science. Science is entirely based on theory. Scientists hypothesise, test their hypotheses, gather evidence, and then call it fact. But the very basis of science has always been the acceptance that everything you know as fact today may change tomorrow. Currently, yes, evolution is regarded as a fact, not a theory. There is a mountain of evidence to prove it and, even if you listen to vomithorder's creation science site, very little evidence to disprove it. However, it is only regarded as a fact becuase that's what the science community at large calls it. Technically speaking it is still a theory, becuase no one has yet witnessed it actually happening (that I know of, please feel free to point me to something showing me I'm totally wrong. Believe me, I would be very interested to read it. This is a facinating subject). But it will be regarded as a fact until something comes along to summarily disprove it.

Well, Gideon, coming from the prospective of a Once-believing Christian, I can only shake my head at your...well, maybe you will re-examine the facts without your rosy glasses of Faith, and come to a different conclusion.

The Flood theory doesn't work. Period. Unless you throw a Miracle in there.

The Aborigines of Australia are the downfall of the Flood theory. Over 65,000+ years of unbroken history and heritage there. Or are you suggesting, that the flood occurred before that? Fact is, the Aborigines do have Flood legends...Most aboriginal peoples do. Many scientists tend to agree, it probably had something to do with the change from the last ice age to a more temperate climate. Recent observations and findings in oceanic archeology is starting to dig up some rather interesting things along these lines.

In the timeline of the Bible, there is not enough time for species...oh fuck it. These points have been done before, ad infinium, until, as Gideon has said, it comes down to a question of Faith (which is not scietific at all). If that is what you wish to believe, then believe so.

Why should I care?

Skaarjj, science has measured Evolution, and has seen it working, and duplicated results and findings on a rather short time scale. It is much more difficult, to do a long timescale bit of research, because we are just at the infancy of such. However...

We have been through all this before, here at the Asylum as well. I'm sick and tired of having to explain it again, and again, and again...

Someone else do it. I'm sick and tired of having to.

Precisely my peace-pipe smoking friend. We've measured it over a short time-scale, but evolution as it is claimed in a century spanning, a millenium and aeon spanning thing. Micro changes on a small time-scale are difficult to prove from congenital gene-addition problems. Evolution is entire species gradually changing to fit their environment. One people, tow people, a dozen, a hundred, a thousand; in a species population of billions of people these aren't significant statistical numbers. However, yes, we've been over this ground before, and by and large we agree with each other. No need to dredge it all up again. On with the innane chatter everyone. Nothing to see here.

One should never give up on the search and love of truth, guys But I know exactly what you mean about getting tired. Everyone gets tired now and again. But think of it this way, if you don't speak up for what you think is right, who will? The other guy. That's not always such a great alternative.

This comment is directed at all the friends here and not one side or the other. It is meant as a general encouragement coming from a bug who has recently gotten over a "tired spell" himself


I have to agree that in general terminology it is ok to call evolution a fact. When we get into the details of it all then there are aspects of the theory that are better supported than others. But from my perspective, the Genesis story cannot be held up as an alternative theory to our current understanding of the history of the earth. It is my position that Genesis makes one very profound statement which is "In the beginning God..." All the details after that flesh out that concept but were not meant to provide a scientific explanation of the physical events; how could it? Science as we know it wasn't practiced for centuries (millenia actually) after Genesis was so brilliantly jotted down.

So, while I think the current theory of evolution does have holes, it is the current working version of what we know. We stick with it until a better scientific theory comes along to challenge it. So far, there really hasn't been one. I suspect there will be a major shift in thought one of these decades that will revolutionize our understanding of the physical universe but the timing of that is anyone's guess.

Gideon, let me ask you a few questions about this topic. Do you think that the Genesis stories of creation are literally true, or only partially? Do you believe that the days mentioned there are 24 hour days or descriptions of some other period of time? Do you think the author of Genesis was given information by God about the "actual" way the world was created? If he was given this information, what was the purpose of the text for the people of the time it was written? These are just a few questions I have for you.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 10-23-2004 15:08)

Well, let me just make this one point - Evolution works on a generation principle. I hope that is obvious.

By studying microbiological organisms, which have a very short lifespan, we can view evolution "faster", so to speak, because of the faster propagation of the generations. It is here, that evolution has been found, documented, and can be reliably duplicated. Be aware that adaptions to the environment have been observed, mutations, lots of things. Though mircro-organisms are not as complex as other types of organisms (like mammals, etc), one thing is true - more complex species are made up of micro-organisms. Anyone seriously suggesting, that this Evolution is not fact, really has blinded themselves to reality.

And even in mammals, there have been demonstrated evolution. This has been mentioned before in the Asylum. I don't know if this information made it into the new Asylum.

I want to take some time, to thank Bugs, for his well-thought out and resonable post.

Skaarjj, we both have been around long enough, to know about all the times these, and other, topics have been discussed, and we have both participated. When I say generations, most who have a working knowledge of Evolution know what is meant. That is one of the reasons that research in microbiology is so fascinating, because one can actually track the process of evolution over a relatively short period of time.

Yea we have a select group of hundreds of concerned mothers that are pissed off in my little town because the City Council has voted for trick or treating to take place on sunday. I'm suprised that I'm speechless, you know? Because normally I'd have a lot to point out but, there's a rather large quantity if contradictions and blatant ignorance in this case. Thankfully for me, I'm going to a rave 40 minutes from here on Halloween.

WOW!

commercialism at it's best; crossing all barriers.

*sigh*
Did you read my post or just skim it? I agreed with you WS (on most parts that is).

quote:

---

Gideon said:

I think I understand what the problem is now. Okay, the changing of the physical
structure in organisms to pass on new and better traits to their offspring is
evolution, correct? Okay. If you take that just a few hundred years you
already
see differences in traits. Now, some scientists came up with the Theory of
Evolution that explains from Darwin's Theory how all life forms are
descended
from one organism. Am I correct in this? Okay, I agree that organisms
change
over time. What I don't agree with is the theory that they changed into
totally
different organisms over millions of years. Is this a satisfactory explaination
for you or do I need to go further. I think you saw my disagreement as
against
all evolution, when I meant it against the Theory of Evolution which spans
millions of years.

---

Okay, try and read this and comprehend what I am saying. Yes, evolution, organisms changing into something different over a course of generations, is correct. I have no problem with that. It is proven fact.

Now, the problem I have is trying to determine the ancient past with this information. "Evolutionist" scientists determine the creation of the world and the formation of all these species of creatures one way, "Creationists" another. That is all I am saying.

As for the flood theory WS, why can't it work? There is overwhelming evidence that it does. Including all the "Aboriginal flood legends," and others form different cultures.

Thank you Skarrjj, that was the point I was trying to make.

Listen, the facts aren't the issue, it is the interpretation of the facts that is.

And WS, I'm sorry if I am bringing up old arguments. I'm sorry if it is boring to you. You have to remember that comparatively speaking I am a newbie, and I don't know what happened before I got here.

Okay Bugs, I'll answer your questions, but I would like to hear your response to one of mine.

As for the Genesis "stories," absolutely 100% true.

As for the days, well, I have a long speil that generally consists of many things. I think I posted it on a different thread a while ago. The basics of it is that those six days are the only days in the whole Bible that are disagreed with. If those aren't 24 hour normal days, then why didn't Jesus raise from the dead in three-thousand years? Anyway, day in Hebrew can be a normal day, a year, or an age. The way to figure out if it is an ordinary day is if it has evening, morning, number, or night attached to it. Guess what, in Genesis those six days have evening, morning, number, and night attached to them.

As for the author (Moses) being given a revelation of how the world was created by the One Supreme God then yes.

As for the purpose, there are many. I could be here all night listing them. Just to name a few:
-To show God's supreme power that He could create everything by His own hand.
-Also to show where creatures and man came from.
-To show why Jesus had to die on the Cross for our sins.
-(I think God had some foresight too) To prove that He was God by creating Earth and plants and light before the sun.

Okay, here is my question Bugs:
If you don't believe in the literal Genesis, and you tell someone about Christ, why do you expect them to believe it? The basis for why Christ died was in Genesis. The way the world was created in six days was in Genesis. If you tell them to pay heed to one part of the Bible and not another, what makes you think that they will pay attention to any of it at all?

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

Gideon,

quote:

---

-To show God's supreme power that He could create everything by His own hand.
-Also to show where creatures and man came from.
-To show why Jesus had to die on the Cross for our sins.

---

Each of these points are intact given both of our approaches to Genesis. God created it all. Laying the ground work for redemption is a biggie and I'm glad you mentioned that one.

quote:

---

-(I think God had some foresight too) To prove that He was God by creating Earth and plants and light before the sun.

---

On the days before the sun and moon were created, what governed the day and night?

Look, Moses and his people had a very different view of the physical universe than you or me. Much of it is consistent with other cultures of that time. That is why Genesis mentions the great seas and the firmament and such. The concept of narrating with the sense of chronology was an important part of that culture. That is why they had no problem describing the creation of the sun and moon after 3 days had already passed because the point was that God created all the things they mentioned and the order was unimportant.

It's very important to readers today and that is why so many people pick up Genesis and giggle because they read it completely out of cultural and historical context. They read it expecting it to make sense to their world view which for most of us comes from centuries of Western thought and orientation. Honestly, I think we do a disservice to new readers of the bible by telling them to read it without a primer of its context.

Ok, now to your question.

quote:

---

If you don't believe in the literal Genesis, and you tell someone about Christ, why do you expect them to believe it? The basis for why Christ died was in Genesis. The way the world was created in six days was in Genesis. If you tell them to pay heed to one part of the Bible and not another, what makes you think that they will pay attention to any of it at all?

---

First let me say that I think the bible is God's word to us. I don't want you to think that because I don't read it literally that I somehow regard it as anything less than that.

In order to follow what the bible has for us, I believe we must know what it says. That sounds pretty obvious. Well, let me take an absurd example but an important one. When Christ says that unless his followers drink his blood and gnaw on his flesh they cannot see the kingdom of God in John 6, what did he mean? After reading further, one begins to realize that Christ was speaking about the Eucharist but he said drink his blood and gnaw on his flesh. Do you, Gideon, think he meant that literally? Do you think Peter stepped up to the plate (pun intended) on that one?

Why did I point that out? Because I think you would say it is clear that Christ was speaking symbolically about the Lord's Supper and how his followers would share in him after he left this world for Heaven. But why should I be expected to read Genesis with such a strict literality and not be able to look deeper into who wrote it and when and what they meant at the time? It seems the only acceptable way to read the bible to me. If putting my best foot forward in trying to understand the bible and its contents by applying critical thinking makes me less of a believer, then so be it. God demands the best of my heart *and* my mind.

So, the short answer to your question is that I expect people to believe in Christ based on the entirety of what I find in the bible with their eyes wide open and ready for the tough questions. I'll tell you something I do take quite literally, and that is the promise that Christ made when he said that he who seeks will find. I think God honors honest and truthful seekers.

I need to end this answer with a quote I ran across recently:

quote:

---

To be persuasive we must be believable
to be believable, we must be credible
to be credible, we must be truthful.
- Edward R. Murrow

---

I have no choice, Gideon. I have to be honest with myself and those I hope will come to a saving knowledge of Christ. I just don't think a strictly literal reading of Geneis is warranted from the facts as I know them. So how's that for a long response? I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 10-24-2004 06:05)

quote:

---

Gideon said:

As for the flood theory WS, why can't it work? There is overwhelming evidence that it does. Including all the "Aboriginal flood legends," and others form different cultures.

---

No amount of belief makes something a fact, buddy.

---

Gideon you seriosuly demonstrate huge ignorance on human history and it's cultural developments, how each societie's languages developed, their art, their beliefs and literature (that includes Jewish), by whom and what they were inspired, how they affected the people and history etc, etc, etc.

You seriosuly need a course on art history, humanities and anthropology.

Ruski, we can all use more understanding of all of that

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Gideon, I read your posts. All of them. I do not skim or ignore something, that I wish to discuss.

The reasons that the Aborigines put the Flood in the Bible to rest, according to a literal belief in the Bible? That is easy, because of the Timeline given in the Bible. The Aborigines existed before Adam and Eve were created, first of all. Second, the Aborigines documented the animals of Australia in cave and rock paintings. These also preceed the Flood in the bible. Later rock paintings show that some animals didn't exist anymore, and that some did.

Aboriginal Timeline -> 60,000+ years (verified). Unverified (250,000+ years).
Literal view of the Bible Timeline -> ca. 20,000 years, give or take a few.

The Bible says two of every creature. That first.

Second, two of every creature does not provide a big enough gene pool for survival, first of all. Second, what did the predators eat? The moment that they ate something, that species that was eaten from was doomed to extinction. There is no way around this one, without a "miracle"!

As I said, and will keep saying, a literal view of the Bible gets shot to pieces. There is more, much, much more, but I have already said enough on this subject.

A similar conversation regarding the literal interpretation of the bible was had here -
http://www.ozoneasylum.com/21769?offset=280

starting about half way down the page.

The other 8 pages of discussion are interesting as well

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

First let me say that I think the bible is God's word to us. I don't want you to
think that because I don't read it literally that I somehow regard it as
anything less than that.

---

No, no, I understand. I used to not take Genesis literal myself. But then I found out that if you try and reinterpret one part of the Bible, then that opens the floor for other reinterpretations. If you say that those six days aren't really six days, then maybe men can't only marry women. Maybe that was a misprint like the "days." Also how Jesus rose from the dead. Maybe that is up for interpretaion. If you don't stand on your faith, your whole faith, somone can knock you down easily.

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

On the days before the sun and moon were created, what governed the day and
night?

---

Well, it said that He created light and darkness on the first day. Where did that light come from? Well, if He is bright and shining, why not from Him?

I do try and look at it in context of from when Moses wrote it. In that day the culture was very different. But, I still stand on the point that if you can reinterpret what was said in that book, why not the rest?

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

I read your posts. All of them.

---

Okay, I'm sorry.

Could you give me a way that they confirmed the aboriginal timeline? I would like to know if you can find the source. If you can't it is okay, I am just interested.

About the two of every kind, there is a way around it. I guess you didn't know that Adam and Eve were vegitarians did you? They ate plants because before sin there was no death, disease, or pain (which also means no dead dinosaur bones). Well, in order to keep up with that no death thing, all the animals were hebivores too. That changed after the flood, but shortly before the tower of Babel.

If you have any more "shots" (questions) that science can shoot at the Bible, I would be glad to hear them. Not only for your benefit but mine as well.

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

And Ruski, I really don't appreciate that remark.

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

quote:

---

Well, in order to keep up with that no death thing, all the animals were hebivores too.

---

Hehe. I'm holding my sides right now, because they hurt. Hehe.

Ok, I'm going to let that one go, just in the interests of...hell, I don't know. Aside from the fact that you are not going to see herbivores rapidly undergo that type of Evolution in under what? 10,000 years? Wooohooo, now THAT is speedy Evolution!

You still haven't answered the problem with the gene pool, and more importantly, accidental deaths, disease, and other unfortunate (but deadly) effects of Nature and the natural world. Gonna lose some due to that, and starting with two animals is not going to give one anywhere near a healthy shot at the gene pool thing. Let us talk about diet, as well, while we are at it. You are aware, that some animal species need special diets to survive?

How do you explain the presence of animals in Australia, a place totally cut off from the rest of the world? What, did the kangaroos swim the whole way? Or did Noah decide to take a world cruise?

But I'm willing to humor you. So, when did the carnivores evolve from the hebivores? You say before the Tower of Babel? Timeline, please. On what are you basing your assumptions? Evidence, please.

If you wish to know about the Aborigine timeline, google it. I have dug it up many, many times and posted lots of it here, at the Asylum. Read that which DL posted. There is some good information in there, as well. How do you suggest that the Aborigines got to Australia, anyway? How about the Native American Indians to the Americas? How do you explain the Ice Core samples from both Greenland and Antartica? More important, how do you explain Wooly Mammoths (the ones frozen in Siberia)? They died before your Flood, if one goes from a literal timeline of the Bible. Preserved in Perma Frost. But if there was a Flood that covered the entire world...wouldn't the perma frost thaw out? Yes, it would. And the wooly mammoths wouldn't then have been preserved.

quote:

---

They ate plants because before sin there was no death, disease, or pain (which also means no dead dinosaur bones)

---

Actually, recent research does tend to support that plants feel pain, or a type of pain. And the process of eating plants is causing death - death to plants, and plant cells. To suggest otherwise is rubbish. Adam and Eve would have to had lived without eating anything, to avoid causing death that way. Not to mention all the things that they stepped on. Ummm...what about accidents? You know, lots of things die from accidents all the time. You say that Adam and Eve were vegatarians. Where does it say that in the Bible?

You sure you really have thought all this out? A literal belief of the Bible is going to be very...difficult to hold, in light of the facts, I'm afraid. I mean, as we go on, it is going to get more and more difficult for you. At some point, you will have to put your hands over your ears and eyes, and shut out the world of reality.

Are you certain you don't wish to rethink your position? A subjective view of the Bible might be easier for you.

Here is what Bugs had to say, about literal interpretations of the Bible

quote:

---

This really depresses me I think this is the type of bending over backwards type of logic that results from insisting a literal read of the creation account in Genesis. If you are constrained to that reading, then there is really no other way to deal with so much of the data we have about earth's history but to just lose all credibility with anyone that values clear thinking.

---

(Edited by WebShaman on 10-27-2004 01:03)

I'm coming in to point at two small, seemingly meaningless, misconceptions. Unfortunately, they are misconceptions many people have, so I'm taking this moment to clear things up. They are related, so I'll address them together.

Gidean wrote way up top^

quote:

---

I think I understand what the problem is now. Okay, the changing of the physical structure in organisms to pass on new and better traits to their offspring is evolution, correct? Okay. If you take that just a few hundred years you already see differences in traits. Now, some scientists came up with the Theory of Evolution that explains from Darwin's Theory how all life forms are descended from one organism. Am I correct in this?

---

[my emphasis]

False.

Firstly, from RNA to DNA, amino acids, proteins, all the way to humans, horses, and whales, reproduce. That reproduction process may be sexual, asexual, or even, in the case of DNA and proteins, non-sexual.

That reproduction is largely not done in labs...it is not perfect. That is, the system has noise, not all of the data is transfered exactly. With each reproduction comes seemingly random changes in data. This seemingly random mutation is evolution.
From this mutation comes one of two possible results:
1) the new entity is able to reproduce and pass along the mutation
2) the new entity is not able to reproduce and the mutation is not passed along

There is no sense of better genes or worse genes or anything like that. It's simply change. That's all. The theories of evolution do not include some sort of ultimate goal of betterment or anything like that. It is simple: reproduce or not. That's all.

So, #1, that organisms pass along "better traits to their offspring" is incorrect. Things reproduce or they don't reproduce. That's all.


Now for #2, that "all life forms are descended from one organism."

As most scientists think it today, life arose not from one creature, but from the creation of strings of ribose (a simple sugar) and phosphate molecules. These strings were created (we think!) from the interaction of molecules in clay and heat and electricity. This interaction likely happened in many different places, creating uncountable numbers of strings of molecules, and is probably still happening today.

Today we call these strings of molecules RNA. Back then they did not have names. =)

RNA has two characteristics that are important to this discussion. One is it acts as a catalyst for certain other chemical reations (like proteins, but less efficient). The other is it has the ability to store data -- that is, the RNA is made of strings of sugar and phosphates. The composition and order of the molecules in that string are data. (like DNA, but slightly less efficient and much less stable)

So, #1, that all life evolved from a single creature, is false.
Life likely evolved from the interaction of proteins, which came about as the interactions of amino acids, which is made of pieces of RNA, that are created by reproducing DNA, which was created by mutations of RNA, which was made originally by clay and electricity and heat.

These may seem like small differences, but they are important to understanding what we're talking about when we talk about evolution. It's not like one day there was a slug and then the slug had baby rabbits and then the rabbits had baby dogs that grew up to have baby chimps and people. (stupid, simplistic example)

We're talking about hundreds of thousands of different kinds of proteins twisting and combining and interacting, with each other and with other chemicals (oxygen, nitrogen, etc), over billions of years, to create even the simplest of life forms -- single celled asexual organisms. From the many millions of diffent kinds of asexual organisms and proteins evolved slightly more complex organisms, which interacted with the original group to create even more complex organisms...etc, forever.

Thank you for clearing that up Mobrul. I remember something like that from Bio class. Good times. But yes, that is one of the major theories. I saw that one particularly on a discovery channel episode. It was quite interesting. But I guess I got a little ahead of myself. Yes, I am including all of that on my Theory of Evolution, I am just taking it from half way.

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

sorry, but half way?

Gideon - I honestly can't help but read your last post more like this:

"Yes, I am including all of that on my Theory of Evolution, but I am ignoring the details because i don't understand them, and it's easier to condemn it that way"

~shrug~

FWIW

*Duplicate post*

(Edited by WebShaman on 10-27-2004 01:02)

Sorry about that. I guess I posted a little too quickly without thinking it through.
I meant that I remembered seeing a documentary on an experiment like that. I thought it was interesting. I do recognize that as one of the theories. The main reason I didn't include that theory is because I wanted to start with a period in the Theory of Evolution that more portrayed Darwin's theory, but if you all want to talk about that it is fine with me.

WS- You asked almost all the questions I have been waiting for. The only thing is that they were all at the same time. Well, you covered pretty much all of it except "who was Cain's wife?"

Just as a little note before I start that might drive you up the wall, I will quote scripture and claim that God had His hand in it. So just to let you know up front...

Let me start at the beginning:

As for the carnivores eating plants, they did. The reason I can make a statement like that is because being humans, our diet is not the same around the world. It seems like everyone has something different they can eat. Why couldn't animals eat the same way? Animals have a choice in food, and for the majority, they have specially designed attributes to help them, but those attributes could have changed. Plus, as for carnivores eating plants with sharp teeth, pandas would be classified as carnivores if it was by thier teeth. They have sharp teeth to eat through the bamboo, why aren't they meat eaters if they have the teeth for it?

As for disease, dying, etc. they came after sin. Nothing died before Adam sinned. The world was in perfect harmony so that God was even walking in it!

Healthy shot at the gene pool thing? Do you mean like getting good genes vs. bad ones? Well, if so that isn't really true back then. You see, men were born perfect, and without copying mistakes (animals too), and there weren't any diseases from genes and the like. Well, as time went on those copying mistakes got worse and then it was bad to marry relations. Before Moses' time it was okay.

As for the animals in different parts of the world it is easy. After the flood the Ice Age happened. Then, many new roots were opened up for people to travel to the Americas, Afreica, Australia, etc. The routes now are swallowed up in the sea.

As for carnivores "evolving," if you want to call it that, into carnivores, then if was either after God gave the animals to man for food, or after the Fall, I will have to do more looking up to figure exact timeline out.

I think you are getting the timeline a little mixed up. The Ice Age happened after the Flood.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Ummm...what about accidents?

---

Well, as for that in the Bible, the animals and people were held up by God. It said that death entered the world after Adam's sin. That means that accidents weren't fatal.

More on this to come...

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

ohh so fucking naive.... sad sad sad.....

So my latest National Geographic came yesterday. I open it up to find, in very large red letters:

"Was Darwin Wrong?"

Of course, upon opening to the appropriate page, I am presented with an even larger "NO", followed by an *excellent* article on the subject.

I highly suggest that anyone interested in the topic, regardless what side you tkae, get yourself a copy and read it.

Frighteningly, a recent gallup poll has shown that 45% of american adults do not 'beleive' that evolution is real.

Gideon,
When you say, "I do recognize that as one of the theories.", you omit something important. It is not only "one of the theories", but the *predominant theory* of the origin life...not one that can easily be ignored in a discussion on the topic.
EvoWiki if you are interested.

And, the only reason I mentioned it at all is because it clears up the popular thought, the misconception, of evolution - one you echoed in these Asylum halls - that life evolved from a single creature.

And, a few times, you've mentioned something or another about "Darwin's theory". I'm not trying to be a jerk here. This is a serious question. Have you ever read Origin of Species?
If not, follow that link. It goes to the BBC website where you can download the entire book, for free. Have a read. You might be surprised what he had to say (and *not* say).



Thanks DL. I don't often read National Geographic, but I will this month.

And, concerning the 45% of americans who do or don't "believe" in this or that theory, I have but one thing to say.
Refusing to believe in gravity does not result in one floating away.

One of the (many) big issues that the article tackles is the fact (as WS mentioned earlier I believe) that evolution can be witnessed in the labratory, and has been with many microorganisms, as well as with a study done involving something like 20,000 generations of a strain of fruit fly.

I was interested to learn that after a few months of being infected with HIV, a person ends up carrying a completely unique strain of the virus. Why? Evolution of course.
In much the same way that members of a species isolated on an island chain will develop different characteristics (and even eventually hit a point where they are indeed a seperate species), so too will a virus that is isolated in a particular person's body.

As Mobrul said - read the Origin of the Species. Most people would be very surprised to see what it does and does not say. Many people would be very surprised at the sheer magnitude of research Darwin did, and the amount coroboration between various aspects of scientific study found before he ever made public his discovery.

And read the article!

quote:

---

Refusing to believe in gravity does not result in one floating away.

---

Now you tell me. I've wasted a whole lot of time and energy on trying to float away....





(Edited by DL-44 on 10-27-2004 18:09)

quote:

---

quote:Refusing to believe in gravity does not result in one floating away.



Now you tell me. I've wasted a whole lot of time and energy on trying to float away....

---

Me too.

Thanks for the links Mobrul. I will definitly look into it. I guess I don't know much about Darwin's theories according to what you are alluding to. I will read more on that later.

You are right Mobrul, I was wrong about it being just "one of the theories." You are correct in saying that it is the leading and most widely accepted one. So are you saying that the evolutionary theory came into play after the amino acids started to form RNA and DNA? That seems interesting. Could you elaborate on that?

quote:

---

mobrul said:

Refusing to believe in gravity does not result in one floating away.

---

He he... Can't see gravity, can't see the wind, doesn't mean they aren't there. I like that.

Well, a species changing to have bigger legs, longer lifespan, etc. is very different from a kind of species changing into another kind. Fish into cows, dinosaurs into birds, and apes into humans are the most tossed around topics. I used to understand and accept them, but then I was confronted with some compelling evidence from AIG, and I decided that they may not be wholly correct.

Please do not respond to my 10-27 post just yet. I don't have any evidence behind the answers posted yet, and that is the next post I will make when I have time.

And Ruski, I hate to do this by I would like to tell you an age old quote from that timeless classic Bambi:

quote:

---

Thumper said:
If you can't say something nice, don't say nothin' at all.

---

I will only accept the name calling if you back it up with evidence. Thank you.

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

quote:

---

Fish into cows, dinosaurs into birds, and apes into humans are the most tossed around topics.

---

Those are absurd examples.

Please note: Darwin never said that apes turned into humans. Neither did any respectable scientist.

Please: read Darwin's "Origin of the Species". it will save us all a good deal of frustration.

You write "Well, a species changing to have bigger legs, longer lifespan, etc. is very different from a kind of species changing into another kind."

Now we're getting somewhere. Follow me here.
"Species" is a human term. It doesn't have any meaning beyond that to which we ascribe it.
So, at what point do you find the schism? Do you accept that a wolf can, over a dozen or so generations, become domesticated dogs? Do you accept that a domesticated pig will, in a generation or two in the wild, give birth to wild boars? Both of those changes are readily accepted and relatively easily observed.

This is a list of the Genus, Species, and Subspecies of the Canidae Class (dogs, wolves, jackels, coyotes, etc.)
When you look at that list you'll see all sorts of different kinds of wolves at the Class level! We're talking about 3 levels of distinction more general than that of "Species".

So, you say you are willing to accept "longer legs...etc". I am presuming here you would include such things as different ear length and shape, different fur color and thickness, perhaps tail length and "style".

Where, then, do you draw the line?
Again, I'm not trying to be a jerk. This is a tough question, but it's absolutely essential to the discussion of evolution. We can see so-called micro-evolution happening. It is as undeniable as gravity.
If we deny "macro-evolution" we must draw a line of definition between micro and macro-evolution.
So far, I see any such line as being arbitrary at best.





Now, regarding the RNA, DNA, amino acid, protein, evolution question.

1) There exists RNA based life forms. They are small, simple things. They generally don't have skin. or legs. or a brain. Really simple stuff.

2) There exists DNA based life forms. That's you and me and Fido.

3) There exists protein based "things" which consume energy, produce waste, and reproduce. I hesitate to call them "life", but they share a lot of the same qualities we typically attribute to "life". BSE (mad cow disease) is one well known example. There is evidence that some diabetes, Alzhemier's disease, some cancers, and other malfunctions are caused by proteins.

4) RNA, DNA, amino acids, proteins, though they are essential to life as we know it, also exist independent of life -- they are simply strings of molecules and have all the same chemical properties as any other compound. They are not immune to the interactions we study in chemistry classes. In fact, we exist largely because of those chemical interactions.

5) RNA, because of its ability to both carry data and act as a catalyst, can do work on itself, reproducing itself, interacting with other molecules. A Nobel Prize was won because of this discovery and work continues today.

What I was saying is that "evolution", I'm defining as "mutation at reproduction", happens at the RNA, DNA, and protein level. That is regardless of size of the creature we are talking about - human, dog, snail, bacteria, single-cell organism, or even the proteins responsible for BSE and cystic fibrosis.

Evolution happens at all levels of reproduction, with all sorts of "creatures"
And we see RNA and amino acids "spontaneously" developing in nature today from non-life material.
And we see RNA and amino acids interacting with each other in non-life material.

It is not difficult for me to see evolution as natural as gravity or electrical fields.
It just is.

Mobrul, that was a superb post. A better description I have not read. Simply superb.

quote:

---

Just as a little note before I start that might drive you up the wall, I will quote scripture and claim that God had His hand in it. So just to let you know up front...

---

First of all, you can't use something that you are trying to prove as evidence. Since a literal interpretation of the Bible is at stake here, you can't use the Bible itself as proof!

And this is why I will readily describe myself as a Creative Evolutionist. Maybe it's actually fence sitting in disguise, but I believe that some higher being or intelligence (call it God, Buddah, Yahweh, Jehovah, Fido, whatever) started off the creation process and that it's still going on today through Evolution.

Best of both worlds.

Mobrul, thanks for the link to d/l Origin of Species. I'll have to grab that for reading on the commute.

PS - what happened to the discussion about the original topic?

_____________________

le coeur du feu
Qui sème le vent récolte la tempête!

Yeah, Rhyssa, that is the same kind of thoughts I once held. That God held the match that started the big bang. It changed a little after I was presented with some facts.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

Those are absurd examples.

---

Hey, but they are widely used. I guess I was just useing some that came to mind.

Mobrul, you are not being a jerk. Everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion, and your questions are very good conversation starters. Thanks for the post. It was very well thought out and researched.

Yes, there is a line between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. It is a little fuzzy, but there none-the-less. The line that has been presented to me is the changing of animal "kinds". An organism into a completely different class than it was in. Like tigers for example. There were 7 different tigers in the Asian/Australian region. Those tigers were all from one tiger originally. That is the evolution that is recorded as fact by everyone. You can see it by meerly looking at the similarities. Now, the part I don't entirly know, is about where it starts before that. If all cats came from one cat and became the seperate cats they are now, or if there were a few different kinds at the first. Either way, there was one or a few cats that they came from. That is fact using Darwin's theory (correct me on that if I am wrong).

Then the tricky part is where they came from before that. That is where Creation and Evolution stem off. Both sides recognize all the before informantion as fact, but then the origins of the "first" kinds are disputed.

Creation says they were made by God and then they were on the boat.

Evolution (correct me if I'm wrong, please) states that the different kinds stemmed from a common ancestor or ancestors, then evolved into all the "first" kinds.

WS, I told you it would drive you up the wall...

I won't use scripture to prove scripture, just where in scripture things happen and then use facts to back them up.

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

quote:

---

It changed a little after I was presented with some facts.

---

Except you haven't demonstrated any facts here yet. Lots of supposition, theory, and hypothesis and LOTS of verse. But facts? I don't see any facts so far. Are you sure you know what a fact is? Maybe we need to define it here.

And no,

quote:

---

WS, I told you it would drive you up the wall

---

it doesn't drive me up the wall. It is too absurd to drive me up the wall.

Okay, I'm going to try and finish up my 10-27 post.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

plants feel pain, or a type of pain

---

Well, they may have the different reactions to stimuli that we do, but that doesn't mean they have a soul. Plants react to sunlight and such, but they don't have any thoughts about it (or any chance to have thoughts about it). The ones who have souls are suggested to be Humans and Animals. Mainly from linking many different passages in the Bible. I could do that for you but it wouldn't be for a couple of weeks.

As for Adam and Eve being vegitarians, they were. They Bible suggests in various places about their lifestyle and how God actually made the first sacrifice. He slayed the first animal for Adam and Eve's clothing.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Are you certain you don't wish to rethink your position? A subjective view
of
the Bible might be easier for you.

---

Yes, it would be easier, but the easiest road isn't always the best road.

Okay, I have finished the conclusions for my post, so please respond to as much of it as you like.

I was going to put in scriptures and facts that prove it, but all I would really be doing is moving facts from AIG to here, so I will just give you the web site to look at it yourself. It has all the answers you have been looking for about Creation. http://www.answersingenesis.org. I hope it has the answers you are looking for.

I am not completely endorsing the site because, lets face it, people are fallible. I am meerly saying that this site has some good information to back up these claims I have told you. If you think I am lazy and need to post all the info then I will, but I would rather not have to post all of that.

One little disclaimer, though, is that I may come across as thinking I know all the answers. Actually, that is most likely why most of these theories of mine have been rejected. I want to point out, though, that I do not have all the answers, and from this point on I will try to not pretend I do. I don't know everything, and I don't want to pretend I do. I know a little, and that has gotten by for me, but I understand if it is not enough for very critical thinkers. That is why I have given you this web site. They don't have all the answers, but they have quite a few.

Thank you for dealing with me while I have been so big-headed.

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

quote:

---

I was going to put in scriptures and facts that prove it, but all I would really be doing is moving facts from AIG to here, so I will just give you the web site to look at it yourself. It has all the answers you have been looking for about Creation. http://www.answersingenesis.org. I hope it has the answers you are looking for.

---

It is no wonder you are so confused.

*wanders off down the halls, laughing his ass off, and shaking his head*

The only problem with drawing the line [between micro- and macro-evolution] at " the changing of animal 'kinds'" is that "animal 'kinds'" is totally arbitrary.

Go to this list of classifications within the animal kingdom and pick a handful of animals -- say, domesticated dogs, quail and spiders (or some other representative sample). Now click through that animal kingdom hierarchy and decide what other animals are of the same "animal kinds" as the ones you choose and what are not.

Example, for domesticated cattle:
Species: Bos taurus (aurochs or domesticated cattle)
Genus: Bos (above plus yaks, gaur, banteng, kouprey)
SubFamily: Bovinae (above plus bison, buffalo, water buffalo, others)
Family: Bovidae (above plus antelopes, gazelles, sheep, goats, oxen, others)
Order: Artiodactyla (above plus camels, llamas, deer, giraffe, hippos, hogs, pigs)
SubClass: Eutheria (above plus all mammals that give birth to live young)
Class: Mammals (above plus kangaroos, possums, etc)

I can not, with any sort of reason, say "cows could be related to bison and buffalo, but definately not oxen." Genetically speaking, even possums and cattle have more in common than they have different.

I simply can't look at that hierarchy and point to a place I would call a seperator of different "animal kinds". Can you?

You don't even have to come back here and give an answer. That's not what I'm looking for. I'm not trying to put you on the spot, or anything like that. This is simply an exersize in understanding what are "animal kinds".

If you can honestly look through that website and point to *specific* divisions of animals and say "these could be related through micro-evolution, but this group over here is definately a different kind of animal" more power to you.

I can not do that in any sort of logical manner.

Well, me either. I can't really do that since I haven't really researched that too much, but that looks to me like classification and not family lines. I could be wrong, but isn't that like saying that all cows are mammals, but not all mammals are cows? Since they aren't really interchangeable, I wonder about the distinct lineage of them.

WS, please don't do this to me. I want to have an intelligent conversation with you, not be tossed aside like a lunatic.

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

Gideon. I take it you are young, and searching for your path through Life.

When you first started posting here, I thought you were some kind of religous nut.

After that, I thought you were just confused and trying to sort things out the best you could.

I see that you are still searching.

An intelligent conversation? By all means. I see that you are questioning...but you are mostly questioning only Science. Not that that is a worry, keep questioning, you will find that Science is built on a firm foundation of facts. After you have exhausted yourself in the futile attempt to re-assess Science (if you are a reasonable person, and are interessted in the truth and in facts), you will eventually turn your attention to the questioning of your belief. You will find, that literal interpretation of the Bible just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

You will be forced to make a decision. Subjective view of the Bible and your faith, or no faith. Or you will reject all notions of Science fact, and become a religious nut.

Either way, you will not be changing Science. You can deny its existence, but it will not go away.

In the end, it is your choice.

The problem with "science" as it is in the real world, however, is that it is only as good as the scientist's discipline. Unfortunately, there are a lot of "bad" scientists out there who don't love facts and the scientific method nearly as much as they should.

I am only pointing this out to make sure that we all recognize that there are a lot of problems in the scientific community that require improvement as well as in the religious community.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

^Agreed Bugs, no human system is perfect. I have never, ever suggested blind acceptance. But Physics are physics, after all, and so is Chemistry, etc, etc, etc. And the Peer review system has time and again exposed such "problems" - remember Cold Fusion ?

I don't see Theologians examining the Bible, and changing it.

Yep - important point, WS. While there are certainly 'bad scientists', the scientific process accounts for the possibility of error...and when exisiting knowledge is found to be erroneous, science changes to fit reality.

When something religious is found to erroneous, it's far more likely that some complex 'work-around' will be formulated to fit the reality to existing dogma, and above all else, scripture and dogma will be 'proven' to still be accurate no matter the cost.

And yes, this *does* also happen in the scientific community, but the scientific community is such that it won't allow for this kind of 'bury your head in the sand' attitude to prevail.



(Edited by DL-44 on 11-02-2004 17:46)

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Gideon. I take it you are young, and searching for your path through Life.

---

Relativley, I suppose so.

I'm a baby Christian at least...

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

When you first started posting here, I thought you were some kind of religous
nut.

---

Not religious nut, I prefer "Jesus Freak."

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

I see that you are still searching.

---

Yes siree. I am still looking for answers. That is a never ending process that will stop shortly after death.

And WS, I do like facts. I love them. I love seeing facts that disprove theories or prove them without a doubt (those are really fun). But I do not blindly follow the interpretations of those facts presented form either side. I dispute interpretations, not facts.

Amen to that Bugimus. Humans are very confusing creatures.

And DL, I thank God that the Bible is not a science text book, because those change every year! There are always new finds and incredible discoveries that are happening in the scientific field. The Bible doesn't change because it doesn't have to.

quote:

---

Malachi 3:6
For I, 0 the LORD, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.

---

And I do agree that there are many discrepencees in the "religious world," but I haven't found any in the Bible yet.

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

How about these, then Gideon

quote:

---

Here are but a few:

* Insects with four feet?

"Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind. But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you."
Leviticus 11:21-23

Just for the record, insects have six feet and arachnids have eight. You'd think the ancient Israelites might have picked up on this little detail, what with eating locusts and beetles and all.

* Bats identified as "birds"?

"And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, and the vulture, and the kite after his kind; Every raven after his kind; and the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, and the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl, and the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat."
Leviticus 11:13-19

An almost identical passage occurs in Deuteronomy 14:11-18. The bat is of course a flying mammal, not a bird.
* Rabbits claimed to chew their cud?

"And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you."
Leviticus 11:6

To chew the cud means to eat grasses, swallow, then regurgitate later for further chewing. Rabbits simply do not do this.

---

There are a lot more...but these will suffice.

Good response, I will have to look into these a little bit. Thanks for the questions, I will try my hardest to find answers for them.

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

quote:

---

I don't see Theologians examining the Bible, and changing it.

---

not quite true - there are quite a few versions out there
. . . many interpretations of what they mean

as far as bats, fowls, insects, etc.
you're using modern classification and definition (IOW : technobabel)

i think you know better

Outcydr, first of all, show me the evidence of your first "rebuttal", if that is what you call it. "Many interpretations" is hardly what I would call anywhere near to a rebuttal.

As for your second...don't know what to call it really...but you said

quote:

---

bats, fowls, insects, etc.
you're using modern classification and definition

---

. Uh, yeah, that is right, I am. I assume your god is all-knowing, right? Second, the bat is "grouped in" with birds. To anyone with any brains, a bat is not a bird, irregardless of what language one uses. The bat has leathery wings, and fur - birds have feathered wings, and feathers. The bat has a mouth, with pointed teeth in a gum bed. Birds have a beak.

Is that the best you can offer? What about the other points? C'mon, I haven't even started yet! This is just the warm up! The other points I have yet to make are really nasty...for anyone taking the Bible literally.

I think you should know better.

And since you seem to be having fun answering my questions, here are some more!

quote:

---

1. How long can a person survive without oxygen?

Correct Answer: D (Three days.) ?Now the Lord had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights? (Jonah 1:17).

2. What causes some goats to be striped or spotted?

Correct Answer: C (Placing striped or spotted tree limbs in goats? watering troughs causes their babies to be born striped or spotted.) ?And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut [sic] tree; and pilled white stakes in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods. And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink. And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted? (Genesis 30:37-39).

3. How many legs do insects have?

Correct Answer: C (Four.) ?Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind. But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you? (Leviticus 11:22-23).

4. What type of animal is a bat?

Correct Answer: B (A bat is a bird.) ?And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, . . . and the bat? (Leviticus 11:13-19).

5. Who named all the animal species?

Corect Answer: B (Adam.) ?And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof? (Genesis 2:19).

6. How big did God make the stars in Heaven?

Correct Answer: D (Stars are tiny little objects of light, so small that every star in the universe could easily fall onto the ground of Earth.) ?And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind? (Revelation 6:13). ?And [the red dragon?s] tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth? (Revelation 12:4).

7. Into what shape did God make the Earth?

Correct Answer: B (Flat, with four corners.) ?And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth? (Revelation 7:1). ?And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth? (Isaiah 11:12). ?And the devil taking [Jesus] up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time? (Luke 4:5; see also Matthew 4:8). ?The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto the heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth? (Daniel 4:11).

8. How long did it take Noah to place at least two of each of the more than 50 million animals species on his boat?

Correct Answer: C (A single day, meaning an average of 1,157 animals boarded the boat every second [100,000,000/24hours x 60minutes x 60seconds.) ?In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, and the sons of Noah, and Noah?s wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark; They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort? (Genesis 7:13-14).

9. How big did God make the sun?

Correct Answer: D (Our eyes don?t deceive us. The sun is no bigger than it appears when we look up. In fact, it is so small that a single cloud could prevent it from bringing any light to the earth.) ?And when I shall put thee out, I will cover the heaven, and make the stars thereof dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give her light? (Ezekiel 32:7).

10. How high above the ground is Heaven?

Answer: B (Heaven is, at most, a few hundred feet above the ground, because people building towers before the discovery of electricity almost reached it.) ?And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded [sic]. And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do? (Genesis 11:4-6).

---

All nice out of the Bible.

Now I am very interested, to see how anyone explains these in a literal view of the Bible.


And when you get doen with these, go to Some Reasons Why Humanists Reject The Bible, the section entitled "Teachings Inconsistent with the Laws of Nature".

(Edited by WebShaman on 11-04-2004 12:33)

I just don't see any evidence in the Bible that God communicated EXACTLY and COMPLETELY everything that is to be known about our physical world to the writers and readers of the OT. Everything points to God communicating His desires for how we should live according to His purpose regardless of our level of scientific knowledge. That is why the Bible is just as relevent to us today as it was to them. It contains eternal principles that humanity for all time yearns for.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 11-04-2004 16:46)

quote:

---

I just don't see any evidence in the Bible that God communicated EXACTLY and COMPLETELY everything that is to be known about our physical world to the writers and readers of the OT.

---

I don't either. In fact, I see no evidence, whatsoever, that god communicated anything to the writers of the OT (or the NT, for that matter).

Actually, God really didn't make the Koran (first five books of the Bible) as a science text book. He did, in fact, put many different scientific ideas in the Bible which I trust. They aren't specific, but reliable.

As for those questions, I had seen something like them before and was wondering where they came from. Thanks.

As for your questions WS, I will look into them, and I am sure that there is a good answer for each of them. With my limited knowledge I can already see some discrepencies from context and links to other passages that completely explain some things.

I don't wnat this to turn into a full fledged debate on discrepancies in the Bible. Of course there are discrepencies (it was written/translated by men wasn't it?), but that isn't the main issue of the Bible. If God wanted you to know the inner workings of your DNA He could easily open up Heaven, come down here with trumpets blaring, earth shaking, volcanos erupting, and answer your questions about what makes you go. BUT, He doesn't like to do that. Remember, He likes faith, and I guess if you have no faith in Him, then it will be hard to get answers.

Plus, He likes breezes better than Earth quakes.

I am trying to stop bashing people around and being so blunt, and as one of those things I like to talk to only believers about the "intricacies" of the Bible. But, if you really need them I can give you some answers. I don't know about all of them, but I will try.

One thing about that. The main focus of Christianity is love. I have had to be reminded of that lately. It is not proving points or defending myself. You see, Jesus Christ died for us all: smart and stupid alike. I love Him for that.

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

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

His desires for how we should live according to His purpose regardless of our level of scientific knowledge. That is why the Bible is just as relevent to us today as it was to them. It contains eternal principles that humanity for all time yearns for.

---

what about Buddhist teachings? Native American wisdom? Mesapotanian? Greek? Pagan? all bulshit? only jews figured it out?

Gideon, you have a good approach to things, keep it up. You are willing to think about your positions and even more importantly, *rethink* your positions. We are all growing and we are all at different stages of understanding. As long as we are moving forward in the search for greater wisdom, that is the best we can do.

And just a correction, the Koran is the holy writings of the Muslims. The first 5 books of the bible are called the Pentateuch or the Torah.

Ruski, I never said that other sacred writings didn't contain truths. Did you see me type that?

Also, you really must not look at it like "only jews figured it out". God chose them to get to us, they did not choose Him. They are not better than everyone else, they were blessed and special because God decided to start with them in hopes of reaching all nations and peoples. Please don't blame them for what God chose to entrust to them.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Gideon, you still haven't offered any proof.

Without proof, your arguments are as valid as someone proposing that there is a place called Valhalla, where the Gods are. The Bible alone is not proof. Otherwise, other great books of Faith are, as well. The Hindus would be right, the Moslems, etc, etc, etc.

In light of that, irregardless of the praise that Bugs gives you, your assumptions boil down to that - assumptions and belief. Nothing more.

If you can accept that, then we will have progressed forwards here.

EEK!

http://www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/thebible.html

quote:

---

In the New Testament, God has gotten far worse regarding his trait of imposing excessively severe punishments. It would be hard to imagine anything more cruel and disproportionate than punishing people with eternal torture for mere disbelief that Jesus was the son of God. The inability to believe that proposition harms no one, and it has been disbelieved by some of the greatest benefactors of humanity. Nonetheless, God promises to punish them and all other nonbelievers with the most horrible pain that can be conceived.

God?s Violence Incites Human Violence

A major problem with the violence and injustice in the Bible is that, all too often, the teachings and example set by the biblical God have incited and been used to justify cruel acts by his followers. Many of them reasoned that since God, who is considered just and loving, committed or approved of the most brutal acts of violence, good Christians need not have qualms about behaving similarly. It is likely that this logic was, at least in part, what the American patriot Thomas Paine was referring to when he said, "The belief in a cruel god makes a cruel man.&quo1]Nephk]

---

These Humanists are evil blasphemers!

______________
Is This Thing On?

Webbing; the stuff that sticks to your face.

Bugs, please stop using metaphoric interpretations for whatever happened in order to explain something to me....it's just not history.(Least of all not to me) It is simply your way of expressing your religious beliefs while at the same time ignoring or pushing aside other culture's believes where it states their deities created the earth, humans, animals. Chose particular individual (who was born from virgin/goddess/magical sperm etc. to lead people to enlightenment etc etc etc, in order to save them from demons/devils/monsters/bad/sex/evil/*insert evil activity/being here* etc.... and I am quite aware of development of Judaism and Christianity historically, and I have been an insider in numerous Christian sects. And to assume that Christianity/Judaism is universally righteous is silly.

It is just that I don't understand why do you seem to avoid historical development and influences of Jewish culture. How much Egypt/Mesopotamia/Akkadian/Babylon/Antolia/Sumerian cultures have influence their writings and literatures.
The number of stories which you would call myths/not true/made up stories today, were great influence and many of them were adopted by Jewish themselves (such as story of Flood, Talion Law "eye for an eye" - from Law of Hammurabi, the ideas on afterlife, values etc etc)..

giving me a statement such as "God chose them, God decided something, because he wants to/someone is more special/he changed his mind/whatever" is just irrational and inane.
How can anyone have a discussion when you immediately assume and interpret that the ?story/myth? you believe in is accurate/true/?world of god?.

I thought it was agreed that no one can *prove* the bible is the word of God or that God indeed exists.

What I thought we were discussing was whether one should read all of the OT literally. WS, I think you have pointed out some very valid points for those who insist on reading it that way. If God laid out the whole story to Moses to write down in Genesis, why didn't God also be more accurate in other areas? To me the answer is clear. God spoke to the people of the time in the terms that they understood. I believe God was unconcerned about our level of scientific knowledge but obsessed with bringing His creation back into reconciliation with Him.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

Ruski said:

giving me a statement such as "God chose them, God decided something, because he
wants to/someone is more special/he changed his mind/whatever" is just
irrational and inane. How can anyone have a discussion when you immediately
assume and interpret that the ?story/myth? you believe in is
accurate/true/?world of god?.

---

Because we have an understanding around here. The understanding is that when I make statements like "God did this or that...", it comes from what I believe to be true. What else would you have me do? Would you impose your views on me? Isn't that what you and I both detest? People imposing or forcing their views on others?

You must allow me to speak freely from my point of view. I let you do the same to me all the time. I am afraid you are advocating a double standard. Let me explain. Every time you say that my beliefs are nonesense or fairy tales, etc. you state that as a fact in the exact same way I say "God did this or that..."

You should be allowed to hold that view and state those "facts" as you see them from your world view just as I should be allowed to do the same. I understand your core belief system because I know you from our discussions. I only ask that you afford me the same courtesy.

When I say "God did this or that..." I am trusting those who know me to understand that I am speaking from a deeply held belief and I am trying to advocate and present my point of view in this arena of competing ideas.

Does that seem reasonable to you? I very much value clarity and honesty and trust in our discussions here all the time recognizing we are separated greatly by our most basic assumptions about life and reality.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Bugs, see...it's not about beliefs...it's more about history. I do not try to hold any religious dogma in order to explain my views. I am more looking foward to have a discussion based on up to date discovered hostorical facts which you very much as the rest of society we live in has access to. But the use of jewish anciet interpretation on the world, which was very much researshed and studied for long time on how it came to be, is just won't lead us to any realistic conclusion.

Ruski - you will have to note that Bugimus also does not rely on religious domga. If you really think he does, then you must examine what 'dogma' actually is.

Bugimus is a very religious person, no doubt. And while I disagree very strongly with many of his conclusions, the path that lead him there is very thoroughly researched, questioned, and reasoned.

As he says, you can no more prove that the bible is *not* the word of god, than he can that it *is*.

I agree, of course, that to look at the bible as the word of god is preposterous. But that's still an opinion.

You will also note that Bugimus is also rather well versed in historical matters, as the history of his religion is very important to him.

I think everyone involved would be better of f if this discussion continued with such things in mind, and with the goal of discussing the evidence availabe, the interpretations possible, rather than demanding "proof" of something that can neither be proved or disproved.

my 2 cents...

alright then, that's understandable

http://www.remnantbride.com/indexlist.html#BIBLE%20CONTRADICTIONS

you might find this site interesting or preposterous - the choice is yours

quote:

---

Holding to the two divergent opinions that the Bible is both God's written word, as well as the unplanned fallacies of the accounts of men, is to espouse two ideas that are in clear and highly vulnerable conflict, which the critics justifiably relish. Either the Bible is entirely intentional as God's infallible written word, or it is not.

For one to truly hold to the trust and belief that the Bible is God's word, then one must conclude that the contradictions hold very special meaning. If the Holy Spirit wrote the Bible, then the contradictions within the Bible are His plan as well, and are thus intentional and meaningful - a meaning that (1) must include repeatable consistency in its representation and interpretation, and (2) must be of tremendously great significance since Yahweh, once again, has hidden His truth from the multitudes, and by its unique construction shames the wise.

---

Hehe...man, that is funny. Well, outcydr, that would go for ANY belief system then.

As DL has mentioned (and I am very aware of, having sparred with Bugs on a number of issues during the years here), it is in the realm of belief. Which is where I wanted to move it - Gideon being the one who has resisted this (among others).

I believe, if we can agree on this common ground, that we will then have a foundation to debate on.

(Edited by WebShaman on 11-04-2004 22:37)

outcydr,

I don't buy that argument. It's a similar argument to one used by many Christians: "Either Jesus is exactly who he said he is -- the son of God and savior of the believers, or he was a raving lunatic."

It's an argument designed to make those "undecideds" choose the first, for fear/uneasiness/whatever of calling Jesus a lunatic.

The truth is, the Bible can be both the Word of God and not 100% literal.
As Bugs pointed out earlier, his belief is that the Bible is the Word of God, written through/by man, and without error *ON THOSE SUBJECTS ABOUT WHICH GOD WAS CONCERNED*.
Namely, the relationship between God the creator, his son the savior, and humans.

I don't necessarily hold to that belief, but it is a perfectly rational, legitimate belief system. It is coherent. It is relatively encompassing. It is not internally contradictory. It doesn't require huge leaps of imagination and twisting of words and interpretations. All in all it is a relatively simple theory.

And, it doesn't fall into one of your two categories.

And it also doesn't rely on a literal view of the Bible.

That's right. Torah, sorry about that. I am really bad with names.

quote:

---

Ruski said:

magical sperm

---

I'm sorry, I just had to laugh.

quote:

---

Ruski said:

it's not about beliefs...it's more about history

---

Well actually Ruski, the Bible is an excellent History book. Especially since the Jews were paraniod about keeping their lineage. You can get pretty accurate dates, civilizations, and events from the OT. There were many kings of nations mentioned in the OT that weren't even discovered to be true until the past decade or so (someone help out if you know names because again I am bad at that).

Yeah Bugs, I am learning to control my urge to become a raving lunatic. It is hard though. I think you know about this.

Ok WS, I will concede about beliefs. This is true that we each have a different belief system that we are all very accustomed to. I am positive that each of our positions has been entirely thought through, and there is no amount of argumentation that will sway me from my veiw of the Bible. Suggestions maybe, but no arguments. I should learn to only expect the same from the rest of you. I am sorry. You have a right to your opinion and I was infringing upon that. Again I am sorry. I will try to refrain from that in the future and if I start again please feel free to yell at me a while. Thanks.

About that Mobrul, I hate to use that argument for the precise reason you posted. It doesn't cause a change of heart, simply a change in mind set.

I think that it requires a massive leap of faith to trust even part of the Bible, let alone it being all truth. Am I right? Not faith in Jesus. You don't have to trust in a literal Bible to be saved. That isn't what I believe. I do think, though, that if God spoke generalizations, why would He want to lead us astry on things such as Creation, Adam and Eve, even little things like bats being birds. Where do you place the line between fact and story in the Bible?

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

the bible is a great source of historical reference. It does indeed carry many references to many people and things that would likely have been lost to us had they not been preserved in the biblical texts.

But then, of course, we are again talking about certain parts of the bible, which is - again - a collection of texts that are seperated by many things, including great spans of time, variations in culture, language, intent, etc.

That does not by *any* stretch make the bible as a whole an accurate historical record.

Sorry, but you know I will have to disagree =)

see...there is something called..."civilizations before jewish tribes" which is very much unmentioned in Torah.... that also includes cavemen, netherlanders, austrailans etc etc etc...Torah is good for traking down jewish culture, but there was so much more than that....you seem to forget al the cultures before the development of writting records, the cultures in asia...ohh my.

Well, that didn't take all that long, did it? Pages of discussion and debate, to finally arrive at the point where we started.

At least we now agree on that starting point. And Gideon, I humbly respect one who can admit that they were wrong.

Peacepipe, anyone? *puff, puff*

*puff puff*
Is that a bubble peace pipe WS?

Yeah, sorry it took so long. I have had alot in my way recently, and I guess I have been a little close minded.

Ofcourse there were civilizations before the Israelites. There were many of them, and Abraham even came from one. The point is that there IS history in the Bible, and even if you leave out the parts that take leaps of faith to believe, then it is even more relieable by the world's standards.

Well, DL, I guess this is where you and I will make a parting of beliefs. I believe that the entire Bible as a whole is historically accurate (only thing is that it won't be able to be verified in many scientific terms until some of the tribulations prophesies come true). You believe (correct me if I am wrong) that the Bible is a good history book with stories stretched in the middle of facts (parting of Red Sea, Flood, Elijah, etc.). Am I correct?

My beliefs in this are not going to change. I am a Baptist and if any knows what a Baptist is they take the Bible literally. (I do not take the Bible literally since I am a Baptist, I am a Baptist because I take the Bible literally. Does that make sense?)

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

quote:

---

(correct me if I am wrong) that the Bible is a good history book with stories stretched in the middle of facts (parting of Red Sea, Flood, Elijah, etc.). Am I correct?

---

Not really.

I beleive there are parts of the bible that give us insight into aspects of history that we might not otehrwise have, by having preserved some historical tidbits (such as various kings of various kingdoms, and the like), and many mythological stories that we have been able to trace to earlier civilizations, and it provides some small amounts of corroboration of other texts that we have available.

I believe that certain stories, such as the issues of the flood, and the parting of the red (or reed, depending on the source you care to use...) are based in actual events. There is enough evidence to suggest that such things may have happened. But the extras that go along with them are - in my view - pure nonsense.

And of course, most stories of the great flood (which, as we have discussed, are prevelant in many cultures) predate the bible, and contain a wide variety of obviously mythological additions....I find it completely absurd to say that, although those are mythology, the version that just happened to make it into the bible (after some significant but not plot-altering changes from the earlier sumerian version) is 100% true.

In other words, it gives us a glimpse into history in the way that things like the legends of King Arthur give us some historical insight. And the stories developed in largely the same way, and for the same reasons. people need something to beleive in, and enjoy a good story.

^what he said

So, basically you agree that some parts are true, most stories are false, but some have believable basis for them? I just want to try and get this straight.

As for people wanting something to believe in, and wanting a good story, the latter is very true. I love good stories, and even acknowledging that I am not really normal, I can pretty assuredly say that most people like stories, too.

But, why do people want or rather need something to believe in? Why are there all these people who chase after supernatural feelings?

(How's that for a philosophical question?)

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

Good question - perhaps you are in a better position to answer it. Why are you chasing after this 'supernatural' feeling you call 'god'?

^ Now THAT is a good question - and one I would like to hear answered, as well.

Well, DL, it goes like this: I am "chasing" after Jesus, because Jesus first chased after me. Does that work for an answer?

I was in total misery and defeat. I was lonely in a crowded room. Do you ever have that feeling? I had friends, family, and many mentors, yet I was somehow alone. I felt that no one really loved me. I know that my family and friends loved me, but I just kinda felt alone in some of the bad things I was doing (I later found out that it wasn't just me that did these things). I didn't talk to anyone, and caught myself up in some nasty habits. I was an outcast. I didn't speak to anyone, and if someone would try to speak to me I would shut them out. I was a wreak.

I suffered from depression, mainly stresses in my life, some with my lack of real love. Back then I didn't know what love really was about. I tried to relieve the stress with various methods: video games, school work, card games, and something I am really ashamed about. I started entering into a spiral downward, I thought of girls in a very bad way. I used their images to give me a little from the stress. It was wrong. It felt good for a few moments, then I hated myself afterwards. I knew it was wrong, but soon found out that I could not stop. I started going down and down into more depression.

I was ashamed of what I did. I tried to reationalize it. I said that other guys must do it too, so that made it alright. I even tried to stop. I would go for a couple of days, the stress would be immense and I would make up for all of the time I had restrained myself in one day. I finally gave up and surrendered that that was how I would be.

This was the state I was in DL, this is what I felt. I was in total disaray. I played with suicide and rape, just to think about what it would be like. I was wrong. I never followed through with my plans, I was too afraid. I was just spent beyond my limits.

Back a few years ago in my Freshman year, my teacher suggested that the class read a book. It was entitled A Voice in the Wind. It was about a Jewish Christian girl enslaved by the Romans after the sack of Jerusalem. It was an incredible story about a girl who trusted in God for her saftey.

As I read I began to realize that maybe what I was missing I couldn't get by my own hands. Up until that point I had the attitude that I could do everything I needed to do by myself. I didn't need any help from anyone. At that moment, I realized that I did need help. I needed God's love again.

I used to have it as a child, but I then had went astray. I had shoved Him in the backseat and I was in control of my own life. Look at what good that did me.

He had prepared me, though. I would never have came back to Him if it hadn't have been the people He had put in my life, the oppertunities He had given me. He opened my heart and I went back once more to Him on my knees. I gave up on the world and trusted that He knew what was better.

I started reading my old King James Bible, and I came across a verse that really struck my heart. Jesus said,

quote:

---

Mattew 11:28-30
28 "Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. 29 "Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and YOU WILL FIND REST FOR YOUR SOULS. 30 "For My yoke is easy and My burden is light."

---

I decided that He knew what was better for me and I trusted in Him. He has not once let me down yet. I may have slammed the door in His face sometimes, but He is still standing there when I open it again with tears in my eyes.

As soon as I trusted Him my depression lifted. I had a joy in my heart that I still have today. I don't want to run from my problems, but face them head on, because I know that Jesus is here with me, and He will never let me down.

There was one thing that did not lift immediately, though. It was my addiction. I didn't want to give it up, but He slowing and surely was able to help me back up to my feet. I soon found out that I was not alone. Many men suffer with that same addiction, and Jesus helped me through. He is my fortress for times of trouble, and my best friend for times of joy.

He helped my by paying the ultimate sacrifice so that I could be clean, but He didn't stop there. He continued to stay in my life. He worked on me, and gave me the Holy Spirit to help me, too. From that moment on I have become a new person. I'm not depressed all the time anymore, I walk around with a smile on my face most of the time now. The joy in my life is just overflowing. I am so glad that I did trust in Jesus.

It wasn't from some fear of death, or Hell. It wasn't some message condemning me by a preacher. It was purley God speaking through a simple little book about the promise of miracles in my life. Even though the book was only based on true facts, He used that book, and verses in that book to open my heart to His Word again.

I am so glad that I trusted in Jesus as my Lord and Savior, and I am never looking back.

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