Topic awaiting preservation: Evolution vs. Creationism

After all the...different views of late, involving Evolution vs Creationism, maybe we should start a thread solely dedicated to the subject. In light of this website National Center for Science Education (which I find posts some pretty alarming stuff), I feel that the importance of Evolution is not being properly understood. In fact, in light of this website What Is the Political Program of the Creationist Movement? where such

quote:

---

"Cast your vote for creation or evolution. Where do you stand in this vital debate?

1. Do you agree with 'theories' of evolution that DENY the Biblical account of creation?

2. Do you agree that public school teachers should be permitted our children AS FACT that they are descended from APES?

3. Do you agree with the evolutionists who are attempting to PREVENT the Biblical account of creation from also being taught in public schools?" (TV Guide, June 13, 1981, p. A-105)

---

is being actively promoted, is very dis-informative. However, maybe you Creationists disagree with me

Some Evolution links :

Understanding Evolution
Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
Biology and Evolutionary Theory

I find the above links very informative, regarding Evolution.

Some Creationism links :

The Collapse of the Theory of Evolution. A fascinating look at evolution from the Islamic viewpoint.

Dharma vs. Darwin? - A Hindu perspective

Answers in Genesis

(Edited by WebShaman on 11-16-2004 12:51)

Um...you realise how many threads there have been dedicated to this very subject, each and every one of them resulting in insults, fights, childish name calling and in two instances even murder involving a broom handle and a stuffed toy?

</post>

Better here, in one thread, than spread out across several, don't you think?

God creates; we evolve, based on that creation.


< Ozone Quotes >

or we evolve, we create the concept of God. End of the story.

Nice one liners. Care to back up your...theories?

The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.

Which god, Ini?

Ok, this is interesting Checking We're Right About The Icecap Dating. That with the carbon Dating of the pollen in the different layers machted with the other methods was pretty interesting.

All in all, fascinating.

Dating the Earth - how all this Science gets used to do it

quote:

---

Tree Rings

Dendochronologists can gain an idea of the climate over the last 10,000 years or so by analysing tree rings that are accumulated on a yearly basis. The basic process (though there are some complicating factors) is a matter of counting annual layers revealing the approximate time period that each layer existed. Wet seasons are characterized by wide layers whereas dry seasons typically produce narrower layers. The Shulman Grove area in California are known to possess living trees exceeding 4,500 years old in addition to dead trees preserved by the cold climate that push the chronology back further than 8,000 years. The layers on these specimens were also cross calibrated with carbon 14 dating. The significance is that we have an independent tool to check the accuracy of radiometric dating. This is significant as many Christians have been told that radiometric dating methods are for a multitude of reasons completely unreliable and entirely untestable ? clearly false claims. If these criticisms were actually correct, than it is surely an astounding coincidence to say the least that the tree ring chronology correlates with the carbon 14 dating results. We also have additional data derived from European Oak where the chronology can be extended back to 11,000 years.



It is also important to note that climatic information from tree rings of differing species and different locations are giving similar accounts of the Earth?s climate over the past 10,000 years. Well known historical events such as massive volcanic eruptions can also be calibrated with the tree ring data. This is because these enormous volcanic eruptions ejected so much material into the atmosphere, a mini ?nuclear-winter? existed for a number of years resulting in extremely poor plant growth - including crop failure and mass starvation. The recorded years of these events correspond to extremely thin tree rings for these years.



Ref: Pinus Longaeva D.K. Bailey 1970 http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/earle/pi/pin/longaeva.htm and

Useful Tree Species for Tree-Ring Dating http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/lorim/good.html


Varve Layers

A varve is a pair of thin layers of sediment that forms in freshwater lakes that tend to freeze over in winter. Typically, one band of the varve is light and composed of sand and organic material (eg pollen) while the second layer is dark and composed of very fine clay particles.
Varves are formed by seasonal variations in sedimentary deposition. The lighter band is laid down during the summer when a greater flow of water from inflowing streams brings coarse, sandy material into the lake. The larger particles settle rather quickly but the tiny clay particles remain in suspension due to the agitation of the lake water caused by the inflowing streams and also by wind. In winter, the lake freezes over and so the effect of the wind is not felt and inflow from streams ceases. Because the water is no longer being agitated, the fine clay particles can slowly settle to the bottom of the lake, right on top of the coarse sand layer. Next summer, when the lake thaws, the cycle begins over. Each varve couplet, therefore, typically represents a single year. One can determine the age of a varve formation by simply counting the number of couplets, just as one can determine the age of a tree by counting its rings.

Varve deposits display great age. The Salido, Castile, and Bell Canyon formations of west Texas contain 260,000 couplets. Hence, this formation is most naturally considered to be 260,000 years old. The famous Green River Shales which span three US states contain about 7.5 million paper-thin couplets.

Dr. H. Kitagawa and his team have established a chronology of varve layers containing diatoms (unicellular algae) in Japan that calibrate the Carbon 14 dating technique back to 45,000 years ago. The spring season layers were recognised by dark coloured clay with white layers due to an increase in diatom growth. Carbon 14 dating (Accelerator Mass Spectrometry was the exact method used) of organic material in the layers has confirmed the accuracy of this dating method to beyond that predicted by most young earth models. It is also important to note that this study revealed similar climate details to European marine sediments of coral dated with Uranium and Thorium methods as well as carbon 14. Their results also were in agreement with the tree ring C-14 results.



Tree-ring data presents a serious problem for young earth/global flood proponents. (Most YECs believe that the large majority, if not all of the earth?s geological record was deposited in around 12 months during Noah?s flood at no more than 5,000 yrs ago.) Varves must give those YECs familiar with them nightmares. How can a global flood that is incomprehensibly catastrophic and haphazard carefully deposit thousands and in some places even millions of very thin and fragile but perfectly alternating and chemically distinct sedimentary layers in an organised fashion that just coincidently happens to correlate with annual seasonal changes? How did the flood insert fluctuating amounts of diatoms into each layer which amazing just happen to correlate with what we would expect from changes in season? But much more amazingly, how did this global flood manage to sort these trillions of diatoms in the correct layers according to the proportion of carbon-14 within their bodies so that modern scientists would be deceived into thinking the varves represented thousands of years of seasonal freshwater lake.



Ref: H. Kitagawa and J. van der Plicht Atmospheric Radiocarbon Calibration to 45,000 yr B.P.: Late Glacial Fluctuations and Cosmogenic Isotope Production 1997

http://www.acad.carleton.edu/curricular/BIOL/classes/bio375/pdfs/c14%20calibration.pdf


Ice Cores in Greenland

There are two ice cores drilled in Greenland called the Greenland Ice Sheet Project (GISP) and the Greenland Ice Core Project (GRIP) both 30 km apart and nearly 3 km deep giving the same paleoenvironmental record back to 110,000 years ago. The ice layers tend to trap tiny bubbles of air, including the impurities that are indicative of volcanic eruptions and other climatic events. An example would be the oxygen isotope ratios of the heavier oxygen-18 to the lighter oxygen-16. As the temperature increases, the heavier isotopes would be more readily precipitated (as part of H2O) than the lighter isotopes and thus the ratio of oxygen isotopes found in air bubbles in the ice provide a signature for past climate changes. Deuterium, also known as Hydrogen-2 is another isotope that provides clues for temperature ranges at each period represented by the respective ice core layers. Studies of CO2 levels in the trapped air bubbles in the ice has enabled scientists to plot the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over recent millennia which is of obvious importance to the earth?s increasing Greenhouse Effect.



Increases in acidity are the hall-mark for volcanic eruptions such as the eruption at Vesuvius in A.D. 79. Evidence for this eruption shows up in the Greenland ice core. Historically documented events like Vesuvius serve as independent tools to date the layers of ice. Though the eruption was less than 2000 years ago and thus not long enough to discriminate between young and old earth creation models, it does provide us with great confidence that the ice layers are accurate recorders of time. Hence the layers that precede A.D 79 to a time of 100,000 years ago can be accepted as accurate.



More extensive though less detailed ice cores were those drilled at the Vostok Station, Antarctica to a depth of more than 3.5 km. Placed in the Antarctica region on the opposite side of the globe, affords an excellent position for strategic sampling of past global climatic trends. The project was a joint initiative of Russia, France and the USA. The snowfall record reaches back to 420,000 years ago, yielding data on dust and sea salt levels, aerosols and global levels of methane and carbon dioxide. Climate details such as oxygen isotope abundances correlate nicely with the GISP2 levels. Some of the age measurements from different research groups are as follows:



Six measurements at 1934 m: ? 136,758 years (Sowers)

? 141,804 years (Lorius)

? 137,725 years (Jouzel-1)

? 135,018 years (Jouzel-2)

? 140,243 years (Waelbroeck)

? 135,507 years (Petit)



Five measurements at 2082 m: ? 164,433 years (Lorius)

? 155,785 years (Jouzel-1)

? 150,957 years (Jouzel-2)

? 152,239 years (Waelbroeck)

? 151,721 years (Petit)



Four measurements at 2757 m: ? 261,787 years (Jouzel-1)

? 242,235 years (Jouzel-2)

? 243,004 years (Waelbroeck)

? 237,975 years (Petit)



One measurement at 3310 m: ? 422,766 years (Petit)



As if the evidence was not already strong enough to demonstrate the earth is older than 6,000 years, we can collaborate the Milankovitch astronomical cycles with the climate variations that we observe in ice and marine cores. The earth?s surface records the processes that astronomers predict from variations in eccentricity (where the orbit deviates from circular) every 100,000 years, obliquity (a slight variation in the Earth?s 23.5 degree tilt) every 41,000 years and precession (where the degree of Earth?s angular tilt remains the same only the direction of the axial tilt is altered like the wobbling of a spinning top as it slows down) every 23,000 years. These variations manifest in the form of climatic shifts and can be catalogued in the various ice and sedimentary layers layered down on Earth.



Ref:Sigfús J. Johnsen The Greenland Ice Core Records 2002 http://www.gsf.fi/esf_holivar/johnsen.pdf

Vostok Ice Core NOAA Paleoclimatology Program 1998 http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok.html and

Vostok Time Scales ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok_time.txt



Coral Layers

Like the layers of tree rings coral layers vary in density according to seasonal changes. The unique gift they offer to researches is that they not only present us with annual bands but also daily bands. In other words, for every yearly band found we also detect 365 daily bands. This is an indirect way of telling us that the lengths of each day are 24 hours long.



Astronomers have made measurements using atomic clocks on the rate of deceleration of the rotation period of Earth. The results present a deceleration time of 0.000015 sec per day. Although we would have reason to expect fluctuations in this rate we can estimate that at 10 million years ago the length of a day would have been approximately 200 seconds less. Extrapolating from this figure back we would expect the Devonian period (360 ? 410 million years ago) to be characterised by days of 21.8 hours in length or 400 days per year.



Ancient coral layers dated to the Devonian era via thorium 230 and protactinium 231 radiometric methods provide an independent test for the astronomical calculations mentioned. The exciting discovery from ancient coral was that daily growth lines counted between the extreme values of 385 and 410 leaving us with an average for that period that correlates very well with the astronomical methods. Coral from the Pennsylvanian (late Carboniferous: 290 ? 325 million years ago) era from two different geographical regions gave 390 and 385 lines per annum. These results imply that the lengths of each day have increased as the earth has slowed down over the 100 million years since the Devonian period and provide further collaborative support for uniformitarian processes.


Ref: John Wells Coral Growth and Geochronometry 1963 http://freepages. genealogy.rootsweb.com/~springport/geology/coral_growth.html

New Discovery

The exceptionally thick Antarctic ice have provided researchers with an opportunity to drill a core 3 km deep into Dome C, high on the East Antarctic Ice Sheet.ntnumber2Strezz According to the report, the earth has experienced 8 ice ages throughout the last 740,000 years. The study confirmed that the obliquity cycle and the eccentricity cycle that occur every 41,000 and 100,000 years respectively have a major influence on climatic conditions. This study reveals even more headaches for a young earth creation model since the core now reaches further back in time than ever before and receives collaboration from various astronomical cycles. This study also supported evidence from prior research that the last 10,000 years of human history (Holocene period) has been exceptionally benign climatically, providing a unique environment for human civilisation to flourish.


ntLaurent Augustin, et al., ?Eight Glacial Cycles from an Antarctic Ice Core,? Nature 429 (2004), 623-628.


number2 Jerry F. McManus, ?A Great Grand-Daddy of Ice Cores,? Nature 429 (2004), 611-612.


Strezz Gabrielle Walker, ?Frozen Time,? Nature 429 (2004), 596-597.

---

From here.

(Edited by WebShaman on 11-16-2004 15:59)

WebShaman: " Nice one liners. Care to back up your...theories? "

I think I already did in another thread. Whatever, in short, the concept of deity spawned in the mind of primitive hominids/humans. Which hominids/humans believed, for example, that you just have to dance in circle to please a divinity and make the rain fall*. Notice that the religious beliefs brought some rituals and a social hierarchy that helped to create many societies and civilisations but on the other hand they also lead to the Creationism. Since then the Science have prevailed. The Evolution is only denied by individuals like "Dr Hovind" and people blinded by their religious beliefs and/or lack of education that prevent them from understanding the aspects of Science behind the Evolution.

Anyway, Science still leaves many doors open for the believers to put a God behind many things. What I strongly reject is the literal interpretation of the Genesis.

Of course all this is just my own opinion based on my education, culture, life.

(*) I don't mean don't insult the American Indians, but that's the kind of ritual and belief that come to my mind when thinking to the earlier forms of religious beliefs as we have no clear testimony of the rituals praticed tens of thousand years ago.

Here is an answer from the Creationists refuting a young Earth (and therefore a literal belief in the Bible) - Tidal Slowdown, Coral Growth, and the Age of the Earth

poi,

quote:

---

we have no clear testimony of the rituals praticed tens of thousand years ago.

---

The Aboriginals of Australia represent such (at least 20,000+ years).

Interesting... http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/

While I still won't agree with some of the conclusions of people who will jump on the "intelligent design" bandwagon, I do think this is a better approach to the issue. The idea that many of the things we see in nature are evidence of a designer should not be ruled out of our discussions.

The main problem is really that some people believe that science can or does prove there is no god and many theists think their views prove there is. Science should be used for what it is, a tool for learning, understanding, and manipulating our physical universe for our benefit. If we could just let it do that and move our debate about the deity to where it belongs, I would be happier.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

The main thrust of this ?intelligent design? argument is that life is so complex it cannot just appear by itself and that there must be some guiding force. But then the question is, if life which is so complicated needs a guiding force (God), who created that guiding force?

Who created God?

If the answer is God is always there, then if one can accept that God which is presumably more complicated than mortal life can always be there and God was not created by some guiding force, then what is so difficult about accepting that life arises without such guiding force.

I think this sums it up

quoted from SEB

The point is to not rule out design or chance, Ruski. I don't think science will ever be able to answer which conclusively so it need to be left up to individuals to decide which is more likely the case.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

I don't think that Science per se proves or disproves an intelligent design. As Bugs mentioned, it is just a tool.

On the topic of design, I believe that we (and everything else) are products of a natural process. The real interesting question is perhaps God also a product of a natural process? Now that I find interesting!

" On the topic of design, I believe that we (and everything else) are products of a natural process. "

I believe that too. It's proven that there is some carbon composites in the meteorites, and that this composites not only resist to extremely violent impacts ( such as an impact on the earth ) but react to form some proteins ( some really big molecules ) that are the bricks of the amino acids. With the number of impacts of stellar objects in the early days of the earth ( just look at the moon to get a little idea of this number ) it's quite likely that life "spawned" like that, then multiplied and evolved naturally.

I think what people call God is the natural process itself.

quote:

---

poi said:

I think what people call God is the natural process itself.

---

That's just another way of saying there is no god... unless you believe god *is* the universe like pantheists do.

The Jewish/Xian/Muslim understanding of God is that he is *independent* from his creation. He exists regardless of whether we, or the universe, exists. This view of God injects purpose into the equation and seeks to answer the "why" of the process where science works to explain the "how" of that process. That is why science and religion must go hand in hand and not oppose one another.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

The Jewish/Xian/Muslim understanding of God is that he is *independent* from his creation. He exists regardless of whether we, or the universe, exists. This view of God injects purpose into the equation and seeks to answer the "why" of the process where science works to explain the "how" of that process. That is why science and religion must go hand in hand and not oppose one another.

---

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

I don't think science will ever be able to answer which conclusively so it need to be left up to individuals to decide which is more likely the case.

---

ehh...?


so, bugs you think that your or jewish or muslim religioin is out there to explain to me why things happen the way they do?

like you said I would rather save it for individuals....and not make faith and science to go hand in hand...

Science must be completly independed from faith or religion.

(Edited by Ruski on 11-16-2004 19:54)

(Edited by Ruski on 11-16-2004 19:55)

Ruski, science can only be used to answer some questions that you as a human being will face in life. Religion and philosophy can be used to answer others. When I say they go hand in hand I don't mean that they interfere with one another. They both seek to answer separate and important questions.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Like air and food go "hand in hand" to keep us alive.
Used correctly, we'll breathe and be full.
Too much interference, however, leads to choking and lots of gas. =)

Yep!!!

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Bugs, being the product and part of a natural process also explains the why and the how.

In that case, it does not explain why there is a natural process. Does it?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Of course it does. A natural process is a natural process. We covered how this could happen, with the Big Bang, and how it is possible for it to happen - Guthrie's Grand Guess, remember?

If you mean something deep and meaningful, then no. It is, what it is.

I mean "why" as it relates to purpose. If that is deep, then yeah I guess that's what I'm saying. Saying that this is the product of that, explains to me how it happened and with what material, but it does not tell me if there is any purpose to that process. Again, I think we're dealing with definitions a bit here.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Not really. Do you ask the purpose behind the Laws of Thermodynamics? Or the purpose behind Gravity? A natural property exists, because that is how it came into being, from this thing, that led to that thing. I find the thought fascinating, that through a natural process, matter and energy could develope to a point where it can direct other matter and energy with a concious purpose, and predict cause and effect.

And in that, the why is there. For me, it is perfectly understandable, beautiful, and makes sense.

quote:

---

Um...you realise how many threads there have been dedicated to this very subject, each and every one of them resulting in insults, fights, childish name calling and in two instances even murder involving a broom handle and a stuffed toy?

---

You're a poopy pants!

-----------------------------------------------------
funny websites | funny signatures | funny jokes

Ozone Asylum KILLED my inner child.

I am very short on time lately, but I'd like to add my take on the whole c vs. e debate.

My main question is why must the two be separate? God or science, creation or evolution. I believe that God set the laws of science in motion. God created what we refer to as science.

I do not believe in a young Earth as many do, but that the days of creation were not days in the literal sense. The Bible in many places does not speak of days in a literal sense. For instance, the "Day of the Lord" refers to a seven year period of time.

Some other examples include:

1. Genesis 2:4 refers to all 6 days of creation as one day, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven."

2. The seventh day of Genesis is not closed. In all other days, "there is the evening and the morning, the n day." Which to me means we are still in the 7th day.

3. The apostle Peter wrote that with God "A thousand years is as one day" (2 Peter 3:8).

4. The third day must have been longer than 24-hours, since the Bible indicates a process that would take a year or longer. On this day, God allowed the land to produce vegetation, tress and fruit. The text states that the land produced the vegitation (indicating a natural process) and that it all occurred on the third day. Obviously, such a "day" could not have been only 24 hours long.

5. The events of the sixth day of creation require time beyond 24 hours. On this day, God created the mammals and mankind. He also planted a garden, watered it, let it grow, and put man in it, with instruction on its care and maintenance. Then God brought all the animals to Adam to be named. This job, in itself would take many weeks or months. Next, God put Adam to sleep and created Eve, from a rib (DNA to us sophisticated folk). It is very unlikely all of this could take place in 24 hours, since much of it was dependent upon Adam, who did not have the abilities of God.

6. The Bible states that the covenant and laws of God have been proclaimed to a "thousand generations" (Deuteronomy 7:9, 1 Chronicles 16:15, Psalms 105:8). Even if a generation is considered to be 20 years, this adds up to at least 20,000 years. A biblical generation is often described as being 40 years, which would represent at least 40,000 years. However, since the first dozen or more generations were nearly 1,000 years, this would make humans nearly 50,000 years old, which agrees very well with dates from paleontology and molecular biology.

In any case, these debates are unecessary IMO because there really is not much to disagree on when the religious side acknowledges the science side and uses it as a compliment to understadning the Bible. The reverse of that statement also holds true. The whole debate begins when organized religion has an agenda because it sees science as a threat when it is not. Carry on.

Ramasax

(Edited by Ramasax on 11-17-2004 00:34)

quote:

---

The whole debate begins when organized religion has an agenda because it sees science as a threat when it is not.

---

Couldn't possibly agree more.

As much as I hold true that there is no god, nothing that science tells us can in any way prove or even suggest that there is no god (except in the sense that since we have no evidence to support god's existence, we must assume [scientifically] that he/she/it does not exist...).

I think that to say that nature proves god's existence because it is so complex and beautiful is just plain silly. To say that there must have been 'intelligent design' makes no sense. because we don't understand, it 'must have been god'? No...no more than there must be little imps pulling my hand when I stick it out the car window while driving...

But, there is absolutely nothing to say that god *is* not there behind it all.

quote:

---

I think that to say that nature proves god's existence because it is so complex and beautiful is just plain silly.

---

Well said. I find that nature's complexity and beauty is even moreso, when one considers it a natural process.

quote:

---

Ramasax said:

The whole debate begins when organized religion has an agenda because it sees science as a threat when it is not. Carry on.

---

The threat seems to be, that if "there is no damnation of a mankind and original sin, why there should be a salvation?"

If science makes old testamen/torah/jewish literature look as if it is a metaphorical tale...how does "salvation" fit in?

that's by far one of the logical questions/explanations I have heard from True Believers? relating to science and their faith.


added: nd Bugs as for "why?" well you can always come up with an answear yourself, it's not that hard.

(Edited by Ruski on 11-17-2004 13:54)

quote:

---

Bugimus wrote:

I mean "why" as it relates to purpose.

---

Part of the reason that there is such a difference of opinion is because most people have to believe that we were put here for a purpose.
They cannot seem to be able to function unless there is a reason for us to be here.
They cannot bring themselves to think that maybe there is no purpose, no destiny, no grand scheme, no guarantee that humankind will prevail.
It is inconceivable to them to think that:
> we are just here;
> we are an accident of the evolutionary process;
> our only real goal is the same as the goal of every living thing -- to perpetuate our own kind;
> when we die, that is the end, we stop being and there is no more.

So people hear a story they like and they cling to it.
Someone wrote that God said "Believe in me and you will live forever", and hey, that's better than the alternative, so its got to be true.
These stories are ingrained in us as we grow up and we hold on to them.
And it is easier to cling to them than it is to accept any alternative that doesn't allow for us to live forver.




(Edited by briggl on 11-18-2004 06:54)

Purpose?

As a species - survival and the accumulation of knowledge. And to evolve. (IMHO).

As a person - I think this is better individually defined. My purpose is to better myself, without cost to others (at least as little as possible), and the raising of my children.

quote:

---

poi said:

What I strongly reject is the literal interpretation of the Genesis.

---

Hmm, that's funny, cause that is exactly the opposite of what I believe.

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

If we could just let it do that and move our debate about the deity to where it
belongs, I would be happier.

---

Me too, the only problem with that is that you can not entirely remove God from science and science from God, it is impossible.

quote:

---

Ruski said:

If the answer is God is always there, then if one can accept that God which is
presumably more complicated than mortal life can always be there and God was not
created by some guiding force, then what is so difficult about accepting
that
life arises without such guiding force.

---

I just want to say nicely done. That is a very good counter to that argument. I still have to check if your reasoning is correct, but I think it might be.

Well, actually it is difficult because of one word that you used, "mortal." If God is more complicated than mortal life, and He does not have a creator Himself, then maybe life which is mortal does need a Creator to make sure things fit right.

quote:

---

poi said:

I think what people call God is the natural process itself.

---

Yup, all inclusive in six days Poi. (sorry, I just had to say it)

quote:

---

Ramasax said:

The Bible in many places does not speak of days in a literal sense.

---

It is true that the Hebrew for day can mean an age or a time period, but the six Hebrew days in Genesis are 24 hour days. They contain morning, number evening and night, and thus can be rationalized as being 24 hour days.

quote:

---

Ramasax said:

Which to me means we are still in the 7th day.

---

So God the Omnipotent is still resting from His hard 6 days of work? I know people who work many long weeks and take only a day or two of rest, not billions of years .

quote:

---

Ramasax said:

"A thousand years is as one day"

---

Context...
He said:

quote:

---

2 Peter 3:8
But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.

---

He is actually talking about the last days and not the first, how God is patient and He doesn't rush things.

Your 6th point is quite true, about God proclaiming to a thousand generations. If you do take it that way, it would be 1,000 generations from the point He said it, not from the proposed beginning of the Earth. The scholars who have gone through and tried to pinpoint a date of birth for the Earth is somewhere between 10,000 and 5,000 years, not nearly back enough for the 1,000 generations.

I prefer to look at that as a massiva amount. I don't have my Hebrew Bible yet, but as soon as I do I will look into whether that extends the day of Tribulation, or if it just means a "really long time."

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

because we don't understand, it 'must have been god'?

---

Actually, have you ever heard of miracles DL? We have one recent walking talking miralce in our church right now. Even the doctors said it was a miracle. He was supposed to die. He didn't. Can you explain that? I can't. Not without God.

quote:

---

briggl said:

So people hear a story they like and they cling to it.Someone wrote that God
said "Believe in me and you will live forever", and hey, that's better than the
alternative, so its got to be true.These stories are ingrained in us as we
grow up and we hold on to them.And it is easier to cling to them than it is
to accept any alternative that doesn't allow for us to live forver.

---

Hey, you read "Owww....it hurts" I didn't get saved because I was worried where I was going when I died. That wasn't the issue. The issue, like with many other people, is the here and now. The other stuff we can't see happening, we don't know it is true, we just believe that it is, we hope. the stuff that Jesus saved me from was the here and now: loneliness, depression, suicide, addictions, lust, etc. I didn't really care much about the here after, I cared more about the here now. Jesus said He could lift my burdens and He delivered.

Now that I think I have disagreed with everyone here on a topic or two and made many people a little ticked (please don't be ticked, this is stuff from God that I have taken liberty of peicing together for you. If you are going to get mad get mad at me and not Him).

Ok, WebShamman. Here is your part. I think by now you know my stance on Creation, and that no amount of debate and argument are going to change it for worse. They may strengthen it, but not change it much. I just want to say a couple things:
First: I thought you were tired of these kinds of posts. Did you get an extra push from somewhere?
Second: I agree, there have been many posts about this, and it is good that they are all on one thread this time.
Third: what is your personal stance on the matter. If you post that for me I promise I will use all my strenght to stop myself from picking it apart. Deal? I just would like to understand what angle you are coming from.
Fourth: Thank you very much for this thread, I was able to get all of my thoughts out at once.

As a little parting thing because I may not be able to post anything anytime soon, I would like to tell everyone that I commented on, that my comments are largely my oppinion and my findings from research in and about the Bible. I want you all to know that your oppinions are yours and I don't want you to think that I hate you all and think you should go to Hell. Quite the opposite. This is really one of the few ways that I know of getting my oppinions out is by making counters to other's arguments. I'm really sorry if I offended someone, but my comments can be offensive sometimes. I just want you all to know that maybe you are not wrong and maybe you are 100% correct. Maybe I am the one in error, I don't know. I won't know until I go up to be with God and He reveals these things to me personally. That is when I will no for sure whether or not I or you were right. Maybe we are both wrong, I don't know yet. All I do know is that the Bible is the only thing I have to go on as far as God's "meat and potatoe" Word's, and that is what I consider truth. If you can find instances in the Bible to prove my comments wrong I would love to hear them. Please WS just none of that stuff that proposes to prove the Bible wrong. I am still getting answers for a few of them, and I won't know for a while.

I guess what I am trying to say is that Jesus is the Ultimate Authority in my life, and I love Him. It is out of that love that I follow Him. All of my comments and suggestions are just secondary and do not really count compared to Him.

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

quote:

---

He was supposed to die.

---

Says who? That's an opinion...not a fact.

quote:

---

Can you explain that? I can't. Not without God.

---

That still doesn't make 'god' the answer.
Even if the answer *is* something supernatural, it does not in any way shape or form speak of the existence (or lack thereof) of your god.

quote:

---

Actually, have you ever heard of miracles DL?

---

Yep, that's where you take something you don't understand and say "god did it!". =)

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

Yep, that's where you take something you don't understand and say "god did it!".
=)

---

That's the idea. Seriously, though, it is actually a "Godly" miracle (at least the one I am refering to) becasue it was prayed about. It wasn't just spontaneous, and happened, then we said "Praise God!" We said "Praise God" because we knew it was Him and not some other "supernatural force."

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

Gideon do you realize the god you worship actually has a begining? There are documents that began in specific time, documenting your deity, simply put there is a development process of that diety and it holds many similarities with cultures before it and and how they influenced the development of your particular diety. Before people would praise somethign else, specific god(s) of their culture including fertility diety (which was ussually a female, because logically women give birth) and later it all developed into male dominant dieties. Well...but most of them are known as myth today in western world.

If you care to look up some information on development of dieties and concept of god over time a good start would be here:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/god_devel.htm

The bible you ohh so literary fallow how its process of development as well. The documents were specifically chosen by Roman rulers. I am sure DL already poited you out to early christian writtings that never before made it to the present bible,because they simply say a diffenrent story.

There is in fact the development of an image for Jesus Christ. In early days of rome he was portrayed as a young clean shaven Roman man. Later the image was redesigned because it didn't portray Jesus wise/powerful/whatever enough.
They added to beard to resemble roman emperor, which at that time and before that time was know to symbolized power.
The purpleand gold roman toga was also a cloth of emperor and was very much adopted for imagery of jesus during the byzantine times.

There is so much more you simply are unaware of, it saddens me. The worth part is, so is 75% of the world.

(Edited by Ruski on 11-20-2004 08:17)

quote:

---

Me too, the only problem with that is that you can not entirely remove God from science and science from God, it is impossible.

---

Uhhh...wrong. So, so very wrong. Not only doesn't that make sense, I can and will remove your "god" from science. I can demonstrate enough theory that excludes your "god" entirely.

quote:

---

If God is more complicated than mortal life, and He does not have a creator Himself, then maybe life which is mortal does need a Creator to make sure things fit right.

---

Again, incorrect - if we produce AI, in a form that can renew itself (and therefore be "immortal") then your example is null and void.

quote:

---

Actually, have you ever heard of miracles DL? We have one recent walking talking miralce in our church right now. Even the doctors said it was a miracle. He was supposed to die. He didn't. Can you explain that? I can't. Not without God.

---

Maybe you can't, but my people can. And they certainly don't explain it with your "god".

quote:

---

Ok, WebShamman. Here is your part. I think by now you know my stance on Creation, and that no amount of debate and argument are going to change it for worse. They may strengthen it, but not change it much.

---

If this is the case, then you may never learn the truth, because with this statement, you tell me that you have shut out ANY possibility of examining things OUTSIDE of your faith. It is also a polite way of telling me to shut up. I personally find this type of attitude very, very typical of "your" type of believer...so go on and keep your fingers in your ears. You are demonstrating here, that you are not open-minded, contrary to what you say.

quote:

---

First: I thought you were tired of these kinds of posts. Did you get an extra push from somewhere?

---

Yes, there used to be a lot of such in the old asylum, but apparently much of the threads from then didn't make the grade to the new aslyum. So, I decided to put it all in one area, so that I could reference it in the future, as the case comes up!

quote:

---

I just want you all to know that maybe you are not wrong and maybe you are 100% correct. Maybe I am the one in error, I don't know.

---

I'm not sure what to make of this. First, above you say you will not be swayed, that you "know" the truth...then you say this. They contradict one another. In other words, you are full of s**t! I do expect you to corrigate your illogic here.

That may be harsh, but Gideon, you can't have it both ways! Either, you stop speaking in absolutes (and follow this line of thought - "I could be wrong") or you leave such remarks be.

The evidence is overwhelming, that the Bible can't be taken literally. Just one mistake, and it is wrong. I have already demonstrated mistakes in your logic (the snake, for example, is a carnivore - yet you say that the animals on the Ark were all herbivores.) There are other examples...like the fallacy of the gaots and their colors being decided by some sticks in the ground...we know that is not true. Thus, these cannot be the literal words of "god", otherwise it is wrong!

The truth is, you will NEVER be able to answer all my points, without referring to the old "god did it" - which is not a valid arguement, because it cannot be falsified.

quote:

---

becasue it was prayed about.

---

and what does that have to do with anything???

Because you expressed that you wanted this peron to get better, and they did, it's a "godly miracle"? c'mon, man....

quote:

---

Gideon wrote:

Seriously, though, it is actually a "Godly" miracle (at least the one I am refering to) becasue it was prayed about. It wasn't just spontaneous, and happened, then we said "Praise God!" We said "Praise God" because we knew it was Him and not some other "supernatural force."

---

1) So people prayed for the guy to recover, then he spontaneously recovered by whatever means, so therefore God saved him.

2) You knew it was Him because that is what is ingrained in you by your religious training as you were growing up, not because of any facts that this was so.

Oops, I forgot, everything else in life we require facts to believe, but God we are supposed to just believe in because someone wrote some stories and parables a few thousand years ago to explain things that they couldn't explain otherwise.

quote:

---

Ruski said:

do you realize the god you worship actually has a begining?

---

If He does, He hasn't revealed it to me yet. I don't really think that He has a beginning like we think of, I believe it is something very different from our beginnings, but then I could be wrong.

quote:

---

Ruski said:

later it all developed into male dominant dieties

---

Actually, there are three major religions that stem from the same general God belief: Christianity, Judeism, and Islam. They all stem from the same God and all have generally the same garden of Eden, and all have the same belief in one male God from the beginning. Actually later it developed into the worship of the Ashern poles with the Jews (I don't know much about Islam, I'm just starting that research), and the Virgin Mary with the Christans. The female aspect (excluding the Holy Spirit) came after God's revelations.

quote:

---

Ruski said:

The documents were specifically chosen by Roman rulers.

---

Not entirely true. I have been researching this since DL told me about those other books. I really had no idea about them before I looked into it and I was quite confused. First thing is that the NT cannon books were not chosen by the "Roman Rulers," they were actually in use for several hundered years before they officially became "the cannon." The "Roman Leaders" only confimed the books the churches had been using for several centuries, and combined them into a recognized book. Second, have you ever read any of the books that were exculded from the NT? I haven't, but the source I looked into had a man who had read most of them, and he said that there are errors in the books that are there, but difficult to see to someone untrained in grammar and reasoning. He claimed it was easy for him to see the differences, but would be harder for those that read them. Unless you know what is in the book, there really isn't any basis for asking the question of why it wasn't included, it is just throwing names around. If you have a specific book, I am sure there are reasons why that book wasn't included. If you want to include it; it is your bible that is entirely your right and opinion. You will only have to answer to God.

As for Jesus' image changing, it happens. So many rulers and influential people have had personage crisis that the fact of Jesus having many faces is not much of a surprise to me. I personally believe that the only thing close to the true picture of Jesus is in the Shroud of Turin (if you believe in it).

quote:

---

Ruski said:

There is so much more you simply are unaware of, it saddens me. The worth part
is, so is 75% of the world.

---

You are right, I don't know much. I try to discover as much on this world as I can, but I really don't know too much. Neither does anyone else on this Earht for that matter. That is why I rely on God to reveal to me what I need when I need it.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

I can and will remove your "god" from science.

---

About this WS, I meant that since God is in all science and all science is written by God (according to my faith) I believe that those two subjects are entertwined. If you do not believe that, that is your beliefs.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

It is also a polite way of telling me to shut up.

---

No, no, no. I'm really sorry if you took it that way. I actually want you to speak to me, I will explain why...

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

You are demonstrating here, that you are not open-minded,

---

You're right, if have been close minded too much. I guess I have the wrong approach to things. The thing is though, that my beliefs are rooted to my faith. My faith is that my beliefs about God will never significantly change. I love hearing others opinions about faith and God. I may not take those beliefs as my own, at least not all of them, but I love to hear them.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

I decided to put it all in one area, so that I could reference it in the future,
as the case comes up

---

Good idea.

Okay, as for my contradictive nature...I do not know everything God does. If you correct me, then I needed it, but God cannot be corrected. His word is truth to me, so that is why I say my words aren't truth. Does that clear it up better?

As for your other point I will discuss that later...

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

no Gideon..thats not what i am talking about...forget islam judaims and christianity for a moment look back...way back.

Etruscian, Aegean, Messapotanian, pre dominant fertility goddesses etc.

those are the sources your god has been depended upon for it's development. Imaginary Characteristics of Jesus follows the same pattern of "hero" as any other mythological heros you reject. Virgin birth, growth, maturity, test, death, ressurection etc..

so many past god's and heros followed the same pattern even before development of judaims and christianity.



btw I am done here man, it's hopeless to keep explaining you things, because you are not looking for the fact but rather for some sort of confirmation of your existent beliefs.


and you did be surprised how much people know on this Earth already...

(Edited by Ruski on 11-25-2004 01:54)

I would like to quote some scriptures and see if anyone has the same reaction when I saw them.

Job 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

Isa 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

Psa 139:16 Your eyes saw my body. In your book they were all written, The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there were none of them.

Ecc 1:7 All the rivers run into the sea, yet the sea is not full. To the place where the rivers flow, there they flow again.


Here is a sampling of some amazing insights that predate Julius Ceaser and King Nabonidus of Babylon. The earth is suspended on nothing, it is a circle where its inhabitants are insectlike in appearence and microscopic in comparison to the universe or on a smaller scale solar system.
Our body parts are "written" in a "book" called deoxyribonucleic acid. And the cycle of water in hebrew poetic terms are presented in total accuracy.

I have mentioned these verses to see wether any other religion that predates these scriptures gave such illuminating information that would and should bring a sense of awe to the author of this earth and its inhabitants, God(YHVH)

Uh.......what?

What those scriptures present are mostly simple observation completely lacking in specificity and hardly "illuminating" in any sense whatsoever.

From climbing to the top of a hill and looking at a city below, humans appear like insects. The idea of the earth floating in nothingness and surrounded by a shroud-like heaven or cosmos is certainly commonplace.

Watching how water flows and seeing that it comes and goes is not any sort of startling revelation...

I don't know what it is you think you see represented in these quites, but they are ceratainly not resonating with any sort of scientific acuity...and not relevent in any way that I can see.

quote:

---

Ruski said:

btw I am done here man, it's hopeless to keep explaining you things, because you are not looking for the fact but rather for some sort of confirmation of your existent beliefs.

---

good thing none of us have ever felt that way explaining things to you

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

quote:

---

Ruski said:

so many past god's and heros followed the same pattern even before development
of judaims and christianity.

---

That is quite true. I can think of a few Greek gods that did that, but I don't know of many Aegean, Etruscan, or Messapotanian gods. They could have easily done those things too. The only thing is that the "gods" that did those things weren't real people. There was no conclusive evidence for them (at least not to my knowledge). Jesus, on the other hand, was a real person, He did die a real death for us and He did rise from the dead because over 500 people saw His physical body before He ascended to Heaven.

Valpal, those are all possible explainations of those verses (if you look really hard for DNA). I interpreted that Psalm more for a predetermined path than for DNA, but that is your opinion.

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

Healing miracles should be no different in comparison to a miraculous ressurection of someone who has been dead for over 24 hours. Yet, all these false christians do is perpetuate disbelief in God by claiming they can speak in "tongues" and have their members offer false predictions as to what their calling in life will be.

So, unfortunately these kind of falsehoods cause people to misunderstand Genesis and to not take it seriously.

In my next post I'll share some thoughts on the creation account and let YOU decide from a spiritual point of veiw wether creation believers can be taken seriously or not.

Gideon you simply do not have a confirmation of any sort about your Jesus' ressurection, except for the biblical stories. And they are nothing, since there are plenty of (here we go again) Pagan, Messapotanian, Egyptian, etc. and other beliefs that predominated Judaism and Christianity, and had similar writtings. Such as a ressurection of Osiris after he was killed. Same goes for Buddha, there were alot of people who "saw his ascending into nirvana".

Bah...

just food for thought, but if christ wasn't resurrected why didn't the romans just produce the body and shut the whole mess down right then?

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

We've had that conversation before as well Fig.

There are a variety of reasons that can explain the Romans' inaction. I am not clear on some things, so part of my post here will be questions.

For starters - who took Jesus' body down and entombed him? Is it not entirely possible that the Romans simply did not know where Jesus' body was?

It could very well have been that the Romans simply did not care enough about it in the beginning. He was dead, and that's all there was to it. A few crazy people running around saying he was still alive wouldn't really have been a huge issue....I'm certain it wasn't a first. It's not like as soon as Jesus died, up sprang this monumental force called christianity hammering at the Roman empire. It took time for anything substantial to happen.

Is it not also possible, and quite probable, that Jesus' body was hidden by people attempting to propagate the concept of resurrection? It would be rather idiotic to claim resurrection without first securing and hiding/ disposing of the body...

The fact that the bible says there were '500 witnesses' means absolutely nothing. It sure makes things sound better though.

Of course, if Jesus were resurrected....why didn't he just produce himself to the people at large so that his divinity would be undoubtable?

It makes no sense that he would allow only a small number of people to see him and then disappear without ever making an appearance again.

Fig why don't you tell me why Romans/Greeks/Egyptians/Hindus worship all those deities, which ones you would consider to be fake/made up by people in first place.


As to why chrisitanity was adopted as official religion by Roman empire there is plenty of great historical books related to that subject, go look em up at library.

thanks ruski, i'm rather familiar with constantine and the story tho. my comment didn't have a thing to do with why the roman empire adopted christianity as a religion anyway, the event in question happened a few hundred years before the roman empire did so.

and DL, i know we have, tho i will make the point that his execution was by roman authorities and the tomb was guarded by roman guards (a factual account as far as we know). it would seem that SOMETHING happened tho, wouldn't it, over a fairly short period of time christianity did have a rather huge impact. for anyone who might be interested there's a dvd from a&e called "the first thousand years of christianity" that covers the events that happened from a historic perspective, really cool stuff to hear the facts from a fairly unbiased source.

really just tossing out some random observations to make the point that no matter what the viewpoint of some we don't know the whole story. the phenomenally derogatory tone of some people on here gets really old (yes ruski, that means you), there's a lot of intelligent people with a variety of beliefs here and i get a bit tired of being made to be an idiot for having faith in something that others don't believe in. when it all comes down to it the facts of all this won't get us anywhere in this anyway, either side can shred the others with "evidence" of varying accuracy (a lot of which can't be proven) and people are going to believe what they believe.

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

(Edited by Fig on 11-26-2004 05:44)

quote:

---

the phenomenally derogatory tone of some people on here gets really old

---

I won't argue with that.



Now, back to the tomb - you say 'over a fairly short period of time' christianity had a huge impact. Well, that's a very relative phrase 'fairly short'. In hisorical terms - absolutely. But in terms of things being a big enough issue to force the Roman empire to produce a body, we're talking quite a long time.

Now, another question that I have no idea - how long would gaurds have been posted at Jesus' tomb?

V -- Roman guards would have been there all night into the morning and if they fell asleep would have been executed, but the Bible account says the jewish heirarchy paid them to be quiet. How the Bible writer knew this is not mentioned . Some ideas would be that he saw the guards stationed there and after the body of Jesus disappeared and the guards were not punished but silenced for derilection of duty, or the writer had a inside source like Josephus of Arimathea or Nicodemus to tell him the inside story. Lastly, he could have been inspired by God to know any or all of these ideas is possible.

As far as how long the guards would have been posted in front of Jesus tomb is speculative but I'm sure not longer than a month. Why? Because, the body would show advance signs of corruption by then.

to dl-44,

Show me one book or manuscript or papyrus or scroll that predates the writings of the Bible and that show this scientific insight.

The water cycle was not touched on by any none person until the Rennassaince and as far as the Earth hanging upon nothing that was not fully understood until the 19th century.

The problem with most people is they take for granted the scientific knowledge of the times and somehow expect the Bible to dicuss it in full detail. This has never been the purpose God intended the Bible for.

Having said that, the Scriptures do ACCURATELY touch on scientific facts that only we living today could truly appreciate.

A good example of this is a person who likes music but doesn't play versus someone who loves music and knows how to play and write music. The first person could never truly appreciate music as much as the second because of lacking the ability to truly immerse themself in the art of music.

All expressions starting with V ? are my comments based on the commentary provided from Insight on the Scriptures, vol. 1. And a Britannica Encyclopedia article on atmosphere. I hope you find this informative and beneficial.


V ? As a spiritual book and not as a science book the Bible clearly identifies who the Creator is. And that aeons ago God caused the heavens and earth to come into existence. Science has said there was a beginning and that it was longer than 6000 years ago and that at one time there was no space or matter.
Scientists have likened the initial birth of our universe like a carbonated bubble that just formed inexplicably in nothing and expanded rapidly forming quarks, protons, electrons, neutrons all of which I believe, although, none of them were there to see it and I have never seen a quark or the like. It sounds reasonable and in no way casts doubt that God is the progenitor of our unique and awesome universe.

Jehovah reminded Job that He had taken specific steps in founding the earth and barricading the sea and indicated that there exist ?statutes of the heavens.? (Job 38:1, 4-11, 31-33)

V ? ?Statues of the heavens? sounds a lot like what people in the last 400 years are just starting to appreciate in the study of ?the laws of physics?. ?Barricading the sea? certainly could be compared to the concept of sea level.

Chapter 2 of Genesis, from verse 5 onward, is a parallel account that takes up at a point in the third ?day,? after dry land appeared but before land plants were created. It supplies details not furnished in the broad outline found in Genesis chapter 1. The inspired Record tells of six creative periods called ?days,? and of a seventh period or ?seventh day? in which time God desisted from earthly creative works and proceeded to rest. (Ge 2:1-3) While the Genesis account of creative activity relating to the earth does not set forth detailed botanical and zoological distinctions such as those current today, the terms employed therein adequately cover the major divisions of life and show that these were created and made so that they reproduce only according to their respective ?kinds.??Ge 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25

Day No. Creative Works Texts
1 Light; division between day and night Ge 1:3-5
2 Expanse, a division between waters
beneath the expanse and waters above it Ge 1:6-8
3 Dry land; vegetation Ge 1:9-13
4 Heavenly luminaries become discernible
from earth Ge 1:14-19
5 Aquatic souls and flying creatures Ge 1:20-23
6 Land animals; man Ge 1:24-31
Genesis 1:1, 2 relates to a time before the six ?days? outlined above. When these ?days? commenced, the sun, moon, and stars were already in existence, their creation being referred to at Genesis 1:1. However, prior to these six ?days? of creative activity ?the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep.? (Ge 1:2) Apparently, a swaddling band of cloud layers still enveloped the earth, preventing light from reaching its surface.

When God said on Day One, ?Let light come to be,? diffused light evidently penetrated the cloud layers even though the sources of that light could not yet be discerned from the earth?s surface. It seems that this was a gradual process, as is indicated by translator J. W. Watts: ?And gradually light came into existence.? (Ge 1:3, A Distinctive Translation of Genesis) God brought about a division between the light and the darkness, calling the light Day and the darkness Night. This indicates that the earth was rotating on its axis as it revolved around the sun, so that its hemispheres, eastern and western, could enjoy periods of light and darkness.?Ge 1:3, 4.

V ? Recently NASA has sent a probe to Titan where they are ?looking? through the thick veil of clouds that cover it. No, distinguishable sun or moonlight can penetrate to its surface. Similarly, Venus is another example where the sun?s image can not be discerned only its light. Come to your own conclusions.

On Day Two God made an expanse by causing a division to occur ?between the waters and the waters.? Some waters remained on the earth, but a great amount of water was raised high above the surface of the earth, and in between these two there came to be an expanse. God called the expanse Heaven, but this was with relation to the earth, as the waters suspended above the expanse are not said to have enclosed stars or other bodies of the outer heavens.?Ge 1:6-8.

V ? Scientists say, the immediate heaven, is a ?gaseous envelope that surrounds the earth.?

?Near the surface it has a well-defined chemical composition. In addition to gases, the atmosphere contains solid and liquid particles in suspension. Scientists divide the atmosphere into five main layers: in ascending order, the troposphere (surface to 6-8 mi, or 10-13 km); the stratosphere (4-11 mi, or 6-17 km, to about 30 mi, or 50 km); the mesosphere (31-50 mi, or 50-80 km); the thermosphere (50-300 mi, or 80-480 km); and the exosphere (from 300 mi and gradually dissipating). Most of the atmosphere consists of neutral atoms and molecules, but in the ionosphere a significant fraction is electrically charged. The ionosphere begins near the top of the stratosphere but is most distinct in the thermosphere.?

So, a person today who goes to the fringes of space could say he traveled through 5 heavenly layers to the 6th level. And still he could be an atheist or a person who only believes in evolution and doesn?t believe in the Bible or an afterlife. However, my point is in Deuteronomy 10:14 it reads, ? Behold, to Yahweh your God belongs heaven and the heaven of heavens, the earth, with all that is therein. Yes, the Bible said long ago there was levels to the heavens above. Not to teach science but to show who the true owner of all creation is.

In addition to this, the word of God says he divided the waters creating a water canopy above. This canopy of water was most likely used in the flood and in this way the scriptures say the ?heavens? and ?earth? were ?destroyed?. Today, we see that there is enough water to have flooded the earth; that physics and our own intelligent minds, tell us, that above us, are billions of gallons of ?solid and liquid particles in suspension? ; It could have been so dense that visible light could barely penetrate to the surface of the planet. Is all this possible ? That is for each person to decide.

Day Three by God?s miracle-working power the waters on the earth were brought together and dry land appeared, God calling it Earth. It was also on this day that, through no chance factors or evolutionary processes, God acted to superimpose the life principle upon atoms of matter, so that grass, vegetation, and fruit trees were brought into existence. Each of these three general divisions was capable of reproducing according to its ?kind.??Ge 1:9-13
.
The divine will concerning luminaries was accomplished on Day Four, it being stated: ?God proceeded to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars. Thus God put them in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth, and to dominate by day and by night and to make a division between the light and the darkness.? (Ge 1:16-18) In view of the description of these luminaries, the greater luminary was quite apparently the sun and the lesser luminary the moon, though the sun and moon are not specifically named in the Bible until after its account of the Flood of Noah?s day.?Ge 15:12; 37:9.
Previously, on the first ?day,? the expression ?Let light come to be? was used. The Hebrew word there used for ?light? is &#769;ohr, meaning light in a general sense. But on the fourth ?day,? the Hebrew word changes to ma&#63568;&#769;ohr', which refers to a luminary or source of light. (Ge 1:14) So, on the first ?day? diffused light evidently penetrated the swaddling bands, but the sources of that light could not have been seen by an earthly observer. Now, on the fourth ?day,? things evidently changed.

It is also noteworthy that at Genesis 1:16 the Hebrew verb ba&#63568;ra&#769;', meaning ?create,? is not used. Instead, the Hebrew verb `a&#63568;sah', meaning ?make,? is employed. Since the sun, moon, and stars are included in ?the heavens? mentioned in Genesis 1:1, they were created long before Day Four. On the fourth day God proceeded to ?make? these celestial bodies occupy a new relationship toward earth?s surface and the expanse above it. When it is said, ?God put them in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth,? this would indicate that they now became discernible from the surface of the earth, as though they were in the expanse. Also, the luminaries were to ?serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years,? thus later providing guidance for man in various ways.?Ge 1:14.

Day Five was marked by the creation of the first nonhuman souls on earth. Not just one creature purposed by God to evolve into other forms, but literally swarms of living souls were then brought forth by divine power. It is stated: ?God proceeded to create the great sea monsters and every living soul that moves about, which the waters swarmed forth according to their kinds, and every winged flying creature according to its kind.? Pleased with what He had produced, God blessed them and, in effect, told them to ?become many,? which was possible, for these creatures of many different family kinds were divinely endowed with the ability to reproduce ?according to their kinds.??Ge 1:20-23.

V ? It is interesting the order of creation: a beginning, then the heavens, next, our sun and moon, then land, following this plant life then sea and air life, next animal and last human life. How eloquent and simple this explanation is ! As if a loving parent was giving his child an answer to its how and why questions . Yet, science amazingly confirms this creative order in text books today. Perhaps not as simplistic, but certainly accurate for its time 3500 years ago.

On Day Six ?God proceeded to make the wild beast of the earth according to its kind and the domestic animal according to its kind and every moving animal of the ground according to its kind,? such work being good, as were all of God?s previous creative works.?Ge 1:24, 25.

Toward the end of the sixth day of creative activity, God brought into existence an entirely new kind of creature, superior to the animals even though lower than the angels. This was man, created in God?s image and after his likeness. While Genesis 1:27 briefly states concerning humankind ?male and female he [God] created them,? the parallel account at Genesis 2:7-9 shows that Jehovah God formed man out of the dust of the ground, blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a living soul, for whom a paradise home and food were provided. In this case Jehovah used the elements of the earth in creative work and then, having formed man, He created the female of humankind using one of Adam?s ribs as a base. (Ge 2:18-25) With the creation of the woman, man was complete as a ?kind.??Ge 5:1, 2.
God then blessed mankind, telling the first man and his wife: ?Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving upon the earth.? (Ge 1:28; compare Ps 8:4-8.) For humankind and other earthly creatures, God made adequate provision by giving them ?all green vegetation for food.?

Reporting on the results of such creative work, the inspired Record states: ?After that God saw everything he had made and, look! it was very good.? (Ge 1:29-31) The sixth day having come to its successful conclusion and God having completed this creative work, ?he proceeded to rest on the seventh day from all his work that he had made.??Ge 2:1-3.

Concluding the review of accomplishments on each of the six days of creative activity is the statement, ?And there came to be evening and there came to be morning,? a first, second, third day, and so forth. (Ge 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31) Since the length of each creative day exceeded 24 hours (as will be discussed later), this expression does not apply to literal night and day but is figurative. During the evening period things would be indistinct; but in the morning they would become clearly discernible. During the ?evening,? or beginning, of each creative period, or ?day,? God?s purpose for that day, though fully known to him, would be indistinct to any angelic observers. However, when the ?morning? arrived there would be full light as to what God had purposed for that day, it having been accomplished by that time.?Compare Pr 4:18.

Length of Creative Days. The Bible does not specify the length of each of the creative periods. Yet all six of them have ended, it being said with respect to the sixth day (as in the case of each of the preceding five days): ?And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a sixth day.? (Ge 1:31) However, this statement is not made regarding the seventh day, on which God proceeded to rest, indicating that it continued. (Ge 2:1-3) Also, more than 4,000 years after the seventh day, or God?s rest day, commenced, Paul indicated that it was still in progress. At Hebrews 4:1-11 he referred to the earlier words of David (Ps 95:7, 8, 11) and to Genesis 2:2 and urged: ?Let us therefore do our utmost to enter into that rest.? By the apostle?s time, the seventh day had been continuing for thousands of years and had not yet ended. The Thousand Year Reign of Jesus Christ, who is Scripturally identified as ?Lord of the sabbath? (Mt 12:8), is evidently part of the great sabbath, God?s rest day. (Re 20:1-6) This would indicate the passing of thousands of years from the commencement of God?s rest day to its end. The week of days set forth at Genesis 1:3 to 2:3, the last of which is a sabbath, seems to parallel the week into which the Israelites divided their time, observing a sabbath on the seventh day thereof, in keeping with the divine will. (Ex 20:8-11) And, since the seventh day has been continuing for thousands of years, it may reasonably be concluded that each of the six creative periods, or days, was at least thousands of years in length.

That a day can be longer than 24 hours is indicated by Genesis 2:4, which speaks of all the creative periods as one ?day.? Also indicative of this is Peter?s inspired observation that ?one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.? (2Pe 3:8) Ascribing not just 24 hours but a longer period of time, thousands of years, to each of the creative days better harmonizes with the evidence found in the earth itself.


Created Things Preceded Man?s Inventions. Thousands of years before many of man?s inventions appeared on the scene, Jehovah had provided his creations with their own versions of them. For example, the flight of birds preceded by millenniums the development of airplanes. The chambered nautilus and the cuttlefish use flotation tanks to descend and ascend in the ocean as submarines do. Octopus and squid employ jet propulsion. Bats and dolphins are experts with sonar. Several reptiles and sea birds have their own built-in ?desalination plants? that enable them to drink seawater.
By ingeniously designed nests and their use of water, termites air-condition their homes. Microscopic plants, insects, fish, and trees use their own form of ?antifreeze.? Small fractions of temperature change are sensed by the built-in thermometers of some snakes, mosquitoes, mallee birds, and brush turkeys. Hornets, wasps, and yellow jackets make paper.
Thomas Edison is credited with inventing the electric light bulb, but its loss of energy through heat is a drawback. Jehovah?s creations?sponges, fungi, bacteria, glowworms, insects, fish?produce cold light and in many colors.

Many migrating birds not only have compasses in their heads but they also have biological clocks. Some microscopic bacteria have rotary motors that they can run forward or in reverse.

It is not without good reason that Psalm 104:24 says: ?How many your works are, O Jehovah! All of them in wisdom you have made. The earth is full of your productions.?

Some persons seek to associate the Biblical account of creation with mythological pagan accounts, such as the well-known Babylonian Creation Epic. Actually, there were various creation stories in ancient Babylon, but the one that has become well known is a myth having to do with Marduk, Babylon?s national god. Briefly, the story tells of the existence of the goddess Tiamat and the god Apsu, who became the parents of other deities. The activities of these gods became so distressing to Apsu that he determined to destroy them. However, Apsu was killed by one of these gods, Ea, and when Tiamat sought to avenge Apsu, she was killed by Ea?s son Marduk, who then split her body, using half of it to form the sky and using the other half in connection with the earth?s establishment. Marduk?s subsequent acts included creating mankind (with Ea?s aid), using the blood of another god, Kingu, the director of Tiamat?s hosts.

V ? Again, a scientific and honest mind would not really consider the myths of creation by other national religions on par with the biblical account. Clearly, the God of the Holy Bible is shown in complete control and his creative actions are not chaotic, but purposeful and orderly.


Did the Bible borrow from Babylonian creation stories?
In his book, P. J. Wiseman points out that, when the Babylonian creation tablets were first discovered, some scholars expected further discovery and research to show that there was a correspondency between them and the Genesis account of creation. Some thought that it would become apparent that the Genesis account was borrowed from the Babylonian. However, further discovery and research have merely made apparent the great gulf between the two accounts. They do not parallel each other. Wiseman quotes The Babylonian Legends of the Creation and the Fight Between Bel and the Dragon, issued by the Trustees of the British Museum, who hold that ?the fundamental conceptions of the Babylonian and Hebrew accounts are essentially different.? He himself observes: ?It is more than a pity that many theologians, instead of keeping abreast of modern archaeological research, continue to repeat the now disproved theory of Hebrew ?borrowings? from Babylonian sources.??Creation Revealed in Six Days, London, 1949, p. 58.

While some have pointed to what seemed to them to have been similarities between the Babylonian epic and the Genesis account of creation, it is readily apparent from the preceding consideration of the Biblical creation narrative and the foregoing epitome of the Babylonian myth that they are not really similar. Therefore, a detailed analysis of them side by side is unnecessary. However, in considering seeming similarities and differences (such as the order of events) in these accounts, Professor George A. Barton observed: ?A more important difference lies in the religious conceptions of the two. The Babylonian poem is mythological and polytheistic. Its conception of deity is by no means exalted. Its gods love and hate, they scheme and plot, fight and destroy. Marduk, the champion, conquers only after a fierce struggle, which taxes his powers to the utmost. Genesis, on the other hand, reflects the most exalted monotheism. God is so thoroughly the master of all the elements of the universe, that they obey his slightest word. He controls all without effort. He speaks and it is done. Granting, as most scholars do, that there is a connection between the two narratives, there is no better measure of the inspiration of the Biblical account than to put it side by side with the Babylonian. As we read the chapter in Genesis today, it still reveals to us the majesty and power of the one God, and creates in the modern man, as it did in the ancient Hebrew, a worshipful attitude toward the Creator.??Archaeology and the Bible, 1949, pp. 297, 298.

Regarding ancient creation myths in general, it has been stated: ?No myth has yet been found which explicitly refers to the creation of the universe, and those concerned with the organization of the universe and its cultural processes, the creation of man and the establishment of civilization are marked by polytheism and the struggles of deities for supremacy in marked contrast to the Heb. monotheism of Gn. 1-2.??New Bible Dictionary, edited by J. Douglas, 1985, p. 247

quote:

---

The problem with most people is they take for granted the scientific knowledge of the times and somehow expect the Bible to dicuss it in full detail.

---

I understand fairly well the 'science of the time'.

The problem I see with your approach to this is that you take a *very* simplsitic idea that is touched on only vaguely, and take it to mean something more complex, in the way we understand things scientifically today.

For starters, the earth is not "hung from nothing". It is in orbit around the sun. *this* was not understood until galileo's time (the knowledge of which he was condemned for by christianity, I might add...).

The idea of the earth floating in a void was a common concept in many mythologies. The idea of the heavens covering the earth like a shroud was also very common. It is also, like the idea of the earth being suspended from nothing, scientifically incorrect - so I really don't see what your point is in this vein...

.

Ok, the gaurds would have been there for apr. a day? So....in other words, the gaurds presence is irrelevent in the bigger picture of creating the story of Jesus' resurrection.

.


I have not read the entirety of your last post. I will when I have time...



(Edited by DL-44 on 11-26-2004 23:41)

quote:

---

Now, back to the tomb - you say 'over a fairly short period of time' christianity had a huge impact. Well, that's a very relative phrase 'fairly short'. In hisorical terms - absolutely. But in terms of things being a big enough issue to force the Roman empire to produce a body, we're talking quite a long time.

---

true, a few hundred years is a significant chunk in any society. however, the time for christianity being officially adopted by rome is significantly longer than the time it took for it to make an impact on roman society. major persecution of christianity in rome began in the mid-60s AD, about 30 years after christ's death and after paul and other apostles had already created quite a stir across the roman empire. in a non-media based society that's a rather short period of time.

i don't know historically speaking or with regards to roman rules how long the guards would've been posted for (other than the biblical account which says they were there that third night), but considering the issue of jesus' resurrection was a widely discussed and highly volatile comment i would say its safe to assume that roman officials would've been certain to post the guards for at the least several days following his execution.

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

(Edited by Fig on 11-27-2004 20:37)

Please show me some references as an example of the earth unsupported by nothing and the water cycle discussed in ancient texts.

I doubt you will find anything at all. As far as the heavens layers these are discussed in context of Genesis describing an ancient atmosphere being created not some spirtualized heavens as you may have assumed.

Please, show me an ancient source that gives such insightful remarks.

And as usual, your quick repartee's are void of any real substance or reflection on what is being said.

For instance, ancient people used word pictures in there daily intercourse. Today, we in a limited way still do. But, most of what we write or type or speak is much more abstract in comparison.

A good example, of a language today that uses word pictures, i.e. metaphors, is Navajo, which means " a creek near planted fields". I spent some time there and came to appreciate how they communicated before they had a written language. Another, proof of my statement is hieroglyphics that are found in many ancient cultures around the world.

So, in discussing the earth as seen from space it would "look" like it was hung upon "nothing". That is metaphorically, speaking.


Get it, Got it, Good

quote:

---

And as usual, your quick repartee's are void of any real substance or reflection on what is being said.

---

Oh.

Then I won't continue wasting my time, as your long-winded posts seem to be void of any actual point or logic.

~shrug~

Here are some things people still say today that is metaphorical.

-- the sun is rising, setting, being swallowed up, shaded, blocked, winking, cool, moving across the sky, following , waning, and who knows what else.

The same could be mentioned of the moon and stars to a certain degree.

A shooting star. A hunters' moon. Once in a blue moon. A new moon. A full moon.

We live in mordern times yet to a certain degree we say what we see not what the reality is.

In spanish they say "tengo fria" which literally translated is "I have cold" whereas in english we say "I am cold.". Do you "see" the difference ? How can a person say they "ARE" cold versus saying they "HAVE" cold.
You can say I am cold and you expect the person listening to you to know that you are not cold but have the feeling of being cold.

Thanks for excusing yourself from a serious subject that you obviously have made your mind up on.

Oh

It figures people like you make UNQUALIFIED statements with nothing to support your claims.

Shame, shame on you.

As far as my "long-winded" post it has QUALIFIED statements that back up what I am saying about Creation.

And I do not see how I can make 2 cent remarks to support and possibly pursuade others to a more open opinion on the matter.

Valpal: First, you should probably get aquainted with the "Edit" function here on the board. That way you don't have to make multiple posts in a row only minutes apart each.

Second, and I realize this may be hard at times, but you should try a more tactful approach to your arguments, at least until people get to know you a little better. If you keep up the way you are going people will simply label you a troll.

Just an impartial opinion.

Ramasax

Valpal1, you are new here. DL has been here since the beginning (or near it ), and his knowledge and insight into many subjects he has put on the line many a time. Both your tone, son, and your offensiveness are not helping you. Now, I don't expect you to know all this. Maybe you should take a step back, and breath a bit, before typing the next reply.

I will get around to tearing you a new one shortly. It might even prove to be fun. That is, if DL doesn't do it first.

quote:

---

As far as the heavens layers these are discussed in context of Genesis describing an ancient atmosphere being created not some spirtualized heavens as you may have assumed.

---

That is particularly naive. No-where is such "described" as an atmosphere as we know it today. The Bible is full of mistakes scientifically. It is one of the main reasons, why it cannot be taken literally. Thus, it is left to take it metaphorically. Of course, there are those who still will not accept that, strangely enough.

quote:

---

Please, show me an ancient source that gives such insightful remarks.

---

.

Well, that didn't take long at all! Amazing what a quick jaunt through Google can do.

This site has everything the mind could desire Links to Creation Myths

Let us start with Babylonian, shall we? The Babylonian Creation Myth Rather interesting, isn't it? And it is a translation from Clay Tablets...that means that it was "written down" Here some excerps

quote:

---

When the gods saw all this they laughed out loud, and they sent him presents. They sent him their thankful tributes. The lord rested; he gazed at the huge body, pondering how to use it, what to create from the dead carcass. He split it apart like a cockle-shell; with the upper half he constructed the arc of sky, he pulled down the bar and set a watch on the waters, so they should never escape. He crossed the sky to survey the infinite distance; he station himself above apsu, that apsu built by Nudimmud over the old abyss which now he surveyed, measuring out and marking in. He stretched the immensity of the firmament, he made Esharra, the Great Palace, to be its earthly image, and Anu and Enlil and Ea had each their right stations.

---

That was fun, indeed!

Oh, and in direct support of DL - NOrse Creation Myth

quote:

---

What the Eddas Say

In the beginning there was the void. And the void was called Ginnungagap. What does Ginnungagap mean? Yawning gap, beginning gap, gap with magical potential, mighty gap; these are a few of the educated guesses.

---

That in response to

quote:

---

Please show me some references as an example of the earth unsupported by nothing and the water cycle discussed in ancient texts.

---

And this

quote:

---

Oh

It figures people like you make UNQUALIFIED statements with nothing to support your claims.

Shame, shame on you.

---

Well, well...how does that shoe leather taste?

(Edited by WebShaman on 11-27-2004 02:40)

I guess you got me. One line from a text that describes butchering a corpse to make heaven and earth is exactly the same as the bible account.

It is according to how one interprets it all. And that isn't just one text - read them ALL before shooting off your mouth! And yes, I did get you, caught you with your pants down, right before you shoved your head so far up it, that I doubt that it will be possible to get it back out.

That is one way of presenting the "round thing in a void" I guess.

You still have yet to answer the Eddas.

You are just a waste of time.

Your right! Really, how eloquently you have responded to my above questions as far as the water cycle and the verse that describes earth hung upon nothing.

What was that???

Oh ! right you didn't answear those questions did you, sir.

Again. what supported the earth in the opinion of the Bablonians? If, you know, please tell me.

I am new to this site but as as hosts you have only used foul remarks!

So, enjoy your poor company for I shall not honor you with mine!

I do not have to tell you (though it is far older than the bible account). If you want it explained, read up on it yourself. The point was (and is, you silly twit) that you said to show you ancient texts that describe such - and I did. The authors of the bible probably just copied what they found along the way - The "hanging in the Void" thing is really quite old, again, as DL said.

You said

quote:

---

I doubt you will find anything at all.

---

I did.

DL suggested the same thing - and guess what? He was right, and you were wrong. Imagine that.

As I said, a waste of time.

quote:

---

Ruski said:

Gideon you simply do not have a confirmation of any sort about your Jesus'
ressurection, except for the biblical stories.

---

Two things:
1.) There were over 500 witnesses, that would definitly hold up in a court of law.
2.)That is where the faith of Christianity takes hold. You are a Christian if you believe that Jesus died for our sins and rose from the grave (doing a very supernatural thing). That is the dividing line of faith. I don't have any proof that Jesus rose from the grave, that is where revelation comes in. My name wasn't proven to me by science it was a revelation from my mother. Same with Jesus' ressurection, it wasn't proven by science, it was revealed to me.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

why didn't he just produce himself to the people at large so that his
divinity would be undoubtable?It makes no sense that he would allow only
a small number of people to see him and then disappear without ever making an
appearance again.

---

Actually 500 people was a large amount back then. There were major decisive battles with less than that number. And He did appear again and again. He rose from the Earth only a while after He rose from the dead.

quote:

---

Fig said:

either side can shred the others with "evidence" of varying accuracy (a lot of
which can't be proven) and people are going to believe what they believe.

---

Thanks Fig. Words of Wisdom. (not to be taken sarcastically)

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

Ok, the gaurds would have been there for apr. a day?

---

Longer, actually. The Roman officials had heard about Jesus speaking about resurrection, and the officials sent guards to make sure that no one fulfilled that prophesy. They would have been the atleast three days since that is how many days Jesus said it would take to raise Him from the dead.

I find it interesting that the officials knew what Jesus had in mind. They even sent guards to stop it. I would assume they sent enough guards for the threat of grave robbery that they thought would occur. Even if Jesus didn't raise from the dead and someone stole His body they would have had to get through guards that knew what that person or persons wanted to do. So, I would guess that if that happened there would be dead guards, but there weren't any.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

No-where is such "described" as an atmosphere as we know it today.

---

That is true, there is no atmosphere like that one today. Ofcourse, if I light a match and it goes out, there will never again be a match exactly like that one again. It happened and is done with. Some things in History may not repeate themselves (atleast I hope not or else we will be in trouble when the next Hitler comes along).

WS-You are awesome. But anyway, about things being described by other cultures, keep in mind that the Torah has in it the tower of Babel, in which every nation was originaly in one place, which would make me come to the conclusion that they were all atleast familiar with what happened at the beginning. Maybe that is why there are so many legends about floods, gardens, etc. Actually about gardens, I found an interesting tid bit from a friend of mine. He is studying Chinese right now, and He said that the Chinese's language has pictograms in it, and I believe it was the pictogram for garden had a tree, two people, and a snake. All key to the story of the Garden of Eden. I find that interesting because the Chinese language is reported to be one of the oldest languages. This kinda supports the thing about the Tower of Babel.

And WS, again I am really sorry about what I said earlier, it was in no means a wish for you to shut up. I love hearing from you. You are one of the most experienced inmates I have encountered (maybe it has something to do with how long you have been on here ). Anyway, if I ever say something like that again feel free to yell at me.

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

val:
no offence but, i only read about half of your looooooooooooong post, and thought about it in the interval, and ended up here (don't ask me why):

Revelation 10: 9 And I went unto the angel, and said unto him, Give me the little book. And he said unto me, Take it , and eat it up; and it shall make thy belly bitter, but it shall be in thy mouth sweet as honey.

*passes out bucket of fresh trout for slapping val

*leaves bucket of ice cold Shroom Likker for everyone to enjoy


(Edited by outcydr on 11-27-2004 05:16)

I have a question for you evolution gurus:

How did the human eye form in evolution?
-Amino acids, protozoa, whatever don't have eyes and
-When any part of the human eye is not there it is nonfunctional. You need the entire eye for it to work properly. You can't see with just a pupil for instance.

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

I have a question for you evolution gurus:

How did the human eye form in evolution?
-Amino acids, protozoa, whatever don't have eyes and
-When any part of the human eye is not there it is nonfunctional. You need the entire eye for it to work properly. You can't see with just a pupil for instance.

How did it form when it only works when the whole of it is there, not just parts?

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

"when any part of the eye is not there it is nonfunctional"...as we know it today.

Today we humans have two organs that are senstive to electromagnetic radiation.
The eye captures EM radiation within a certain frequency - approx. 700 nm to 400 nm.
Our skin is sensitive to a greater range. Ultraviolet (less than 400 nm) causes "sun burns", while infrared (greater than 700 nm) causes to feel the thing we call "heat".

Our skin is, to the casual observer, nothing at all like the eye, yet these two organs have very similar functions. Of course, the skin is good for lots of other things too -- protecting us from disease, helping to regulate core temperature, keeping our intestines from dragging on the ground... =)

My point is, an eye is nothing more than an organ to collect a certain range of electromagnetic radiation.
The skin too, though it does other things, collects a certain range of electromagnetic radiation.
The brain does all the interpreting.

Why could it not be the case that, throughout history, the various ways organisms collect EM radiation changed - evolved? We know today that various creatures are sensitive to various ranges of EM radiation. Insects "see" in very different wavelengths than we do.
Why not our predecessors?

(Edited by mobrul on 12-02-2004 23:41)

quote:

---

You can't see with just a pupil for instance.

---

Before your question can be answered (though Mobrul did a decent job of it already), you must explain:

Are you thinking along the lines that we would have 'evolved' the various parts seperately from each other? For instance, suggesting that evolutionary theory would mean that we had a 'pupil' (which in and of itself is awful silly, since a pupil is just a hole....) and then at some later stage developed a lens, etc...?

I may be off mark here, but it seems to me that you trying to suggest such a thing as a means of showing some sort of flaw in evolution.

This, I feel, is perfect for the discussion at this point. The Blind Watchmaker
In which Richard Dawkins explains how the eye, in all its complexity, has evolved through natural selection. Is this the kind of thing you alluded to Gideon?

:::tao::: ::cell::

quote:

---

Gideon said:

I have a question for you evolution gurus:

How did the human eye form in evolution?
-Amino acids, protozoa, whatever don't have eyes and
-When any part of the human eye is not there it is nonfunctional. You
need the entire eye for it to work properly. You can't see with just a
pupil for instance.

---

As well as Tao's excellent suggestion I also recommend Dawkins' "Climbing Mount Improbable" which has a whole chapter on the evolution of the eye and lot sof other interesting stuff.

As I'm sure you wouldn't accept criticism of Christinaity from someone who wasn't familiar with the Bible it would be handy if those putting forward such questions would do us the same favour and do some reading around on the issue before asking them (and reading from actual "evolutionist" books and sites rather than Creationist ones).

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org | Justice for Pat Richard | FAQs: Emperor | Site Reviews | Reception Room

(Edited by Emperor on 12-03-2004 04:33)

One must also be aware, that different versions of the eye have devoleoped, independently of one another. This suggests, that there are processes that supports the developement of organs that can detect certain electromagnetic wavelengths, that they are beneficial to organisms that do so.

More is the question - why would God "create" different types of eyes? Why not go with the "best" one? Or combine the best attributes of the two into one superior model, and use that instead? The fact that we do not have "perfect" senses, seems odd to me - God is surely capable of creating perfect senses in creatures, right? Why purposely create flawed creatures? Why purposely create different versions of the same thing?

And there are examples of creatures with "eyespots", that are primitive versions of eyes, actually just light-sensitive cells of the skin, that have taken on a special function. It would seem, that being able to "detect" light, gives such organisms an advantage over others that cannot.

Really, of all the things to ask about, the eye? I would think one would be tempted to ask about intelligence...

I mean, if I was before god and I only had one question, I certainly wouldn't ask him why he/she/it created the eye!

First, sorry about the double post.
Second, thanks for the site Tao, that is what I was looking for.
Third, yes, I would hope that those who ask questions in order to attack Creation would at least be familiar with some Bible theories, and that is one reason for the question: I would like to know an answer. You don't just ask questions with no intent.

Good job of turing that question around WS, and yes I would ask Him about the eyeball. Won't be my first question, but I will get around to it.

quote:

---

Emperor said:

(and reading from actual "evolutionist" books and sites rather than Creationist
ones)

---

Why is that? It is the same info, just from a different perspective.

Something that I have been pondering about lately is natural selection. Wouldn't that disprove the theory of evolution from amino-acids/protozoa? With each new generation, variables are lost. Doesn't that mean that there is no possibility of organisms with more variablility coming from organisms with less? (eg. man from single cell organism)

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

Oh, that's a book! Uh, do you know of any web sites I don't have to spend money to look at? I'm kinda short on cash. (I'm not lazy. I could easily look through the entire web for a site, I was wondering if any of you have some suggestions of web sites you liked.)

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

quote:

---

Why is that? It is the same info, just from a different perspective.

---

in most cases, no it most absolutely is NOT.

Most creationist sites that I have seen exist for one purpose: to debunk any theory that runs counter to the bible.

That is not science. Science does not set out to debunk.

You clearly do not get the factual scientific info from these creationist sites - that is demonstrated time and again here.

quote:

---

Gideon said:


quote:Emperor said:

(and reading from actual "evolutionist" books and sites rather than Creationist
ones)
Why is that? It is the same info, just from a different perspective.

---

As DL has said - it just isn't and even asking that question shows that you really need to expand your reading.

quote:

---

Gideon said:

Oh, that's a book! Uh, do you know of any web sites I don't
have to spend money to look at? I'm kinda short on cash. (I'm not lazy.
I could easily look through the entire web for a site, I was wondering
if any of you have some suggestions of web sites you liked.)

---

I'm afraid that if you want to full information then you will have to read the book - it is an extensive chapter and part of a much broader theme.

Luckily there are some great places to go that get you books to read for free - libraries. If the books aren't there then they can order them.

While you are there grab Steven Jay Gould's books and reveal in the true awesome range and beauty of evolution. Important essays (these are from recent books "Dinosaur in a Haystack" and "Life's Grabdeur" - called somehting card related in the States I believe) include:

The evolution of the whale - we have a lot of proto-whale fossils which show vesitgal back limbs. Most wahles still possess them in some form or another. We can see how the evovled from land animals returning back to the water.

The evolution of internal parasites - even though they have widely diverging ancestors with many different morphologies they actually look remarkably similar. It is an important lesson that evolution is not to increasing complexity but towards optimisation for their niche and these animals have actualy become simpler over time losing nearly all distinguishing features.

Both cause genun problems for Creationa nd Intelligent Design but you won't find this out by looking at only Creationits tracts and you won (necessarily) find it all online I'm afraid.

You should also dig out Gould's "Wonderful Life".

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org | Justice for Pat Richard | FAQs: Emperor | Site Reviews | Reception Room

You can find some of Gould's essays here (look in the growth for and function in particular):

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library.html

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org | Justice for Pat Richard | FAQs: Emperor | Site Reviews | Reception Room

I managed to dig this up curtesy of good old "Aunty Beeb" Transcript for programme one: Richard Dawkins
It can be a bit dry at times and it covers a fair bit of his personal life, though that is pertinent too. Hopefully it will give you a glimpse of the ideas that have been dicussed here just recently.
I found it facinating, I think I heard the actual interview a while back.
It was "Climbing Mount Improbable" that I meant Emps, I just got so carried away with multiple tabs open on Dawkins and gould that I became befuddled

Tao: "The Selfish Gene" and "The Blind Watchmaker" are also well worth reading although they can be a little dull

CMI is much more relevant and accessible for the average reader with those kinds of Creationsts questions - the Arguement by Disbelief: "I can't believe this happend.......".

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org | Justice for Pat Richard | FAQs: Emperor | Site Reviews | Reception Room

And, of course, while you're looking for good reading on evolution, MAKE SURE you don't leave out Darwin's own 'On the Origin of Species'. Before you try to point out his errors, you must at least know what it was he had to say...

quote:

---

MAKE SURE you don't leave out Darwin's own 'On the Origin of Species'. Before you try to point out his errors, you must at least know what it was he had to say...

---

Great point! Ouch!

I believe that is what Creationists say to Evolutionists, right? "Gotta read the bible first..."

Nice one!

Thanks. I greatly appreciate all the help. One problem is that I rarely have time to even get on the internet let alone go to a library. So my choices are limited about book useage.

Thanks for the links though, they will surely be some help in answering my questions (at least I hope so).

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

quote:

---

any of you have some suggestions of web sites you liked.)

---

http://www.dhushara.com/book/genesis.htm
http://www.root-1.co.il/thesadduceeprintouts.htm

On the issue of Creationist's insistence that children are taught both theories of creation/evolution I thought this article was very interesting and really touched on the problems I have with that:

httP://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/Opinion/Editorials/03OpOPN52120404.htm

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org | Justice for Pat Richard | FAQs: Emperor | Site Reviews | Reception Room

(Edited by Emperor on 12-06-2004 16:51)

quote:

---

For those who are so adamant about teaching creationism in our schools, whose creationism shall we teach?

---

Exactly!

quote:

---

Singlehandedly, biblically literalist Christians are causing entire school districts to launch themselves into intellectual darkness, not by content, but by approach. The irony is that these proponents of "creation science" or "intelligent design," or whatever misleading label they are using this year, ignore and/or deny the ancient roots of their own creation story.

---

And it is notably the stupidest thing I have ever witnessed.

quote:

---

We should not allow any of these mythologies, however, to masquerade as science, especially in our school districts, that are at least partly entrusted with the task of preparing young people to attend colleges and universities that correctly and responsibly do not permit religious storytelling to be confused with hard science.

---

And THAT is the bottom line!

Thanks for posting that, Emps.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

task of preparing young people to attend colleges and universities that
correctly and responsibly do not permit religious storytelling to be confused
with hard science.

---

Except that is not case

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

Oh? You know this for a fact? So, when asked about the various properties of Evolution, they answer with?

Answer that, please.

Just having discusions with you, for example, has shown a great lack of knowledge of hard science, for example (especially in the area of Evolution).

(Edited by WebShaman on 12-06-2004 18:07)

I was actually refering to a public college (again I am sorry about my memory failures, but this is the best they can do) that required a course in Islamic history and mythology. I would consider that as confounding the facts.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Just having discusions with you, for example, has shown a great lack of
knowledge of hard science, for example (especially in the area of
Evolution).

---

Well, I will confess, I am no scientist. I am no palientologist. I have not visited any excavation sites. I have not read all the articles on evolution or creation. I go on what I know and what I have learned from school, pastors, doctors, and scientists I have had the oppertunity to listen to. I am sorry if this is not enough information for you to have an educated conversation with me.

I will be the first to admit that I do not know everything. What I do know I have researched. I unfortunately have a memory problem that blocks some mental passages that keep me from remembering some vital information like names, places, dates, etc. If you cannot accept these things, then you do not have to listen to me or talk to me. I am not forcing you to do as such.

Whichever choice you make just please in the future try to refrain from insulting me. I don't really care for it.

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

quote:

---

Just having discusions with you, for example, has shown a great lack of knowledge of hard science, for example (especially in the area of Evolution).

---

This is not intended as an insult - it is an observation. If you have taken it as an insult, then I apologize, for that is not how it was meant.

And this is not meant at the college level, but at the level of schooling before that. Emps said

quote:

---

On the issue of Creationist's insistence that children are taught both theories of creation/evolution

---

And although there are gifted students that one could call children in college, that is not what is meant here.

Ok, I understand.

Yes, there are not many public schools who ram religion down children's throats. The thing is, though, that they do ram the idea that the world had to be formed through evolution. Through my schooling experience not once was any other theory even thouched on as having any proof at all. I don't really call that an unbiased learning.

Maybe schools shouldn't teach children a religious background, because granted there are many, but they should not exclude them. My problem is that they provide the facts, and assume that they have the one and only possible outcome for those facts, when they could have it wrong. Why couldn't they at least touch base with the fact that many people believe that those things are true? Are they afraid that a religion might have more proof than the teacher does?

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

quote:

---

Through my schooling experience not once was any other theory even thouched on as having any proof at all

---

Good reason for that. There are no other theories that have any proof at all. It is not the public school's job to teach religion. That's what the churches are for.

^ Amen.

^ Which is basically the summation of everything we've been saying for some time now.

The crackpot theories of 'creation science' that you and others have brought up here are just that: crackpot theories.

When the scientificcommunity at large comes up with something credible other than the theories currently taught in science classes, they will be taught as well.

When the religious community wants kids to learn religious lessons, they can be free to do so when their parents bring them to a religous place for that purpose.

Science classes are for learning science. And no argument you (or anyone else) has brought up has shown 'creation science' to be based on any sort of scientific premise.

quote:

---

Gideon said:

Yes, there are not many public schools who ram religion down children's
throats. The thing is, though, that they do ram the idea that the world
had to be formed through evolution. Through my schooling experience not once was any other theory even thouched on as having any proof at all. I don't really call that an unbiased learning.

Maybe schools shouldn't teach children a religious background, because
granted there are many, but they should not exclude them. My problem is
that they provide the facts, and assume that they have the one and only
possible outcome for those facts, when they could have it wrong. Why
couldn't they at least touch base with the fact that many people
believe that those things are true? Are they afraid that a religion
might have more proof than the teacher does?

---

As has been pointed out alreay these aren't mutually exclusive - although I would have prefered more emphasis on comparing different religions rather than dissesting the Bible in minute detail this is pretty much what I was taught at school.

I think where we differ is that you seem to think that arguements Creationists have come up with to explain evolution are actually more credbile than the desperate forcing of a square peg through a round hole that it is. They are trying to prove that the words in your holy book are somehow not only more valid than words in other people's holy books but that they are actually on a par with the theory of evolution.

Don't try and compare apples and oranges.

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org | Justice for Pat Richard | FAQs: Emperor | Site Reviews | Reception Room

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

When the scientific community at large comes up with something credible
other than the theories currently taught in science classes, they will be
taught as well.When the religious community wants kids to learn
religious lessons, they can be free to do so when their parents bring
them to a religous place for that purpose.

---

I think this is what makes me so angry. Religious institutions are not manditory, schools are. Even if you disagree with something in the school system, you have to go to it. There is no option there. At least not a feasible one. The curriculum in a school is manditory, and there is no way of avoiding getting it rammed down your throat.

quote:

---

briggl said:

There are no other theories that have any proof at all.

---

Have you read anything in AnswersinGenesis.org? There is plenty of proof for Creation.

quote:

---

briggl said:

It is not the public school's job to teach religion. That's what the churches
are for.

---

True, but it is also not the school's job to brain wash young people, that is what armies are for. The public school is there to teach, but it shouldn't just conform to the one theory. If they get rid of the theory of Evolution and just teach the facts then I would be satisfied that it is unbiased, but they don't. They teach one theory and not the other.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

crackpot theories

---

What? I doubt it. Crackpot theories have no proof behind them. Creation does.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

Science classes are for learning science. And no argument you (or anyone else)
has brought up has shown 'creation science' to be based on any sort of
scientific premise.

---

Nope, and thank God for that since Science theories change every year. But where the Bible does touch on Science can be trusted. The theories are proved with scientifical observation and experimentation. Not just by blindly following faith.

quote:

---

Emperor said:

Don't try and compare apples and oranges.

---

I'm not, I'm comparing theories of how the Earth came to the state it is in right now.

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

quote:

---

think this is what makes me so angry. Religious institutions are not manditory, schools are.

---

Right. And that's the way it should be.

quote:

---

Even if you disagree with something in the school system, you have to go to it.

---

What you "agree" with is irrelevant. Have you been paying attention?

If you disagree with gravity, it does not stop existing.

If your religion tells you that 7*6=89, that does not change what the real answer is, and does not exclude you from having to learn math.

quote:

---

Have you read anything in AnswersinGenesis.org? There is plenty of proof for Creation.

---

Yes, I have. And no, there is not. There is a bunch of horseshit - as Emperor noted, a square peg jammed through a round hole with very little finesse or care.

quote:

---

The public school is there to teach, but it shouldn't just conform to the one theory. If they get rid of the theory of Evolution and just teach the facts then I would be satisfied that it is unbiased, but they don't. They teach one theory and not the other.

---

uh...............

This is to the point of being plain stupid. The "theory" of evolution is not just a theory. Evolution happens. Evolution has been observed and measured and documented.

You disagree? Fantastic. Doesn't change a damn thing.

quote:

---

What? I doubt it. Crackpot theories have no proof behind them. Creation does.

---

Wrong again. Been through it several times now.

quote:

---

The theories are proved with scientifical observation and experimentation. Not just by blindly following faith.

---

Horseshit. Been over this several times now...

And with that - this thread has become about as useless as can be.

You can feel free to cling to the half-ass bullshit that places like 'answeringenesis' splurt out, if that makes you feel better.

But science - real science - has proven them wrong over and over and over.

~shrug~

bye bye.

^ And irregardless of what I think, that is the Truth. Thank you, DL, for that post.

I personally wish they would take all those Creation "evolution-doesn't-exit-I'll-just-close-my-eyes-and-it-will-go-away" whiners and burn them at the stake.

Good thing things aren't done according to my wishes, isn't it?

Same goes for all you crackpot creation "evolution-doesn't-exit-I'll-just-close-my-eyes-and-it-will-go-away" junkies.

quote:

---

Crackpot theories have no proof behind them. Creation does.

---

That's the one that really gets me.
There is no 'proof' of creation beyond 'because the Bible says so'.
You can point to all of the 'physical evidence' you want to, but it always boils down to 'because the Bible says so'.

I also find it a ironic that Gideon mentions 'blind faith' as a pseudo-arguement against science.
Got me giggling with that one.

Gideon: As you don't seem willing to actually look into things other than websites then at the vey least look your concerns up here:

www.talkorigins.org

I know I mention it a lot but it does cover a lot of territory.

----------------
More generally here is a report on a trip to Hovind's dinosaur park:

www.csicop.org/si/2004-11/hovind.html

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org | Justice for Pat Richard | FAQs: Emperor | Site Reviews | Reception Room

And a demonstration of evolution in action:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4073359.stm

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org | Justice for Pat Richard | FAQs: Emperor | Site Reviews | Reception Room

Gid:
I think it was you (back up there^^somewhere) who said something along the lines of ; ....if school's mandatory why not religious insitutions.... What did you have in mind there? Are you talking about all , let's call them, 'main-stream' religous institutions... islam... christianity... shatnerology? Well why not Shatnerology... I'd say all of them have been blessed with equal amounts of silliness. In this evolution/creation case.... a 5k time frame to get where we are now. Really... how silly is that. BIG silly...that's how silly.

http://www.shatnerology.com/[Here]at the First Church of Shatnerology, we worship the holy essences of the most benevolent ShatnerBeing!

Religions are 'all about' power and control. Those 'in control' will, and do claim the way they see it.... the way they interpret / read "it" (evolution in this case) is an absolute 'truth' when in fact it is an 'absolute belief'.

You really must test out that 'free will' bit. =)

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

Right. And that's the way it should be.

---

Why? Why must we be forced to learn something we don't agree with?

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

If your religion tells you that 7*6=89, that does not change what the real
answer is, and does not exclude you from having to learn math.

---

But my "religion" doesn't tell me something that is wrong. It doesn't say that 7*6=89. It tells me this:

quote:

---

Proverbs 14:15
The naive believes everything, But the sensible man considers his steps.

---

The Bible says to consider everything before you believe it. God doesn't want pessimistic blind followers.

Dl, I am sorry. I feel really bad. I really hope that someday you can have your heart opened. Seeing with your eyes is not believeing. Just like the old man in Hitchhiker's, you can't trust yourself, or your perceptions about others. I really hope that you find what you are looking for.

Webshamman, I hope you know that there are many men, grown men with doctorates in many fields, putting their reputation on the line for Jesus. You can sling as many insults at them as you like, but you won't be able to shake them. I want you to talk to one of them sometime. Call one up or e-mail one of the researchers/executives on AIG. I think you might get something good out of it.

quote:

---

warjournal said:

You can point to all of the 'physical evidence' you want to, but it always
boils
down to 'because the Bible says so'.

---

I have a question for you, where does the Theory of Evolution come from? Isn't it from books, and looking at 'physical evidence' here and now?

Thanks Emporer. Is that the same dino park that was on a thread a while ago?

quote:

---

NoJive said:

Religions are 'all about' power and control

---

That's funny because mine is all about love. There is no power and control in it for me. (Actually quite the opposite)

quote:

---

Matthew 5:44
"But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

Mark 12:30-31
AND YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH.' "The second is this, `YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' There is no other commandment greater than these."

Romans 5:8
But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Romans 35-39
35 Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? 36 Just as it is written, "FOR YOUR SAKE WE ARE BEING PUT TO DEATH ALL DAY LONG; WE WERE CONSIDERED AS SHEEP TO BE SLAUGHTERED." 37 But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us. 38 For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Romans 13:10
Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

1 Corinthians 13:13
But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love.

---

Love abounds in the Bible, not strife.

quote:

---

NoJive said:

....if school's mandatory why not religious insitutions.... What did you have in
mind there?

---

Actually I was wondering why hearing something in school is manditory. There are many religious things being outlawed in school, why not secular things too?

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

quote:

---

I have a question for you, where does the Theory of Evolution come from? Isn't it from books, and looking at 'physical evidence' here and now?

---

The theory of evolution is not from books that were dictated from on high - but it is from physical evidence.

Lovely quote from Talk Origins (emphasis added):

quote:

---

Real scientists base their theories on the available evidence. They are not immune to the effects of prejudice, but they all understand that the facts dictate the conclusion. Conclusions are subservient to the data; data are not subservient to conclusions.

---

That has been pointed out several times in this thread.

Which came first, physical evidence or theory of evolution?
Physical evidence.

Which came first, physical evidence or theory of creation?
Theory of creation.

edit:

quote:

---

There is no power and control in it for me.

---

"Do as I say or go to Hell."

What was that Henry Ford quote?
Something like, "You can paint it any colour you want as long as it's black."

Heh.

(Edited by warjournal on 12-09-2004 21:31)

quote:

---

That's funny because mine is all about love. There is no power and control in it for me.

---

It's not supposed allow you to have power and control. It has been a very useful tool for the church heirarchies to control populations all throughout the history of mankind though.

THAT is the point being made.

As to everything else you've said: you have obviously not really paid attention to much of anything that has been said. Regardless of whether you agree or not, you have completely ignored the point that most people have made in their posts (not one particular point, but the various many points people have made).

You have obviously closed down your brain for the sake of what you "beleive in". That's certainly you're choice to make, but don't try to argue the points if you aren't even going to actually consider them...

(Edited by DL-44 on 12-09-2004 21:34)

quote:

---

Webshamman, I hope you know that there are many men, grown men with doctorates in many fields, putting their reputation on the line for Jesus. You can sling as many insults at them as you like, but you won't be able to shake them. I want you to talk to one of them sometime. Call one up or e-mail one of the researchers/executives on AIG. I think you might get something good out of it.

---

Education is no cure for blindness. And I do not sling insults at them - they (and you, and everyone else, for that matter) can believe whatever it is that you want to, as long as you keep your fucking beliefs to yourself! It's the moment when you attempt to force your beliefs on me, or on my children, that my voice grows louder. I will fight to the last breath that I have, to prevent that.

I have already talked to many learned individuals, of many different beliefs, faiths, and experiences. I have those that I deeply admire, and respect.

As for Love, I suggest you study the life and words of a man that I greatly admire and respect - the Mahatma Ghandi. And no, he was not a Christian.

In your case, I can only sadly repeat what DL has said

quote:

---

You have obviously closed down your brain for the sake of what you "beleive in". That's certainly you're choice to make, but don't try to argue the points if you aren't even going to actually consider them...

---

Also, my name is WebShaman.

Good day.

once more for good measure...

the science of god

it would seem only fair that both sides get to submit some required reading material...

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

And?

I read it...so what?

It "admits" that Science is better at discovering the Truth of Nature. It suggests that the Bible is better for discovering "spiritual" truths. Problem being, that any spiritual book is good for that - which one to choose?

It suggests that Science cannot answer the question of purpose. I disagree. We need only look to Nature, to see purpose. That is real, that is measureable. That clearly exists!

Also, there are going to be a horde of "literal" Bible beaters who disagree with that book.

The book does make a rather good point however - the one about expertise. It is true, that most Bible experts are not experts in Science and vice versa. The book uses this to explain away most of the "controversy" and "animosity" of both sides towards one another.

It occurs to me, that there are not very many (if, indeed, there are at all!) experts on all of the major religions! Thus, we have no idea of which "religious knowledge" is most appropriate. And since Religion has no reliable peer approval system, or reliable rules for validating and disproving theories, it remains an unserious method of truth-finding!

(Edited by WebShaman on 12-10-2004 09:59)

quote:

---

Gideon said:


I have a question for you, where does the Theory of Evolution come
from? Isn't it from books, and looking at 'physical evidence' here and
now?

---

You seemed to miss the whole bit about what science is about and what it does. No one has written a book on evolution and then set out to prove it.

What happens is something like this (although obviously it may vary a bit):

1. Scientists draw up hypothesise.

2. They analyse data.

3. They compare their models to their hypothesise.

4. If it fits they continue the next round of investigation if it invalidates they discard and try another line of approach.

5. Some of them right books to draw the various strands of their studies together.

Without physcial evidence, models, theories, hypothesise, etc. then the books would just be someone telling you how it is. If it got popular people might then work to make the facts fit the book but that is actually starting with your conlusions and working back and as I've said that is like fitting a square peg in a round hole.

They may call it Creationist Science but that doesn't make it so. As I've said you can't compare apples and oranges.

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org | Justice for Pat Richard | FAQs: Emperor | Site Reviews | Reception Room

Gid:

Let me put the 'power and control' bit another way. The '10 suggestions'... are what to you??? Commandments... right? And a 'commandment' is what? It is an 'order.'

Ask any soldier what happens if he/she doesn't follow a command. It's off to 'The big house'(Levinworth.) Now here you are a soldier in the army of god and if you don't follow the orders your 'commander' hands down you're off to the brig (hell) forever & ever and ever. Deep shit you might say.

And if every member of all other known religions do not accept jesus as their savior they don't get a ticket into 'The big house' (of the lord.) And that is what? Intimidation is what that is...and intimidation is about what? Power & Control.

And that 'ticket in' bit is the absolute essence of christianity. You can interpret, misinterpret read whatever you will into everything and anything else in the bible but if you don't 'beleive' that... you are not a christian. Don't know what you might be but certainly, not a christian. There are no... 'Yes but'/s here. In the labor movement it's called a 'closed shop.' Closed shop equals 'closed mind/s.' No room for other possibilities on that one period.

If that's not going after absolute power and control... don't know what it is. If adolf h. accepts christ as his savior moments before he kills himself he gets a 'ticket in' but all the jews he 'ordered'... killed did not????? And that's what you believe.... you have to... you must. It is the one 'order' in the entire bible you cannot disobey or you my friend are not a christian.

Sorry.... won't be signing up for that club. And I will not for a moment accept that sort of unequivical bigotted codswallop being served up public schools.

Here's an 'audio' archive. As a creationist you and others will not agree but I hope you will at least listen to it.

quote:

---

Professor Richard Dawkins seems to have a talent for bringing new perspectives to thinking about evolution. In his new book, The Ancestor's Tale, the perspective is looking backwards. He traces our evolution from today back to the "meetings" we had with other species in our evolutionary past:

---

http://radio.cbc.ca/programs/quirks/archives/04-05/dec04.html


For others interested in science 'stuff'.... quirks & quarks is very likely my all time favorite
radio program .... it airs every Saturday 12noon PDT. it's available on-line and is also 'archived'.... so you might want to listen (check the schedule.) and cruise the archives..

Tomorrow...for example"

quote:

---

Dr. John Smol of Queen's University was awarded the Herzberg Gold Medal, and the million-dollar prize that accompanies it, for his work as a paleolimnologist. Twenty years of studying the sediments and ooze at the bottom of lakebeds has enabled him to contribute to our understanding of pollution, climate change,

---

etc.

thanks WS. i was simply looking for someone to at least acknowledge it to start with the fact you've read it is a plus

i agree with you on some points. literal bible folks absolutely will have huge issues with it, but those people also tend to be ones who ignore a lot of very clear scientific fact. i find myself somewhere in the middle, believing that the bible is truth but knowing that all parts of it aren't necessarily meant to be interpreted literally.

i'll also agree that its hard to know what's "right" when it comes to issues of faith and religion, or at least hard to be able to prove what's "right". i believe that what i believe is true, but i'm exploring why i believe that and what real "proof" there is other than my personal knowledge. i'm actually reading another book now that delves into that somewhat that's been interesting, i may post more when i'm done.

i'm not entirely sure about science giving purpose tho, i'm curious how you'd define the truth that you find inherent in nature. and does that same truth apply to us human beings.

also, what did you think of the large amount of information that schroeder presented that very much lined up between the bible and modern science? coincidence or something more in your opinion?

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

The idea of "purpose" is a purely human construct. The only actual purpose for us is the same as any other species - recreate and die.

IMO, the reason religion exists at all is because people are unwilling to accept that purpose, and feel the need to create a grander one. The idea that we are not the center of the universe is simply appalling to large numbers of people. The idea that we can make a purpose for ourselves and be good people without needing a great big melodramatic institution and reward/punishment system is very foreign to most people.

quote:

---

warjournal said:

Which came first, physical evidence or theory of evolution?Physical
evidence.

---

Physical Evidence was here before the Theory of Creation came about too. Creation theory was only started after the Torah was written on Mount Siani. Also, the Theory is a theory from some facts, yes, but it must be able to be proven and disproven. That is what scientists are now doing to both theories (and everything in between). They are still useing facts to try and prove thier theorems, it isn't like they have totally proved either yet.

quote:

---

warjournal said:

"Do as I say or go to Hell."What was that Henry Ford quote?Something
like, "You can paint it any colour you want as long as it's black."

---

You still have a choice, and unfortunately many people choose to "go to Hell."

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

a very useful tool for the church heirarchies to control populations all
throughout the history of mankind though

---

That is correct. Unfortunately mankind has a habit of taking something absolutely beautiful and corrupting it. In the case of Jesus, the church (I believe you are refering to the old Roman Catholic Church in specific?) used Him as an excuse to abuse people. Slave holders in the 1600-1800s used His name to do evil deeds. It happens. I find it interesting hoe they were very selective of what parts of the Bible they quoted from, becuase if they had gone by the entire Bible, there would be a lot fewer problems.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

You have obviously closed down your brain for the sake of what you "beleive in".
That's certainly you're choice to make, but don't try to argue the points if you
aren't even going to actually consider them...

---

Thanks for the repremand, I will definitly try harder next time to read carefully everything that is posted. I am sorry that I have done that. Please remind me if I do it again, and make sure I respond to what you want me to respond to.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

as long as you keep your f***ing beliefs to yourself!

---

I'm sorry if i have offended you by posting my beliefs on this subject. I thought that was what you were looking for, I guess I was wrong. I don't want to ram my personal beliefs down your throat, your children's throats, or anyone else's for that matter. I personally think that you have a right to believe what you want. But, I don't want to have the regret of not telling you what I believe, and then you go throughout your life without knowing the Bible's point of view. I will say this: You go on believing what you want, but just be very sure that it is right. You are staking your life, even your eternal soul on the line here, and just hope that you are right and the Eternal God of the Universe is wrong.

(And I am terribly sorry about your name .)

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

It suggests that Science cannot answer the question of purpose. I disagree. We
need only look to Nature, to see purpose.

---

If you look at nature for purpose, the purpose is this: live, eat, have sex, teach your offspring in your old ways, then die. That is what nature does.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

it remains an unserious method of truth-finding!

---

Actually it is quite serious. When men, women, and children are willing to stake their lives on claims of faith it becomes a very serious issue. If people are dying for it there has to be something good about it. I know in my heart which one is true, but that is becuase I have been through the real love of Christ. That is what makes me different.

more to come...

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

First of all, my reference to "keep your beliefs to yourself" refer to forcing, either through pograms (like government institutions) or Laws.

Yes, you are sure I am "making a mistake" and you "want to save me". I don't need to be "saved". Worry about yourself and your family, and I will do the same for mine. You have to accept the consequences for your actions, and I for mine. Leave it at that. And don't even dare think about trying to brainwash my children with religious stuff. When they are old enough, they can decide for themselves. So, such doesn't belong in the schools. If I want my children to learn religious stuff, I can send them to Church, or to a religous school.

quote:

---

If people are dying for it there has to be something good about it.

---

Man, that is just so wrong. People have been doing things and dying for them for a long time, and there wasn't always something good about it. Consider the Germans in WWI and WWII, for a minute! Why do I have to point stuff like this out to you? You should see the holes of logic in your words yourself.

quote:

---

If you look at nature for purpose, the purpose is this: live, eat, have sex, teach your offspring in your old ways, then die. That is what nature does.

---

No, that is not ALL that Nature does! It grows, adapts and EVOLVES!.

quote:

---

When men, women, and children are willing to stake their lives on claims of faith it becomes a very serious issue. If people are dying for it there has to be something good about it.

---

Clearly then you have no problems with 9/11. Because that is exactly what they too beleive/d.
as they plowed those planes into.....

And your belief would be different... how????

quote:

---

You still have a choice, and unfortunately many people choose to "go to Hell."

---

First, let's look at that from the intimidation angle already mentioned.

"Do as I say and go to Heaven as your reward."
"Don't do what I say and go to Hell as your punishment."

How about this:

"Do as I say and go to Heaven as your reward."
"Don't do what I say and I'll just leave you be."

See the difference?
Intimidation being used to sway, coerce, and/or control.

Might as well be a mugger with a gun to your 'nads.
Sorry, but that's not love.

Now let's look at it from a choices or freedom point of view.

"You can go to Heaven or Hell."

I don't want to go to Heaven or Hell.
I want my own little corner of the cosmos to call my own.
Where's my choice?

If God and Lucifer came down and ran for president of the USA, I wouldn't vote for either.
I would just as soon move to Canada, Australia... or the Bahamas.
Now that's freedom.

(Edited by warjournal on 12-10-2004 21:14)

Let's assume the Bible is the Word of God. I don't buy it, but, for the sake of this little side-branch in the discussion, let us assume it as truth.
Now, based on that first assumption, it is common to attach divinity status to this character Jesus, in this book, the Word of God.

So now we have:
1) Bible is the Word of God
2) Jesus is God (or, at least, a part of God)

In this Bible, Jesus OFTEN uses parables, metaphors and allegory (just to name three) to make points about (respectively) repentance, faith and forgiveness (again, just to name three).

So, here we have several instances of your God using stories that, while not "True" (in the scientific, data collecting type of way true), provide insight into a seperate "Truth" (in the spiritual, theological, religious sort of way truth).

Why, then, is it so bloody difficult for you (Gideon specifically, others more generally) to accept your God may have used that same tactic elsewhere?

(Edited by mobrul on 12-10-2004 21:49)

^ an argument I have brought many times and received no real answer, from gideon or others.

^ Same with me on the adolf bit... no one will take it on even if you change the 'killer' if you will, to a non-believer but leave the jew. Some come up with variations on the old '...well we're all trying for the same goal but just taking different paths.. is all.' Come on! The jews still ain't gettin'in according to the christians.

I give the jews one step up on the xians..and it sorta plays to the old 'joke'....'only gentiles buy retail.' Want to know god...be with god. Well then...Talk to god directly...forget the middleman.

Members of my family are hardcore ... have been since pre-teen years...they're now approaching 80. Nearly 50 of those years were in the ministry...parish priest. Hardly a day goes by when I don't hear...'...isn't the lord wonderful.'etc etc. I reply... 'when god lets the jews in...let me know.' The prayers start before thier other foot hits the floor.

um, i've often pointed out that scripture needs to be taken in context with specific attention to the audience it was intended for. i have no problem with some scripture being interpreted as metaphor of some type, but carefully interpreted. declaring biblical content as metaphor or something similar too liberally can lend to a skewed interpretation by some who might want an easy "out" from a behavior or lifestyle they might not want to modify.

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

quote:

---

Emperor said:

then the books would just be someone telling you how it is.

---

That is the major difference. People are here and now trying to figure out what happened back then. The Bible was written by God who was there back then. He saw it. He told us about it. Obviously the Bible doesn't have all the scientifical theories, laws, and philosophies in it. If God wanted them there He could do it. He meerly put the basic foundations down. Creation Science, and any other Christian Science for that matter, is trying to figure out the nit picky things: what happened to dinosaurs/dragons, when was the flood, where was Noah? You are absolutely correct, Creation science takes already provided truths in the Bible and tries to match them up to more indepth theories found now.

quote:

---

Emperor said:

As I've said you can't compare apples and oranges.

---

Apples are red and have a sweet taste to them. Oranges are orange (as their name suggests) and are sweet as well. Apples have a skin on them that is quite tasty, while oranges have one that is not as tasty, but still nutritious. Do I need to go on?

quote:

---

NoJive said:

And that 'ticket in' bit is the absolute essence of christianity. You can
interpret, misinterpret read whatever you will into everything and anything else
in the bible but if you don't 'beleive' that... you are not a
christian.

---

Absolutely.

quote:

---

NoJive said:

Closed shop equals 'closed mind/s.'

---

Yup. Closed about that subject 100%. Exclusive not inclusive.

quote:

---

NoJive said:

It is the one 'order' in the entire bible you cannot disobey or you my friend
are not a christian.

---

Actually, that is not much of an order. God doesn't not force anyone to accept Christ as their Savior (see 6,000+ other religions out there). He is meerly trying one last ditch effort to save His children. He is not a company commander to us, He is our Father. He loves us, and wants children who love Him back. He doesn't want you to come in Heaven if you don't want to be there. That is why He sent His Son down to Earth. God came to Earth as a little baby to die for us. To take the bullet for us. He is no evil God who sits and laughs at those diying. He cries.

quote:

---

John 11:35 Jesus wept.

---

He wept for a man who had died. Not that he was dead, because Jesus just moments later raised him from the dead, but because he had to die. Because this man had sinned, and had therfore earned death. He wept because Lazarus had to die from what he had done. Does that sound like a God who is ordering His children around to you?

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

The only actual purpose for us is the same as any other species - recreate and
die.

---

Wow, what a great world we live in.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

The idea that we are not the center of the universe is simply appalling to large
numbers of people.

---

Actually according to the laws of physics, I can be the center of the universe through the laws of perspective. (It just works better if I'm not)

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

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Worry about yourself and your family

---

I am Webshamman, I am.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Leave it at that

---

I don't want to leave you without the knowledge of what you are missing.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

No, that is not ALL that Nature does! It grows, adapts and
EVOLVES!.

---

That's right, then they die.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Why do I have to point stuff like this out to you? You should see the holes of
logic in your words yourself.

---

You're right, bad point.

quote:

---

warjournal said:

"Don't do what I say and I'll just leave you be."

---

He does "just leave you be." He allows you to reap what you sow. The thing is that He can't let anyone with sin enter the kingdom of Heaven. That is that. The other alternative is since they sinned and broke some easy rules, they have to be cast away from Heaven. That is Hell. I don't even know what Hell will be like, but with a beast like Satan in it, it can't be too fun.

quote:

---

warjournal said:

If God and Lucifer came down and ran for president of the USA

---

Actually, Lucifer is already president of many souls, and soon the world, so there is no where else to go.

quote:

---

warjournal said:

Might as well be a mugger with a gun to your 'nads.Sorry, but that's not
love.

---

No, muggers don't have love, but God does. Let me ask you a question, what would your perfect world be like?

quote:

---

mobrul said:

Why, then, is it so bloody difficult for you

---

Well, because God didn't make that a parable, metaphor, or allegory. It was the beginning. God uses symbols in parables and metaphors, but what symbols where there in Genesis? If those first few were parables, why not the rest of the Bible laid out in that format? It is because it is just so hard for people to believe in things they cannot see. Things they haven't experienced. There was no question when Jesus was around that He was there. Now people doubt if He even lived! Some people think that is a scam. Some think the moon landing is a scam. Some think the holocaust is a scam. Some think Shadarack, Meshack, and Abendego (bad spelling) coming out of the furnace unscathed is a scam. You take your pick. It is all about faith, and I have faith that my God didn't lie to me. Because if Genesis is wrong, then it is an out-right lie.

quote:

---

NoJive said:

'when god lets the jews in...let me know.'

---

He is knocking on their door. They are the ones not letting Him in.

As for Hitler, God would love to allow even a man as scarred as Hitler into His presence if Hitler would have allowed God into His. I have a hunch that Hitler may not have done that though.

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

(Edited by Gideon on 12-24-2004 20:33)

quote:

---

Wow, what a great world we live in.

---

Ah, right! Good point - so let's create a better purpose for ourselves. afterall, we *must* be the center of the universe, and the whole reason for creation, right?



(which of course was my point in saying that in the first palce - people can't accept our limited purpose, and have found countless forms of self-aggrandizement to protect our fragile egos and comfort our weak spirits...)

quote:

---

Gideon said:

quote:NoJive said:

'when god lets the jews in...let me know.'


He is knocking on their door. They are the ones not letting Him in.

---

Of course, you must consider the possibility (assuming the existence of god and all that...) that the jews are correct, and jesus was not the messiah, and all you christians have been wasting your time following a false prophet....

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

afterall, we *must* be the center of the universe, and the whole reason for
creation, right?

---

Why do you think people need that? The Bible says that God put those feelings into every man's heart. If not from God, where does it come from? Ego is not the right answer because an ego must have a starting point. Where do you think it comes from? (This is a real question, not something sarcastic.)

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

jesus was not the messiah, and all you christians have been wasting your time
following a false prophet

---

It is one possibility that Jesus is not the Messiah. That He was an imposter who just did amazing miracles. Many prophets of old did stuff like that. It is also just coincidence that He fulfills all the Bible prophecies laid out in the Old Testament. Let's say that all those are just coincidences, and that He really wasn't a Messiah. Then all those men (and women) who followed and are following and will follow are all fools. We are all stupid gits, and we deserved to be smacked. Good thing that is not true, or else I would be in trouble.

You see, I have faith that my God will deliver me from all the evils of this world. There will be a day I won't have to even think about evil, because it won't exist. I have no fear of death either, you know why? Because God won't let me die until I am finished with His work on this Earth. If you were to try and kill me, God won't allow it unless He needed my death for a reason. I don't really have to worry because staying here with my friends and family and working for God is great, but Heaven and later His Earthly Kingdom is much, much better.

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

quote:

---

If you were to try and kill me, God won't allow it unless He needed my death for a reason.

---

Pure and simple - bullshit.

I saw and heard similar comments in the first Gulf War - from one who then stepped on a landmine *boom* I guess God was calling...another survived a lot of stuff, without a scratch - and then was killed the next day when a hummer overturned. And then there were those who didn't give a rat's ass about god, and lived through it.

Really Gideon, do you even think before you post such crap?

It has become quite obvious that Gideon is here to preach and is not trying to learn anything from what any of us have to say. He keeps using the same arguments over and over without paying heed to anything else except what has been drilled into his head from his religious instruction.

^ Yes, I am coming to the same conclusion myself. What a waste of time and effort, this has all been.

Maybe at least some other people reading this have gotten something out of it.

Waste of time? Not at all - unless your goal has been to convert gideon...

There are a lot of people who have contirubuted to this conversation, on all sides, with intelligence and purpose.

Gideon has proven himself to be ignorant in just about all respects, IMHO. Not because he won't accept what we say, but because he has very decidedly closed himself off to learning in general for the sake of what he thinks he already knows...

That's his loss.

I had no hopes of "converting" anyone - I had hopes that Gideon was "leaving his communication" channels open, which he obviously was not (in other words - of starting a dialog, an open dialog where ideas and information could be exchanged, not dogma and close-mindedness). That was the "waste of time and effort" that I described - I certainly did not mean all the others who contributed to this thread (or the thread itself, for that matter).

I believe this thread has done more than serve its purpose, and I applaud most of those who contributed to it.

Sorry, wasn't finished.

(Edited by Gideon on 12-28-2004 23:33)

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

I saw and heard similar comments in the first Gulf War - from one who then
stepped on a landmine *boom* I guess God was calling...another survived a lot of
stuff, without a scratch - and then was killed the next day when a hummer
overturned. And then there were those who didn't give a rat's ass about god, and
lived through it.

---

It is very interesting why God does things like that isn't it? He allows His children to die. Allows those that have been saved, and trust in Him to pass away. Friends and family, all will eventually die. Why?

quote:

---

briggl said:

It has become quite obvious that Gideon is here to preach and is not trying to
learn anything from what any of us have to say.

---

Not really, I have learned more than you realize. I learn so much from you all, I just wish that you were able to learn something from me, but I don't think much I say is getting through to you.

quote:

---

briggl said:

He keeps using the same arguments over and over without paying heed to anything
else except what has been drilled into his head from his religious
instruction.

---

quote:

---

Gideon said:

quote:

WebShaman said:Why do I have to point stuff like this out to you?
You should see the holes of logic in your words yourself.


You're right, bad point.

---

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Yes, I am coming to the same conclusion myself. What a waste of time and effort,
this has all been.

---

Why is it a waste? You haven't been able to change what I believe? Is that why you consider it a waste?

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

Not because he won't accept what we say, but because he has very
decidedly closed himself off to learning in general for the sake of what he
thinks he already knows

---

Let me ask you something. If someone says that they just found out that all pencils would float up if left alone for long enough, would you believe them? Why?

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

quote:

---

Let me ask you something. If someone says that they just found out that all pencils would float up if left alone for long enough, would you believe them? Why?

---

Now that's got to be the stupidest thing Gideon has said so far!

quote:

---

You haven't been able to change what I believe? Is that why you consider it a waste?

---

No. That was never the point. And I have patiently explained many times before (and so have others) what it is about. I'm not interested in explaining the same things, over, and over again, nor am I interested in going through the same "points" that you make over and over again. You fail to understand, that all of your "points" are not really your won - they are those of the religous establishment, and many here have already faced and answered them before.

Would you try to teach us 1+1=2 ? (though in your case, it is often 1+1=3). Is it any wonder that we don't "learn" anything from you? We have heard it all before, ad infinit.
At least Bugs brought something new with his beliefs, that gave us a grounds for discussion, and supported that with his own thoughts and points. You just repeat things from the bible and from the religious establishment like a parrot, then you shrug your shoulders when we point that out and say "I don't know any better". The point is, when it comes to something like this, you should!

*shakes head*

quote:

---

It is very interesting why God does things like that isn't it?

---

No, not in the least.
The reason this partcular issue is not "intersting" is that there is simply no evidence whatsoever to suggest that "god" is "letting" anyone live or die (or do anything esle for that matter).

quote:

---

Let me ask you something. If someone says that they just found out that all pencils would float up if left alone for long enough, would you believe them? Why?

---

If you can give any sort of coherent reason why this quetion is the slightest bit relevant, I might answer it. As it is I can only agree with briggl's comment...

So Webshaman, you think that I am meerly a mindless person, who just repeates things I have heard? So you are accusing me of listening to arguments, facts, truths, and lies, and repeating those I thought to be most relevant? Isn't that a little hypocritical? You do know there aren't too many original thoughts out there right? Most of them are either pre-esthablished, or are just built on something that has already happened. All I have done is repeated to you what I have heard, read, and seen, and all you have done is repeate to me what you have heard, read, and seen. Isn't that what discussions, debates, etc. are all about? Repeating facts, trying them, and seeing if they fit to pre-existing truths?

Anyway, enough rambling. Webshaman, I am sorry if I keep repeating things that you have already heard and dismissed as "superstitious, religious dogma." I guess I just looked into it and found somethings that were very interesting to me personally, and was trying to share them with you.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

At least Bugs brought something new with his beliefs, that gave us a grounds for
discussion, and supported that with his own thoughts and points.

---

So are you saying that since Bugs's beliefs were a mixture of the Bible and the world, then they were closer so that you could have a base to sift in them? I'm sorry if my belief that the Bible is true doesn't fit in your beliefs. My discussions stem from that. My opinion is that my opinion pales in comparison to that of God's. If you are so adamant on getting my personal opinion on things then ask me. I will give it to you, but you may not like what I have to say.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

No, not in the least. The reason this partcular issue is not "intersting" is
that there is simply no evidence whatsoever to suggest that "god" is
"letting"
anyone live or die (or do anything esle for that matter).

---

Humor me for a moment here DL, let's say that God does exist, and that those who accept His gift are now His children, then why do you think He would allow them to die? He has all the power to stop it, why would He let them die? Don't be synical, think about it.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

If you can give any sort of coherent reason why this quetion is the slightest
bit relevant, I might answer it. As it is I can only agree with briggl's
comment...

---

Just answer it, I promise I am going somewhere good with it.

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

(Edited by Gideon on 12-31-2004 00:11)

quote:

---

You do know there aren't too many original thoughts out there right? Most of them are either pre-esthablished, or are just built on something that has already happened. All I have done is repeated to you what I have heard, read, and seen, and all you have done is repeate to me what you have heard, read, and seen. Isn't that what discussions, debates, etc. are all about? Repeating facts, trying them, and seeing if they fit to pre-existing truths?

---

There are as many original, individual thoughts out there, as there are people. It is just that few dare to really express their true selves, or are strong enough to believe in themselves.

As for the "repeating" - Gideon, I don't need the repeating of information from you. I never did, and I never will. As for what I have said to you? You say that is what I have heard, read and seen? No, not only that. If you can't see the difference, then so be it. I can't make blind eyes see. And no, that is not what discussions, debates, etc are all about.

Your reply has shown me that not only are you blind, but you also do not understand the basic underlying principles of communication and the transfer of ideas, opinions, and thoughts.

quote:

---

So are you saying that since Bugs's beliefs were a mixture of the Bible and the world, then they were closer so that you could have a base to sift in them?

---

No, that is not what I am saying! Bugs believes deeply, and I disagree with his conclusions, but his conclusions ARE WELL THOUGHT OUT AND RATIONAL!

That is the difference between his stance and yours. Your position is ILL-THOUGHT OUT AND IRRATIONAL!

Do you understand that? Do I need to somehow put that in simpler words?

*UC wanders in sleepily wiping eye boogers from his... cheek? How'd they get there? he says;
"Huh, gotta talk to the Master about our pillows... Somethings wrong...

Wait! Someones been in my cell!? WHERE'S MY TE..er LITERATURE!?

DAMMIT, DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!!

MY GOD WILL SMITE YOU WITH THE TERRIBLE HANDS OF JUSTICE!!

YOU ARE ALL HEATHENS!!!

HEATHENS!!!

H>>E>>>A>>>T>>>H>>E>>>ACK!

What was that?

Uh oh, he's coming! You're all in for it now!

MUHAHAHAHAHA! You'll never catch me!"

*UC runs screaming down the hall, poking people in the eyes as he passes them*

______________
Is This Thing On?

Webbing; the stuff that sticks to your face.

Gideon, were you to sit down and have a face to face with you god over what you think he means in every passage of you bible, and were he to give you an iron clad interpretation to follow and then you started to spout off all of these ideas your arguements might hold some water. You are spouting random ideas from a book that relies on individual interpretation and not even bothering to do any interpreting. The devil and the scripture and all that.

quote:

---

If you are so adamant on getting my personal opinion on things then ask me. I will give it to you, but you may not like what I have to say.

---

Your opinion is what everyone has been asking for, and since noone seems to like what you have been saying so far so I don't think you have much to lose by actually being honest with your thoughts and beliefs instead of proclaiming all of the things you aspire towards.

Dan @ Code Town

(Edited by WarMage on 12-31-2004 17:23)

quote:

---

Gideon said:

quoteL-44 said:

Yep, that's where you take something you don't understand and say "god did it!".
=)
That's the idea.
Seriously, though, it is actually a "Godly" miracle (at least the one I
am refering to) becasue it was prayed about. It wasn't just
spontaneous, and happened, then we said "Praise God!" We said "Praise
God" because we knew it was Him and not some other "supernatural force."

---

So what do you make of this then?:

www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,142769,00.html

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org | Justice for Pat Richard | FAQs: Emperor | Site Reviews | Reception Room

if I went 'round saying I was an Emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!

quote:

---

Gideon said:

let's say that God does exist, and that those who accept His gift are now His children, then why do you think He would allow them to die?

---

That right there is one (just one) of the reasons I don't believe in God. I wouldn't want a god that does some of the things This one supposedly does.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

It is just that few dare to really express their true selves

---

That is true there are too few people out there today who try and go with the flow. There are very few who don't really care what other people think.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

No, not only that

---

That is true, you have given your own opinion about things in the natures of our discussions, but those were all well founded in facts previously laid down. Most of your thoughts I have either heard before, said before myself, or have recently had someone else not connected to Asylum bring up. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you did have some very original points and very good logic behind most of your arguments.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

If you can't see the difference, then so be it

---

Well, I can see the difference, but at this point it is a little fuzzy.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

I can't make blind eyes see.

---

Well, I'm glad I can see then.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Your reply has shown me that not only are you blind, but you also do not
understand the basic underlying principles of communication and the transfer of
ideas, opinions, and thoughts.

---

Not entirely true. I do understand most but not all. I am still learning. I won't ever stop learning. There is so much that can be learned that I am still trying to grasp some things while others are being hurled at me.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Do I need to somehow put that in simpler words?

---

Possibly more words. I know that my previous posts have been brash and many have at least simple spelling errors, but those were under circumastances that they were to be expected. As well as the part that you have pointed out numerously that I am new to Asylum, and don't know the written rules and am still slower on the unwritten rules.

Webshaman, I don't think you understand, I deeply respect you because you have been on here in these discussions for a very long time. I may not agree with you, but I think that you have had enough experience that you know what is what. I haven't the faintest clue, and I seem to get dogged a lot for that. I am trying to learn, but it is a slow process for me.

quote:

---

WarMage said:

relies on individual interpretation

---

Well, the Bible does have some parts to it that are up to interpretation, but there are other things that aren't. Some people just try to make them, when they end up contradicting themselves. But yes, there is interpretation that is involved in reading the Bible just like in any other written document.

quote:

---

WarMage said:

Your opinion is what everyone has been asking for, and since noone seems to like
what you have been saying so far so I don't think you have much to lose by
actually being honest with your thoughts and beliefs instead of proclaiming all
of the things you aspire towards.

---

You see, those are my own thoughts and beliefs. They stem from those things I aspire towards. I am still in the learning phases of my faith, but man are they fun! My faith is still growing, and it is a blast to see what God does when you actually trust Him. But about my real opinion, I think the point I was trying to make is that my opinion is still in its infancy and is likely to change soon anyway. I think that is what I was trying to say that God's Words don't change (unless people try to make it seem that way).

Emporer, that was an interesting web site. I had fun! But the miracle I witnessed was prayed for. God interviens in the distress of His children.

quote:

---

briggl said:

That right there is one (just one) of the reasons I don't believe in God. I
wouldn't want a god that does some of the things This one supposedly does.

---

Like what?

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

Like letting people starve all over the world. That is not what a loving father does to his children.

quote:

---

God interviens in the distress of His children.

---

The war taught me otherwise, Gideon, and that removed the last doubts of a "loving" god from me. The point being that in war, bullets are indiscriminating. No amount of prayer will turn one aside., irregardless of whom it is that prays or to whom (or what) one prays.

You say you witnessed a miracle - I say you witnessed nothing more than a natural process. I at least have tools that I can use, to measure this. This may not bother you but wait until you pray, when things are most dire, and there is no answer, no miracle. How will you explain that?

^^^

quote:

---

and there is no answer, no miracle. How will you explain that?

---

'the lord moves in mysterious ways...' '...we know not what the lord has in store for us.' ' ...it's gods' will.'

And all variants. Anything will do so long as the issue/facts remain mysterious and keeps the flock in line.

Yes, I am aware of the "pablum for the masses" answer. But every Christian (indeed, every believer) deep inside, is plagued by such doubts, when something like the above doesn't happen when it is "supposed to". And though parroting the "party line" may help sooth some ruffled feathers of doubt, the seed is planted. I call it the seed of REASON. If watered well, with drops of logic, and feed well, with nourishing, healthy doubt, it may one day grow into a tall tree of thinking for oneself.

For me, that is when life really got interesting (note I did not say easier - I said interesting).

You are right Briggl. A loving father does not allow his children to starve to death, or fight each other, but what if those children of his used to be living under his wings? He used to protect them, but they decide that it is time to move out of the house. They decide that they know better than their father and they leave. What does a father do then?

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

The point being that in war, bullets are indiscriminating

---

That is true, but what is behind those bullets? Guns. And what are behind those guns? People. It is people killing each other. People starving each other. Here in the US there is an overabundance of food. Why can't we share? God loves His children. There are explainations on both sides. I think that you have just experienced man's evil so much that it masks the good God can do.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

No amount of prayer will turn one aside.,

---

Well, possibly. But there is an amount of faith that will. I know about a man in a revival, I think he was a pastor or at least a key speaker. Another man walked up to him and told him that his God can't keep him from shooting him, much like you have told me. The speaker told the man that whether that was his time or not, whether he died the instant he pulled the trigger or not, he will never forsake the name of his God ( there was some more dialogue too, but I can't remember that part fully). Well, the man took this poorly and pulled the trigger. The gun did nothing. The man threw the gun at the speaker and told him he can have his God, and he ran away. The speaker took the gun to the bathroom and looked in the chambers. All were loaded. There was no malfunction. It was clean. It shot later. There was no reason that he should be alive now, but he is.
I know this is a story, and you can pick it apart as much as you like, but the fact is that it isn't a single solitary event. There have been many cases such as this one. They all say the same. Something that should have happened, didn't. It could have been missed information, but isn't it a coincidence that that misinformation happens at those specific times? God's timing is perfect: the Christmas story wouldn't have happened now.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

This may not bother you but wait until you pray, when things are most dire, and
there is no answer, no miracle. How will you explain that?

---

Timing. It will all work out in the end. Satan loves to catch people for the heat of the moment. God looks at the future, and prepares for it.

quote:

---

NoJive said:

'the lord moves in mysterious ways...'

---

Actually I hate that statement, because He really doesn't. Most of the time you can figure it out. The only thing is that you don't see the big picture, and God does.

quote:

---

NoJive said:

'we know not what the lord has in store for us.'

---

Kingship and priesthood. Peace and love. I know what the Lord has in store for me.

quote:

---

NoJive said:

' ...it's gods' will.'

---

Yup.

quote:

---

NoJive said:

Anything will do so long as the issue/facts remain mysterious and
keeps the
flock in line.

---

Well, some things just can't be explained. Even you will agree with me on this. There are somethings in science that haven't been explained yet. We still don't know for sure where the extra gravity goes in Einstien's theory, but we know it goes somewhere. Same thing with God. We know things happen, we just can't explain them yet, they haven't been revealed.

Plus there is one more commonly used phrase I like, "Who are you to tell God the Almighty what to do?" It goes along the same lines as "Your will not mine."

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

when something like the above doesn't happen when it is "supposed to".

---

Well, then you have to wonder what "supposed to" really is.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

I call it the seed of REASON.

---

I call it fair-weather faith.

When I gave up trying to fit God to my ideals things got alot harder. Dangerous even. "It is dangerous to be a Christian." But my comfort was that when things got too much for me, God took care of it. And He did. There is the story of masked blessings that I can tell you later. The just is that bad things can become blessings.

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

Gideon, READ MY POSTS before answering them, please! I said no amount of prayer will turn one aside - I did not say, that a gun will malfunction or not - I am talking about a bullet that is underway, and on target, and will kill on impact. If prayer works, then it should reliably be able to turn the bullet every damned time!. Research and study of the matter has shown, that prayer has as good an accuracy as chance - draw your own conclusions, I'm tired of waving them in your face.

quote:

---

But my comfort was that when things got too much for me, God took care of it.

---

That is the line I was waiting for. Sure took a long time. You are just not mature enough to face things on your own, so you need something to "take control", when things get "too hard". Just like your parents did, as you were a child. Well, that is natural, a response that we humans learn as children. But you have to grow up someday.

Time for Mankind to grow up, and leave the crutch of "god" behind, and start taking responsibility for ourselves. You see, there is no-one else to run to - there is no "too hard". Too hard is total extinction. The only ones we have, are each other. That is real, that is here. Thankfully, nature gave some of us an incredible will to survive, before there was any notion of "god", and continues to do so (otherwise, we would have long ago gone extinct, waiting for "god" to "rescue us" when it got "too hard").

As for your "you have seen too much evil" - give me a break. I don't believe in the concepts of good and evil. I have had a lot of experiences, many that you have not had. Has that had an effect on me? Of course it has, some positive, some negative. But most important, I have tried to learn from these experiences. I continue to, to this day, and should it ever end, I expect that my time here will be at an end. Then I look forward to the next great adventure, or the sweet, unknowning oblivion of nothingness. My experiences of death have shown me, that there is just darkness, and an unbelievable feeling of serenity, and peace, like a huge weight lifted forever. Others have reported other things. I am a product of my experiences, and my reflections on and about them.

Your "good" is another mans "evil". And vice versa. You may believe in a polarization of Good and Evil, symbolized by your god and your devil. But there is no single shred of evidence, that such exists. And quite frankly, as Briggl pointed out, that which your god has done, is among some of the most "evil" things ever done to Mankind - even your devil has not managed to be so cruel in the bible. A great flood, that wiped out almost all of Mankind. Nice father, first he kicks you out, then he drowns almost all of his own children - was more than willing and was prepared to kill them all. Oh, and that he sent a hell of a lot of people screaming to hell - just because they didn't even know he existed (and couldn't have known!). That is not free will. Nothing you can say, can deny this. Free will means having a real choice. Well, your god certainly didn't give my ancestors any choice - according to the bible, they are screaming in hell, because they had no idea that god existed.

If these are your notions of "good" and "evil", then I can do well without, thank you.

(Edited by WebShaman on 01-05-2005 11:59 - the phrase "God helps he who helps himself was removed from this post due to inaccuracy)

(Edited by WebShaman on 01-05-2005 12:00)

Contrary to popular belief, the line "God helps those who help themselves" is not in the bible.

The oposite idea is what is actually expressed.

Cursed is the one who trusts in man, who depends on flesh for his strength and whose heart turns away from the LORD. Jerhamia 17:5

He who trusts in himself is a fool... Proverbs 28:26

As for the idea of using god as a crutch or an excuse, I completely agree that this should not be a way for people to approach life. However, using the bible/god/jesus as a moral compass is not all bad. The intollerance that many people find while reading the bible should be ignored, because far to many believers take the intollerances in the bible as an excuse for their own bad behaviors. There is a difference in believing in something, and living according to an ideology and absolving yourself of personal resposibility, just make sure you are a part of the former.

Dan @ Code Town

I stand corrected on the phrase "God helps those who help themselves" - it really is not in the bible. Thanks for pointing that out.

quote:

---

You are right Briggl. A loving father does not allow his children to starve to death, or fight each other, but what if those children of his used to be living under his wings? He used to protect them, but they decide that it is time to move out of the house. They decide that they know better than their father and they leave. What does a father do then?

---

Oh, now I see. Believe in God or he will let you starve to death! Got it. So what about the devout believers in some of these areas around the world who are also starving to death?

quote:

---

I think that you have just experienced man's evil so much that it masks the good God can do.

---

You mean "I think that you have just experienced man's evil so much that it masks the good MAN can do."

quote:

---

Kingship and priesthood. Peace and love. I know what the Lord has in store for me.

---

So, you're going to be a king? I didn't know God said that if we believe in him, we are all going to become kings.

(Edited by briggl on 01-05-2005 15:29)

quote:

---

Just answer it, I promise I am going somewhere good with it.

---

As I can guess rather easily where you are going with it, and what you *think* you are going to 'expose' by it, I think I'll pass and save the headache of having to explain why your conclusion is so flawed and empty of any actual point.

Thanks all the same.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

I said no amount of prayer will turn one aside - I did not say, that a gun will
malfunction or not - I am talking about a bullet that is underway, and on
target, and will kill on impact.

---

I know. I answered that by saying that prayer might not turn a bullet. I haven't heard of a case of it actually happening. I'm sure it has, but like you said, it can't be repeated in a laboratory. I guess I got a little off on a tangent, but my point was that it won't consistently sway bullets, at least not the way you might think. God can't be contained in a laboratory. You can't put Him in a box. There are other ways of making things happen instead of miracles. I love this part in the movie Revelation where a guy asks God to knock over a cup. He says that if God knocks it over right then and there, he will be a believer. The cup stays there and he tells the Christian woman next to him, "See, the cup didn't fall, no God." Then, as he walked out of the room he bumped the table by accident and the cup fell. God isn't restrained by our way of thought. Besides, He loves much more to talk through a gentle breeze than a raging earthquake.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Research and study of the matter

---

By whom? Scientists in a laboratory that want a miracle right? They want God to show them that He exists by turning a bullet. Where is the faith in that? Same thing happened to Jesus on the cross. They wanted a miracle to change thier stance. Jesus, I think it was, said that "even if I do a miracle you won't believe me." You know what. He did one and they didn't believe Him.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

You are just not mature enough to face things on your own,

---

No, not "mature", I think the word is strong. There are some things in this world I can handle. There are others I can't. Webshaman, I think there are things in this world you are not even strong enough to face on your own. I really hope you don't have to go through them, but you might. God helps me understand and work through those I can't so that I will be able to triumph with His help.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

I have had a lot of experiences, many that you have not had.

---

That's true, but I am beginning to think that I have had some experiences that you have not had either.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

My experiences of death have shown me, that there is just darkness,
and an
unbelievable feeling of serenity, and peace, like a huge weight lifted
forever.

---

Kinda like a good night's sleep? I think that might be right. I don't know about this, but I'm not sure if people go to Heaven right when they die. They might, and I am going to have to ask some one where that thought came from, since I'm not seeing it in my reading of the Bible, but it should look like sleep. In the end is when Heaven is, or at least Heaven on Earth. It comes at the end of the Tribulaiton. That is what I have been reading at least.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

I am a product of my experiences, and my reflections on and about them.

---

Ah, so experiences was the word I was looking for before. Not heard, read, seen; experienced.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Your "good" is another mans "evil". And vice versa. You may believe in a
polarization of Good and Evil, symbolized by your god and your devil. But there
is no single shred of evidence, that such exists.

---

You are right. Men are very good at making up their own morals, or twisting old ones to thier own devices. Where cannabalism is bad here, it is a sacred right in some other parts of the world. Same with lying, cheating, stealing, same-sex marriages...but that is a different thread.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

A great flood, that wiped out almost all of Mankind.

---

Yup, they deserved it too. But just so you don't think I think of myself as better than them, I deserve the same death they got.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

first he kicks you out

---

Actually, we ran out on Him. We told Him that we knew better than Him, so He let us go. Adam and Eve were tricked, but they did fall for it. They showed that they loved knowledge more than God. They showed that they thought they knew better than God. So God told them to leave.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

was more than willing and was prepared to kill them all.

---

Not Noah. He loved Noah because Noah loved Him. Noah pleaded to God that the people really did love Him, but God can see men's hearts, and He knew that they didn't.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

just because they didn't even know he existed

---

Actually in the end times there will be a judgement for those who weren't able to have the Gospel preached to them, but those who turned down the Gospel are immediately thrown into the lake of fire.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

If these are your notions of "good" and "evil", then I can do well without,
thank you.

---

Good=love
Bad=hate
Can it get any simpler?

More to come...

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

quote:

---

Webshaman, I think there are things in this world you are not even strong enough to face on your own. I really hope you don't have to go through them, but you might.

---

Rubbish. Whatever does not outright kill me, gives me the chance to learn from it. Whether or not that learning is positive, or negative, is not relavant. Perhaps you would like to name some of these things?

quote:

---

Yup, they deserved it too.

---

Oh, they deserved death and damnation for all eternity. Nice god. And just who are you to judge if they did or not? Your attempts to defend the "evil" actions of the being you claim is love is really way off the deep end. Next thing you know, you will be saying that other mass murderers are saints! God knew before hand that all this would happen, remember? So, he knew that Adam and Eve were going to be tempted, and that he would have to kill off all of Mankind (exception Noah and family...right). That God knew this in advance, makes it pre-meditative. Remember, he did it with anger and scorn (as described in the bible). That is NOT the reactions of a loving being. A loving being would be plagued by great sadness from such an action at the least. No, this is an example of a hideously jealous, callous, and revenge-filled being.

God killed. God committed mass murder. That you love the idea of such a being, I can see why you must do everything in your power to find justifications for this. This is not the act of a loving being Gideon, irregardless of what you may think. That would be the equivalent of killing the whole body, with the exception of one cell, to save it from cancer, and then cloning the cell until it was a being again. It would never be the same thing that it was - and all that it knew would be lost. In end effect, the being was killed and replaced by something else - not the original being. The original being is forever lost. God's solution was faulty. He should have sent missionaries into the world, instead, to turn the people. It is what he ended up doing, anyway...just that he resorted to murder to do it, instead of love.

Can't get them to believe, kill them off. Great, loving being. Clear the fields for those that do love you, knowing that eventually, they are also going to end up worshiping a golden calf, and kill your only son. Then kill them all again with fire.

Your god can't get enough of killing, it seems.

According to what you are saying about a miracle, chance also suffices as explanation for it as well. Since you cannot demonstrate that there is a difference, what criteria do you use to identify a miracle and seperate it from mere chance? If one can't seperate chance from a miracle, then they are one and the same - anything that is chance can be called a miracle, and vice versa. Since there is no evidence, no facts, nothing - it is irrational. It is equal to believing that prayers to the golden calf will achieve results - which they will, exactly on par with prayers to your god, and chance.

This is the mistake that you make. It is where your rational thought breaks down into the irrational.

I do not consider Bugs to be irrational. Quite the opposite. He is also a deeply religious man. I consider you to be very irrational. Conversations with you on this board have revealed, time and again, examples of such.

I'm going to follow the lead of DL, and gracefully bow out. I think that is the wisest choice here. I leave you to your faith. Go learn from your god. I will continue to learn from life.

quote:

---

but I'm not sure if people go to Heaven right when they die

---

Nope. We die and nothing else happens until judgement day. Then the "good souls" are brought up to heaven so they can spend the rest of eternity praising God. He's building his own squad of cheerleaders. I can hear them now. "God, God, He's our Man! If He can't do it, no one can!"

God: Varsity Letterman Extraordinaire.

=)

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

And just who are you to judge if they did or not?

---

A nobody. I didn't judge. Note my disclaimer:

quote:

---

Gideon said:

But just so you don't think I think of myself as better than them,
I deserve the
same death they got.

---

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

hideously jealous

---

That part is true, but the other is not. They were murderers, fornicators, etc. They were really bad people and they got justice. They got payed for what they did:

quote:

---

Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

---

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

It would never be the same thing that it was - and all that it knew would be
lost. In end effect, the being was killed and replaced by something else -
not
the original being. The original being is forever lost.

---

I think you just came to the conclusion that every born-again Christian has gone through.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

He should have sent missionaries into the world, instead, to turn the people.

---

Well, He did. Noah told them. Over and over, but they didn't listen. God knows mens' hearts, but Noah didn't understand that. After about 100 years of trying, he understood that too. The only reason God has missionaries now is that there are people who listen to him now.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Your god can't get enough of killing, it seems.

---

We can't get enough of sinning.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

what criteria do you use to identify a miracle and seperate it from mere chance?

---

Faith Webshaman, something not easily grasped by some people. It is the same kind of faith that allows me to ride a bus without worrying that the driver will hit a curb, or the bus will explode. My faith in God is different, like a "super-faith", but it is about the same.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

I do not consider Bugs to be irrational.

---

Yet I suspect Bugs practices many of the things you deem irrational

quote:

---

briggl said:

Nope. We die and nothing else happens until judgement day.

---

I'm pretty sure that is what happens, but I am confused by all the talk about being in Heaven when we die.

Anyway Revelation explains that we won't be cheerleaders. We will reign on Earth as kings. We will have lines that will live forever, so we will be heads of kingdoms. Very interesting stuff. Actually, the cheer stuff only happens with the saints that go to Heaven during the Rapture, then we all come back down to Earth after the Tribulation.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

I'm going to follow the lead of DL, and gracefully bow out. I think that is the
wisest choice here.

---

I'm sorry you feel that way. If you really don't want to talk about this stuff I understand. Not too many people do. (I think a Bigfish quote is that "talking about religion is impolite.")

I will answer the other posts from yesterday on my next post (if I can, I may run out of time again.

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

Okay, sorry about the delay, I ran out of time yesterday.
Here are the answers to the other posts, I am really sorry about not answering you.

quote:

---

WarMage said:

As for the idea of using god as a crutch or an excuse, I completely agree that
this should not be a way for people to approach life.

---

As an excuse, no, but as a crutch, why not? You need a crutch to walk upright when you are hurt, right? Why can't you ask God if you can lean on Him when you hurt?

quote:

---

WarMage said:

However, using the bible/god/jesus as a moral compass is not all bad.

---

Well, that depends on what side of the argument you are on. As Webshaman eloquently pointed out, good and evil can be different for each man. It would be extremely difficult to get everyone to agree with the morals in the Bible (I have a hard time, and I have been doing this for a couple of years now. )

quote:

---

WarMage said:

The intollerance that many people find while reading the bible
should be ignored

---

Some people might disagree with me on this, but the Bible (with a few exceptions) teaches that tolerance (not nececcarily acceptance of the belief, but love of the person) is a good thing to have. See Romans 14.

quote:

---

WarMage said:

far to many believers take the intollerances in the bible as an excuse for their
own bad behaviors.

---

I think this is very common. Men destroying a very beautifully created set of morals or a fair justice system, and twisting it to thier own whims. The southern plantation owners did that very thing in the 1800s. Also a more modern example is in the movie King Arthur with the evil father of the next pope. We are degrading morals and the justice system in the United States, and if something doesn't happen soon then it will become corrputed again.

quote:

---

briggl said:

Believe in God or he will let you starve to death!

---

In a sense, yes. Follow God and trust Him, and He will help you out. If you don't follow God and trust Him, then He won't help you out as much. (You see, even if children leave the house, the parents still have ways of providing help without the children even knowing about it.)

quote:

---

briggl said:

So what about the devout believers in some of these areas around the world who
are also starving to death?

---

I don't know what God does, or why He does it, I can only make an educated guess based on what He did in the past, or what He wrote in His word. That said, I am 99% sure that it is for one of the following reasons:
-"You reap what you sow" (in a figurative and literal sense )
-As a lesson about trusting God (that is starving, but not to death)
-punishment

See what Paul had to say to the Corinthians about suffering, and why it happens:

quote:

---

2 Corinthians 4:8-18
8 We are troubled on every side, yet not distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair; 9 Persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed; 10 Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body. 11 For we which live are alway [sic.] delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh. 12 So then death worketh in us, but life in you. 13 We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak; 14 Knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present us with you. 15 For all things are for your sakes, that the abundant grace might through the thanksgiving of many redound to the glory of God. 16 For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day. 17 For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; 18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

---

That might have been a longer answer than you wanted, but does it help?

quote:

---

briggl said:

You mean "I think that you have just experienced man's evil so much that it
masks the good MAN can do."

---

No, man is very bad at being good. There aren't any people on this earth who are inherently good, and very few who have become good.

quote:

---

briggl said:

So, you're going to be a king? I didn't know God said that if we believe in him,
we are all going to become kings.

---

quote:

---

Revelation 5:10
And hast made us [the saints] unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.
Revelation 21:24-27
24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it. 25 And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there. 26 And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it. 27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.

---

That is what will happen after the end of this age.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

As I can guess rather easily where you are going with it, and what you *think*
you are going to 'expose' by it, I think I'll pass and save the headache of
having to explain why your conclusion is so flawed and empty of any actual
point.

---

Okay. I am glad that you don't easily fall for things. That is a good trait. I do wonder though, what direction do you *think* I was going with it? You might be totally wrong. I just don't want you to miss out on learning something.

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

(Edited by Gideon on 01-09-2005 02:46)

Sorry, double post.

(Edited by Gideon on 01-09-2005 02:45)

Creationism vs. Evolution?

Um... a bit of both, but neither really...

What was that middle one again?

==I don't believe it! Somebody stole my sig!!==

I don't know it's name, but are you talking about the one where God started the big bang, or something like that?

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

I have a question for all those who believe in a literal bible - please explain to me how rock forms in under 20,000 years, please.

WebShaman: I suppose they explain it by saying that either :

• all the scientists around the globe are wrong when they date some rocks older than ~6,000 years
• God created the rocks to look like they are older than the world

Yes, but I want them to explain to me, in scientific terms how this happens. I have already heard the "scientific terms" for how fossils are formed, from the literal believers - but they have never been able to explain how the actual rock formed, that the fossil bones were in!

WebShaman: you know, the ways of the lord are impenetrable.
( I hope that's the correct translation )

Actually, it doesn't take millions of years for rocks to form. Take a look at this . You only need a formula for fossils, diamonds, rocks, etc. Just the example of one is enough to show that it can happen in short time. That is what I found in just 3 min of search. I am sure there are other examples if you need them.

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

Gideon - do we actually have to explain, *again*, the vast difference between something being coated with rock from a watery source containing stone sediment, and something becoming fossilized?



We've been through this already...

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about rock formation. If you wanted to know about fossilization, just look at these:

Fast Fossils
Whale Explodes Fossil Theory
Sensational Dinosaur Blood Report

I hope that works. If not I can find more.

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

this- http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i4/fossils.asp speaks about imprints, not fossils. and like most articles you post, it draws conclusions which are not supported by the evidence it presents.

this- http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i2/whale.asp well, I'm at a loss as to what it is even trying to say. we find one whale floating around dead, and the whole concept of fossil formation is wrong???????? Heloo....anyone in there?

this- http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i4/blood.asp I would need to find corroboration of these findings before addressing any issues it brings up.

all of these articles are *painfully* vague and primarily avoid any but the most superficial scientific approach to the subject.

Gideon,

quote:

---

Yes, but I want them to explain to me, in scientific terms how this happens.

---

I am still waiting.

Oh, and while you are at it, please explain to me in scientific terms how sap forms to Amber in record time.

And another thing - please explain in scientific terms how the Colorado (and Niagra) rivers managed to erode their way through meters of bedrock in "record" time. And we are talking about kilometers, here, in the case of Niagra.

Next question - what about Tectonic Plates, and Tectonic Movement? And if those models are wrong, then how do Earthquakes and Tsunamis come into being?

If Tectonic Plates exist and Tectonic Movement (which, btw - we do know exist and can be proven that they move) - how do the Young Earth Creationist explain that?

Oops! I forgot this link - Why I Left Young-Earth Creationism A fascinating read, really. And they were all young creationists before.

(Edited by WebShaman on 01-18-2005 09:49)

Interresting read indeed.
One thing I wonder, is it so bad/hard to become atheist after facing the truth of the facts for more than 10 years and being finger pointed ( to say the least ) whenever you raise a single problem ? Billions of people are atheists and it doesn't make them worse than the believers, or empty of all goals and happyness.

That is actually easier to answer as one may think - to someone who Believes, to find out that the basis of their belief (i.e. the Foundation) is flawed, casts EVERYTHING in doubt. This often leads to a crisis, a very serious one, as the person in question attempts to find meaning for their life and continued existence, and the means to continue. Of course, I can only speak for myself (having been one who went through such a crisis).

Whether it is bad to become an atheist? For one who believes in a God and a system as the Christians do, yes. Because you are being "tricked" by Satan, and are going to be sentenced to hell for eternity. For other faiths, it may mean that you will have to wait even longer to obtain enlightenment, or some other "penalty".

It also means that there is no "higher" power, (or a lack of evidence thereof), which for someone who believes there is, is hard to accept (if not impossible).

Maybe some of the others who are not Atheists would like to comment here, as well.

Sure I imagine it must be as if the world was falling apart, but in the case of the article you gave, that man has had many years to confront the facts with his system of belief. As for the conscequences of becoming an atheist, aren't they nullified if you realize that your system of belief was based on some misconceptions of the real world. Having always been an atheist I suppose I can't imagine what really is a "crisis of faith", the magnitude and impact it can have.

But, get back to your questions :

• please explain [in scientific terms] to me how rock forms in under 20,000 years, please.
• please explain to me in scientific terms how sap forms to Amber in record time.
• please explain in scientific terms how the Colorado (and Niagra) rivers managed to erode their way through meters of bedrock in "record" time. And we are talking about kilometers, here, in the case of Niagra.
• what about Tectonic Plates, and Tectonic Movement? And if those models are wrong, then how do Earthquakes and Tsunamis come into being?
• If Tectonic Plates exist and Tectonic Movement (which, btw - we do know exist and can be proven that they move) - how do the Young Earth Creationist explain that?

quote:

---

As for the conscequences of becoming an atheist, aren't they nullified if you realize that your system of belief was based on some misconceptions of the real world.

---

In a crisis of Faith, you don't just "change" all of a sudden. There is much examining and agonizing over right, wrong, truth, untruth...and the uncertain fear that maybe you will go to hell. It takes time, for stability and strength of feeeling in the new direction to take hold (and to cast off old beliefs, feelings, etc).

quote:

---

But, get back to your questions :

* please explain [in scientific terms] to me how rock forms in under 20,000 years, please.
* please explain to me in scientific terms how sap forms to Amber in record time.
* please explain in scientific terms how the Colorado (and Niagra) rivers managed to erode their way through meters of bedrock in "record" time. And we are talking about kilometers, here, in the case of Niagra.
* what about Tectonic Plates, and Tectonic Movement? And if those models are wrong, then how do Earthquakes and Tsunamis come into being?
* If Tectonic Plates exist and Tectonic Movement (which, btw - we do know exist and can be proven that they move) - how do the Young Earth Creationist explain that?

---

Any takers?

Oh, and I thought that maybe this would be a reasonable answer for Gideon

quote:

---

If you think that a 140-year-old rock is somehow bad news for "evolutionists," you are mistaken. I have seen rocks that are even younger than yours; just a few months ago I saw many rocks at Mount Saint Helens that were less than 20 years old. Minimum formation times are only a problem (to the young-Earth crowd) for a few types of rocks; since your example was not one of those types, it doesn't really help the young-Earth cause. The age that rocks "have" to be (by virtue of the time they would need in order to form) is not nearly so big a problem as the age that many rocks appear to be (by virtue of the distribution of isotopes within them). I recommend that you read the talk.origins Age of the Earth and Isochron Dating FAQs on this site. They provide a brief introduction as well as many pointers for further reading.

---

- from Talk.Origin

A bell in a rock crust? That is not what I asked about (and that is not the type of rock I asked about, either). I know that some types of rocks can be produced in seconds! Just look at "cooled" magma! It is rock. The same goes for the phenomena we see at Mt. St. Helen's. I am talking about fossiles (i.e. once LIVING beings) in stone. Give me examples of this happening, and explain to me in scientific terms how that can happen at a fast rate - and no, the fossilized trees of St. Helen's doesn't count - because they are in turn not surrounded by rock that is meters, if not tens of meters (or more) thick.

Another interesting thing - meteor impacts. I mean, a lot of them that we have found evidence of are real extinctiors (i.e. really big - and would cause major extinctions with their impacts). having so many of these happen within such a small amount of time - there would be no life left on the planet. And certainly there would be mention of such in the bible. Please explain scientifically how so many impacts of this magnitude could happen and not leave any lasting impression on the humans during the last 20,000 years.

(Edited by WebShaman on 01-18-2005 14:03)

WebShaman: Go easy, with your rush of questions you're going to shake/shock all the creationist hereby.

Wow Webshaman, I had no idea that you had so many questions! You are right, I don't know all the answers, and I don't plan to in my life time. I try to know some, and I will get to work on those that you have given me (I think I'll start with the list). It may take a while so bare with me.

As for the other thought of Atheism, I do have some thoughts on that, but you will have to wait on another date when I have more time. (this is not an evasion, so if I forget, please remind me.)

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

Actually Gideon, don't answer the questions here. Answer them for yourself. If you need even more questions without answers, I would be glad to provide them!

The point to the excercise is that apparently you haven't asked yourself such questions (otherwise, you would already have an answer for them - or just the "I don't know"). Now, I know you are "fire and flame" for your belief in a literal bible and a young earth. But every YEC that has tried to prove it with scientific methods has failed miserably, and most have had to abandon their positions (though not necessarily their faith - that is normally something different). Of course, I don't expect you to apply any importance to this - I am just pointing out how intenuable your position is as a YEC.

I can literally bury you with questions that haven't been answered by the YECs yet. I told you that (and warned you) at the start of our "discussions" oh so long ago. At some point, you come to the conclusion that you can't answer them all.

And that, Gideon, is what I was trying to point out when I first addressed you long ago. It is a question of Faith, for YECs, with the science evidence against it.

quote:

---

At some point, you come to the conclusion that you can't answer them all.

---

Careful where you go with that.

I know you are not implying that science does have all the answers, but that is certainly what it sounds like.

There is an abundance of questions that cannot be satisfactorily answered by religion (no, I won't call it creation 'science', because it just....isn't) or science.

I am certain that you could also be buried by question that you would not be able to answer...

quote:

---

There is an abundance of questions that cannot be satisfactorily answered by religion (no, I won't call it creation 'science', because it just....isn't) or science.

---

I agree, whole-heartedly with that statement, DL. With this sentence

quote:

---

At some point, you come to the conclusion that you can't answer them all.

---

I meant the questions that I have in reserve (and that I have asked, that you have asked, that others have asked). I do NOT mean Science in general can also answer ALL of them (though I do mean answer them scientifically!) Some questions evade an answer, to date (and in the foresee-able future, unless something really radical happens), like "Is there a God?".

Of course Science can't answer everything! I have also pointed out in other discussions that Science is a young discipline. Give it a couple of hundreds of thousands of years to mature (as religion has had). It may still not be able to answer everything (see my remarks on a Super Nature, in Ini's thread The kiss of the two worlds :: an hypothesis )

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

I can literally bury you with questions that haven't been answered by the
YECs yet. I told you that (and warned you) at the start of our "discussions" oh
so long ago. At some point, you come to the conclusion that you can't answer
them all.

---

You are right, I can't answer them all. I don't really need to. I trust God. I don't think you do though Webshaman. I understand that you have many questions. You have buried me in them, and I am interested in finding answers, pondering them, etc. But the fact is that the same goes for the other side too. You seem to forget that there are equally (if not more) questions and answers in Evolutionary Science that have no answers (yet), or require faith to discern.

You make this out to seem like Christains don't have all the answers. Well, here's a news flash - we don't. I know that I do have one answer, though, and that is Jesus Christ. I have also experienced that when I do have a question, it most of the time seems to evaporate in love and trust. I guess the only time I really need to go looking is when someone else asks me. I go look, and I do find an answer. They are out there Webshaman. Both sides. I would suggest going here if you really need any answers becuase they have done much research. I wouldn't dismiss them too easily as "religious nuts" either, because they have some very incredible arguments, and PHDs. Whenever you have asked me a question, that is where I have gone. They answer them very nicely.

It is also a great site for those Christians who are new, but have questions about their faith, because we have been called to stand firm in our faith and be ready to defend it. There are some nice answers there.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

with the science evidence against it[Creation].

---

Says who? There is plenty of science to go around on both sides. Why do you think Science disproves the Bible?

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

I won't call it creation 'science', because it just....isn't

---

It is science, just like the Evolutionary science. The only difference is that God is the center of one but not the other.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Give it a couple of hundreds of thousands of years to mature (as religion has
had).

---

Actually, science has been around only a few years less than "religion." Remember, science was born when the first human asked the question Why?

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

quote:

---

Why do you think Science disproves the Bible?

---

Well now. A good question. I do not think that Science disproves the bible, I know it disproves a young earth. There is a big difference here. One does not have to take the bible literally. A literal word-for-word translation clearly does not stand up under the scientific way of proving something. I have already posed enough evidence of this.

quote:

---

It is science, just like the Evolutionary science. The only difference is that God is the center of one but not the other.

---

No Gideon, it isn't. It is not anywhere near science. Clearly, you do not understand the difference, do you?

quote:

---

Actually, science has been around only a few years less than "religion." Remember, science was born when the first human asked the question Why?

---

This is unbelievably untrue! We are talking about the scientific method here! Science is based on this. You really do not understand this, do you?

quote:

---

I understand that you have many questions.

---

Uhhh...you really don't understand what I post, do you? I don't have questions for myself (though I do examine my positions, and re-examine them - that is different - for some positions, I have NO answer) - I have questions for you, that you can't answer.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

There is a big difference here.

---

Well, the Bible comments on a young earth, so...

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

No Gideon, it isn't. It is not anywhere near science. Clearly, you do not
understand the difference, do you?

---

I understand what you think the difference is. You think that Creation Science came about from looking at the Bible, then applying methods to try and prove the Bible, while Evolutionary Science came about by looking at evidence, then posting that evidence without any speculation at all in science text books, essays, reports, etc. Am I right?

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

This is unbelievably untrue! We are talking about the scientific method here!

---

No, science was born when people began to ask why things happened, and then try to explain them. I guess that is kinda narrow-minded now that I think of it. That would be classified as: historical science I guess. It is not operational science, though. Operational science uses the scientific method. That is experimentation, documentation, publication. Things that cannot be disputed. Technology is a good example of this.

Historical science, on the other hand, is reconstructing experiments in the present, based on clues found embedded in rock (or else where) that originated in the past. Answer me this: do fossils exist in the present or the past?

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

quote:

---

You think that Creation Science came about from looking at the Bible, then applying methods to try and prove the Bible, while Evolutionary Science came about by looking at evidence, then posting that evidence without any speculation at all in science text books, essays, reports, etc. Am I right?

---

No.

Creation Myth is based on Faith. Faith does not rely on evidence of any kind, and can even exist where there is evidence to the contrary.

Science is the objective testing of phenomena using logic, reasoning and scientific method. It is a process whereby knowledge is suggested, proved and corrected, allowing humans to learn more about natural or technological systems.

The scientific method is an ordered sequence of events whereby a scientific investigation may be undertaken. The results of scientific investigations can then be used to draw new conclusions and develop new scientific knowledge. Scientific experimentation is used to provide evidence to prove whether observations, hypotheses and predictions are correct.

Although the scientific method can be critically analysed philosophically, it can usually be broken down into a series of five main stages during the scientific process. These are:

* Observing a phenomena in the surrounding environment.
* Forming a hypothesis explaining the phenomena.
* Making predictions based on the hypothesis.
* Test the hypothesis by way of experimentation.
* Record results and modify the hypothesis as needed.

And normally the results are subject to peer review.

That is science.

quote:

---

Answer me this: do fossils exist in the present or the past?

---

You do not know? Fossils had an existence, sometime back in the past - and exist to this day.

Actually, the main difference is that normal scientists try to find consistent theories for observed phenomena. On the other hand, creationist proponents start with the theories and then try to come up with some type of consistency based on that.

The other point I want to make is that challenging the literal text of the Bible is not the same as challenging someone's faith. Faith needs no evidence. I could say that I believe that God created the world yesterday, including all the fossils and all the memories of things that happened and historical evidence for all sorts of things to keep historians employed. There is no evidence for or against this theory nor can there be since I've conveniently explained away everythign by saying "God created it that way." Now, instead of saying God created the univers yesterday, you're just moving the creation date back a few thousand years (or however many creationists are now claiming).

My main point of contention is with the literal translation of the Bible itself. The Bible was never meant to be taken literally. Not only is it filled with impled metaphors, similes, allusions, and parables; the prophets themselves frequently used metaphors and stories.

I find it disturbing that people quibbling over semantics seem to forget that they're reading an english translation of a greek translation of hebrew (aramaic). Even the writers of the New Testament books quote from several Greek translations of the Old Testament.

quote:

---

Actually, the main difference is that normal scientists try to find consistent theories for observed phenomena. On the other hand, creationist proponents start with the theories and then try to come up with some type of consistency based on that.

---

Which is why it is not creation science.

It would be nice to see more people concentrating on the Wisdom to be found in the Bible, instead of attempting to cram some faith-based myth down other's throats, that flys in the face of science.

Gideon, I am still waiting for you to explain how 150 large impact craters (involving at least 50 meter wide meteorites to form - which destroy an area the size of a State) could go totally unnoticed in the bible (not to mention that such impacts tend to kill off a huge amount of stuff) - and 3 of them were of gigantic proportion. These three are normally thought of as the "dinosaur killers", because their impacts must have had a global effect - much like the Levy-Shoemaker impacts on Jupitar.

And a young earth would not have survived all of these impacts in such a short time period (and then add a global flood to it, as well). Explain this, please.

(Edited by WebShaman on 01-21-2005 13:35)

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

* Test the hypothesis by way of experimentation.

---

This is the one I am confused about. How can you experiment on things that have already happened?

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

You do not know? Fossils had an existence, sometime back in the past - and
exist to this day.

---

I do know, but it seems like you don't. You answered my question just by repeating it back to me in an answer form. All I wanted was to know if fossils existed in the past, or if they exist in the future.

quote:

---

silence said:

Actually, the main difference is that normal scientists try to find consistent
theories for observed phenomena. On the other hand, creationist proponents start
with the theories and then try to come up with some type of consistency based on
that.

---

But isn't that what Webshaman just pointed out that Evolutionist Scientists do? They form hypothesis and then test them?

quote:

---

silence said:

The other point I want to make is that challenging the literal text of the Bible
is not the same as challenging someone's faith. Faith needs no evidence.

---

Blind-faith does not need evidence. But God doesn't want His followers to blindly follow him. He wants you to follow Him because you trust Him and what He promised on the Cross. My faith does need evidence becuase I do not blindly follow things, and I have gotten that evidence over and over again.

quote:

---

silence said:

My main point of contention is with the literal translation of the Bible itself.
The Bible was never meant to be taken literally. Not only is it filled with
impled metaphors, similes, allusions, and parables; the prophets themselves
frequently used metaphors and stories.

---

Well, of course it is not to be taken entirely literally to the point of gouging eyes out if they cause you to sin. That was a parable. The thing is that the Bible is truth. The parables are parables. The metaphors are metaphors. But, it is easy to tell if it is a parable, metaphor, etc. or not. You just have to use your language skills. I know where you are going with this in the effect of Creation being a parable or metaphor. It is not. Genesis is the beginning of the Bible, of the world. If that is a parable, why not the rest of Genesis with the Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. How about Moses and what he did, is that a parable too? Oh, and going a few thousand years ahead, the virginity is just a parable, right? Maybe the crucifiction too?

Now, I know I am blowing this out of proportion, but I am trying to make a point. If you start to say that historical events recorded in the Bible are parables, metaphors, etc. then you leave the rest of them up for discussion too. There is a difference between history and parables in the Bible. For instance, Jesus said that He spoke in parables to the people. Guess what? Jesus spoke in parables whenever He addressed the people. Does that mean that when He spoke to His disciples that those were parables too? No. Then He explained the parables. It is kinda hard to explain a parable with a parable.

quote:

---

silence said:

I find it disturbing that people quibbling over semantics seem to forget that
they're reading an english translation of a greek translation of hebrew
(aramaic). Even the writers of the New Testament books quote from several Greek
translations of the Old Testament.

---

That is a good point. The thing is that most English speaking people can only understand Engilsh, so they cannot understand Greek or Aramaic. That is why the Bible was translated in the first place.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

And a young earth would not have survived all of these impacts in such a
short time period (and then add a global flood to it, as well). Explain this,
please.

---

If you really want me to, then I can do some research for you.

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

quote:

---

This is the one I am confused about. How can you experiment on things that have already happened?

---

Uhhh...maybe because they may have left evidence behind, that they happened?

quote:

---

I do know, but it seems like you don't. You answered my question just by repeating it back to me in an answer form. All I wanted was to know if fossils existed in the past, or if they exist in the future.

---

You'll forgive me if I am confused here. In the future? I would tend to think that yes, they will continue to exist in the future, unless they get destroyed. And no, I didn't just repeat it back to you. I explained it to you. An existance - meaning, they were in existence before, in the past, and then became a fossil, and remain so to this day (the present).

quote:

---

But isn't that what Webshaman just pointed out that Evolutionist Scientists do? They form hypothesis and then test them?

---

No, what I said was :

* Observing a phenomena in the surrounding environment.
* Forming a hypothesis explaining the phenomena.

quote:

---

If you really want me to, then I can do some research for you.

---

If you must, then do so.

Okay, let's take it one point at a time.

quote:

---

But isn't that what Webshaman just pointed out that Evolutionist Scientists do? They form hypothesis and then test them?

---

Yes, they form hypotheses that is consistent with the evidence. Creationists take one hypothesis, the one in the Bible, and try to work backwards from that. Therein lies the fatal flaw.

quote:

---

Now, I know I am blowing this out of proportion, but I am trying to make a point. If you start to say that historical events recorded in the Bible are parables, metaphors, etc. then you leave the rest of them up for discussion too. There is a difference between history and parables in the Bible. For instance, Jesus said that He spoke in parables to the people. Guess what? Jesus spoke in parables whenever He addressed the people. Does that mean that when He spoke to His disciples that those were parables too? No. Then He explained the parables. It is kinda hard to explain a parable with a parable.

---

Now you're taking me too literally.

I was using parables as an example. I'm not saying that the historical accounts are meant to be parables, but they shouldn't be taken as strictly accurate either. First of all, all historical accounts are subjective because someone has to write them, unless you think God did a direct mindlink and had the prophets/disciples act as spiritual laserprinters. This would contradict the idea of free will.

So the point is that you can find truth in the historical accounts as long as you realize that they are not literal truth. Ask five people to describe an event that they all witnessed and you will get five different, sometimes contradictory, accounts. This is exactly what happens with the four NT gospels. If you look at a synopsis they differ in things such as the timeline, what exactly was said, etc. This doesn't invalidate them as sources, but it also means you need to be careful how you interpret them. The Bible is truth, but even that statement, for me, is a metaphor.

Going back to the OT and the creation story, I think that there is no way to prove whether the creation myth is literal truth or not. Therefore, that leads me to two points: 1.) it fails to be a valid hypothesis on these grounds abd 2.) arguing about whether it is a metaphor or truth is pointless.

and, the, wheels on the bus go 'round and 'round, 'round and 'round....

It *IS* this simple:

if you start with your conclusion already reached, IT'S NOT SCIENCE. IT'S FRAUD.

Period. End of story. That's it.

If you choose to beleive the things these ignorant jackasses spew out for you - great. Whatever keeps you happy.

But to argue these silly points and talk yourself in circles accomplishes one thing, and one thing only, Gideon: it portrays you as extremely ignorant.

Acccept what the bible says on faith - fantastic. No problem.

Try to actually argue this bullshit as "science" - c'mon man- open your fucking eyes....

DL-44 went straight to the point.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Uhhh...maybe because they may have left evidence behind,
that they happened?

---

Well, sure they left evidence behind, but that is just evidence, some bones, cup shards, etc. There are many holes in that evidence (figuratively and literally ). My question is how can you make experiments on things that have already happened?

The example I gave Sangreal this morning was this: If you were to shoot a bullet 6 feet above the ground I stood on 10 years ago, you would not hit me, the bullet would wizz over my head. If you were to shoot a bullet 6 feet over the ground I stand on now, then you would blow my brains apart.

I know that is a little gory, but I think it illustrates my point. Just becuause you do the experiments now, doesn't mean that is how things were back then. Just looking at how our society changes on a day to day basis, things don't stay the same. You can't even say for certanty that the laws of science worked back then (even Evolutionists agree with that point, so don't argue it).

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

In the future?

---

Sorry, my fault. Word slippage there. I meant present. It goes along with the point I am trying to make that the fossils exist in the present. That means you have to look at them and make the best, educated guess you can make about how they got there.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

No, what I said was :
* Observing a phenomena in the surrounding
environment.
* Forming a hypothesis explaining the phenomena.

---

And then:

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

* Making predictions based on the hypothesis.
* Test the hypothesis by way of
experimentation.
* Record results and modify the hypothesis as needed.

---

That is what I was commenting on.

quote:

---

silence said:

Yes, they form hypotheses that is consistent with the evidence.
Creationists take one hypothesis, the one in the Bible, and try to work
backwards from that. Therein lies the fatal flaw.

---

Could you please explain to me how that is different, because for some reason I am just not getting it. It still sounds the same to me

I am out of time again as usual, but I will get back to the posts that you have made starting with the last part of Silence's post.

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

quote:

---

My question is how can you make experiments on things that have already happened?

---

By trying to reproduce them of course. And gather as much datas as possible on those events.

quote:

---

It goes along with the point I am trying to make that the fossils exist in the present. That means you have to look at them and make the best, educated guess you can make about how they got there.

---

I wouldn't qualify of "educated guess" the gathering of prints and other evidences ( may be other fossils, teeths, pieces of metal, sculpted stones, pollens, ... ) nearby the said fossil, plus the dating of all these materials, plus the confrontation of all these datas with the similar datas and knolewdge gathered throughout the world. Putting God and faith behind that sort of thing is a "guess".

quote:

---

Could you please explain to me how that is different, because for some reason I am just not getting it. It still sounds the same to me

---

I think DL-44 said it pretty well.

The sole goal of a scientist is to improve the knowledge by proving or disproving some hypothesis he has elaborated from the observation of concrete and verifiable datas/facts. That's not what YEC's "scientist" do.

1.
With Science there is first an observation.
- Differences in similar species exist when separated by great distances.

With Creationism there is a "Fact"
- The bible says the earch was created in 7 days.

2.
With Science you now create a theory.
- Darwin creates a basic theory of evolution

With Creationism there is no theory you already have a fact.

3.
With Science you now repetitively attempt to prove the theory wrong and revise it, adding evidence to support the theory along the way.
- Notice that the origional theory doesn't exist anymore, this has been modified and changed over the many years of its existance.

With Creationism you only try to compile evidence to support you claim. You do not try to prove it wrong, or add theories to it.
- Dinosaur bones were planted by god
- Dinosaur bones are results of the great flood.

------

If you notice Creationism doesn't do the "Prove itself wrong" bit. This is what science is, and this is why creationism isn't science. If creationsim took on the idea, well we have this theory that god did earth in 7 days, and then worked from there to revise this to accomodate evidence to the contrary, this would be science (almost) but they don't. This is why it isn't science.

Your whole bullet thing is scewed completely. You can't do an experiement without taking time as a factor. That is just bad science, and on top of that stupid. If I had more time I would explain better, I don't so you will have to wait for someone else to explain.

Dan @ Code Town

quote:

---

Could you please explain to me how that is different, because for some reason I am just not getting it. It still sounds the same to me

---

No.

Why?

Because the reason you are "just not getting it" is because you have decided not to get it - in the same way that these yahoo's at 'answeersingenesis' have decided what the outcome of their "science" will be and therefore ignroe any actual outcome.

^And that is the situation here. Gideon (and YECs) believe (I take that back - they believe they know ) that god exists and that the earth is young because god says so. Thus, they bend the evidence to fit their "fact", and either "don't get" evidence to the contrary (because they don't want to) or leave it out, entirely ("It can't be true, because then my version of the truth would not be true!").

It is an easy exercise to bend existing information into a preconceived mold (as long as some of the information is changed, and some convienently forgotten, left out). Politicians have been doing this since time immortal (and so has Religion, for that matter).

Because we are human and make mistakes, we need a system that acknowledges that and has safeguards against it. Furthermore, as humans we are prone to fantasy - i.e. make-believe. Imaginination. Thus, a system designed to discover fact, truth and knowledge must take that into account.

This is Science.

It has a built in check and balance system. Does that mean it is faultless? NO. A system is only so good as those interpreting the results, and the tools and processes used to do so.

But when you start from the standpoint that god exists, and that the earth is young because god says so, and then start fitting the evidence according to that (and leaving information out, when it doesn't "fit") is not Science!

Okay, I'm going to respond to the posts on page 5, then 6, so that I make sure I don't miss anyone.

Silence:
As for the mind links, no. You are totally correct. The text had to be written in Hebrew (or whatever form of it Moses spoke back then). Thus, the text cannot explain in full detail what happened in the six days of creation.

For instance, there was no word for geological up-heavals. They had to be explain as best they could in thier language. The thing is that where it does touch on science, that can be trusted. Genesis is about the creation of the world. Revelation (another disputed book) is about the end of the known world. Things that happened in Heaven John couldn't explain in his language: there were no words to describe something that no one has ever seen before! He could have made up words, but what good would that do?

As for Genesis, sure there are very few, if any, details in that book. Possibly because a.) there wasn't enough space b.) they did not have words for those things yet. Both are plausible reasons why many details are not in that book.

The thing is that the word for those six days is the same word in the rest of Genesis. They cannot be anything but a normal 24 hour day, without severly messing up the rest of Genesis' days (day is used 63 times in Genesis, and Abraham would still be getting circumcised now if that day were translated as such *ouch*).

quote:

---

silence said:

I think that there is no way to prove whether the creation myth is literal truth
or not.

---

Well, there are ways to prove that in the Bible, those chapters are as literal as the crucifiction chapters (see above for just one example). Scientists are now trying to find evidence of the details that were left out of Genesis. The little nit picky things, not the big things, those are already proven in the Bible.

Okay DL, calm down. There is no need for curse words. I think I already said this before that the Evolutionary Scientists, to a degree, have a conclusion already mapped out before they try to prove it. Webshaman kindly showed me that.

Also, I am not talking in circles unless I need to backtrack to give someone some info that has already been given in previous posts. I am not ignorant either. You seem to forget that I used to be on the other side of this debate a few years ago. I know all about Evolution, Dinosaurs, Mass Extinction, etc. I got them rammed down my throat in Biology, with no explaination that they were just theories, that there were other interpreations of the same data out there. Talk about narrow minded brainwashing. I am not arguing that Creation is science, I am arguing that it is history. I just use science to prove that.

quote:

---

poi said:

By trying to reproduce them of course. And gather as much datas as possible on
those events.

---

Did you read my example after that poi? That is one reason why you can't experiment on things now like they were in the past. What if they changed?

quote:

---

poi said:

I wouldn't qualify of "educated guess" the gathering of prints and other
evidences ( may be other fossils, teeths, pieces of metal, sculpted stones,
pollens, ... ) nearby the said fossil, plus the dating of all these materials,
plus the confrontation of all these datas with the similar datas and knolewdge
gathered throughout the world.

---

I think you misread me. The gathering of fossils is facts. They are tangible and in the present. The point I was trying to make to Webshaman was that the stories behind those fossils are educated guesses.

Dating beyond written history is a best guess. Some people place written history some ten or twenty thousand years ago. I would disagree, but even if that history is 100,000 years ago, it is a far cry from 65 million years. Many things could have happened in that gap to produce a bad sample of dating.

quote:

---

poi said:

That's not what YEC's "scientist" do.

---

You are right. YEC's don't give up on their hypothesis that easily. It takes a lot of evidence to sway someone away from the Biblical Creation, and there doesn't seem to be any lack of evidence on either side of the argument.

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

quote:

---

WarMage said:

You can't do an experiement without taking time as a factor. That is just bad
science, and on top of that stupid.

---

Then why do scientists do that then?

Okay Warmage, I am going to pick apart your proof, I hope you don't mind.

quote:

---

WarMage said:

1.With Science there is first an observation.- Differences in similar
species exist when separated by great distances.
With Creationism there
is a "Fact"- The bible says the earch was created in 7 days.

---

Actually, with Creation there is a revelation. It is a little different than a fact, a little bit more hard core, I guess you could say. More concrete. But here is the first little tid bit I am confused about. Why did you chose two different subjects for examination? If you want days do days, if you want species do species. There is a difference. I guess it can slide for now, but I would really like some consistancy later please.

quote:

---

WarMage said:

2.With Science you now create a theory.- Darwin creates a basic theory
of evolution
With Creationism there is no theory you already have a
fact.

---

That is correct, Darwin created a theory on how those different types got to different parts, and why they changed. I think it is a good theory to a point. You do understand that the theory only starts to contradict the Bible when it starts saying that different species all came from a single celled organism (or something less exagerated)?

quote:

---

WarMage said:

3.With Science you now repetitively attempt to prove the theory wrong and
revise it, adding evidence to support the theory along the way.- Notice that
the origional theory doesn't exist anymore, this has been modified and changed
over the many years of its existance.
With Creationism you only try to
compile evidence to support you claim. You do not try to prove it wrong,
or add
theories to it.- Dinosaur bones were planted by god- Dinosaur bones are
results of the great flood.

---

This is also something that I disagree with. Evolutionists have accepted Darwin's theories as facts. They may be a bit revised now, but the essence stays the same. They don't try and disprove that theory anymore. They set their sights on new discoveries, right? The details right? Who was first, how did these people move around, etc. They aren't trying to disprove that part of the theory anymore (they do put up a fight against the Creation theory, though. Trying to disprove that and all).
As for the Creation bit, yes theories are added, and yes some are proved wrong while others hold their water under pressure (As for trying to disprove the essence of Creation, the Evolutionists are the ones having a crack at that. And a little tid bit of information is that many scientists who do that, end up switching sides of the argument!). And yes, Creationists do try to support thier claim, but Evolutionists do to. How is that different?

quote:

---

WarMage said:

Your whole bullet thing is scewed completely.

---

Aww, and I thought it did a good job of showing why you have to pay attention to time differences, and that things may have been different back then. Well, you are entitled to your own opinion.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

the reason you are "just not getting it" is because you have decided not
to get
it

---

No.
The reason I am "just not getting it" is because the evidence that is presented is faulty. It isn't that I don't understand the arguments, it is that they don't make sense.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

these yahoo's at 'answeersingenesis' have decided what the outcome
of their
"science" will be and therefore ignroe any actual outcome.

---

It is interesting you say that because many Evolutionist scientists do just that. I will also disagree that they decide on their outcome when a piece of evidence comes their way. They most likely pour over it before they just post their findings (I come to this conclusion from all the reasearch and thought put into the findings). I bet that if you confront them with any actual evidence that they can't shoot holes through then they would abandon all they have said in the past and come to your side. The only problem is that each piece of "evidence" found to contradict Creation has flaws in it. Just e-mail them sometime, and I am sure they would love to show you the flaw in a "piece of evidence" you have found.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Thus, they bend the evidence to fit their "fact",

---

Okay, I am sick of people saying that these scientists "bend" or manipulate facts. They don't. If you would read their findings maybe you would realize that.

Let me ask you a question: Do you think that there are any evolutionists who bend facts? I am not implying that Creationists don't. Some do. That is why there is a disclaimer about some theories that do not work. I suggest you read the full page, it has some good points.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

we are human and make mistakes

---

Hmmm. That is interesting. We as humans make mistakes?

You know Webshaman, there is a really good quote on this page of the site that explains about why Creationists interpret facts the way they do. It is on the right side of the page. Read it all please, and then tell me who is covering up evidence.

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

quote:

---

I think I already said this before that the Evolutionary Scientists, to a degree, have a conclusion already mapped out before they try to prove it. Webshaman kindly showed me that.

---

I never, ever said anything of the kind. Again, you shove words and ideas in my mouth, that are not true! STOP BEARING FALSE WITNESS!

quote:

---

No.
The reason I am "just not getting it" is because the evidence that is presented is faulty. It isn't that I don't understand the arguments, it is that they don't make sense.

---

They don't make sense to you. You have yet to show facts and proof that they are faulty. As such, your arguments are faulty and have no basis in fact.

quote:

---

Okay, I am sick of people saying that these scientists "bend" or manipulate facts. They don't. If you would read their findings maybe you would realize that.

---

Oh, you are starting to get emotional - why is that? If you would read their findings, and compare them with the evidence against their findins, you would realize that they are heavily manipulating facts and leaving massive amounts of material out (or denying it outright). I (and many, many others) have already read their "findings".

quote:

---

You know Webshaman, there is a really good quote on this page of the site that explains about why Creationists interpret facts the way they do. It is on the right side of the page. Read it all please, and then tell me who is covering up evidence.

---

And with that little gem, Gideon, you have outed yourself as a Conspiracist. Do you truly believe, that Science is a tool of the Devil, designed to "cover up" evidence and somehow lead people away from god?

(Edited by WebShaman on 01-23-2005 13:09)

Gideon: From your remarks on my previous post, it looks like you've never attended a science or math class in your whole life. Ever heard of geology, radioactivity, isotopes, statistics ... ? But I suppose all these domains of expertise are nothing less than some tools of the Devil.

I shouldn't bother, but I just need to point out:

Gideon, this has gotten to the point of *absolute* idiocy. The fact that you even try to respond with this "aha, I gotcha!" kind of outlook, and the fact that you think these reponses are even applicable to the conversation, nevermind that they might somehow "refute" what is being said to you.... it's just......plain madness.

the "arguments" you come back with....it's like me saying that the two feet of snow on the ground outside my door this morning isn't there because once I stick my head up my ass it's cozy and warm.

And I exagerate only slightly there, and I don't even mean it in jest at this point.

Your grasp of even the most basic of the scientific concepts being discussed here is completely missing.
Completely.

Until you can see how and why the articles on that site are completely devoid of any "science", it is completely pointless to discuss these things with you.
Any converation on issues of science in which you will respond by saying "but in this article on 'answersingenesis' they say..." is pretty much automatically null and void, and a waste of everyone's time.

We've proven that in many threads so far - it's just a shame you haven't noticed.

And with that, farewell, poor tortured thread...

quote:

---

Gideon said:
The point I was trying to make to
Webshaman was that the stories behind those fossils are educated
guesses.

---

Better than that they are educated statistical approximations.

A far more satisfactory approach than unedcuated guesswork which I'm afraid is all I'm reading from you and (to be fair to you and not so you think this is personal) virtually all Creationists.

quote:

---

Gideon said:
Dating beyond written history is a best guess. Some people place
written history some ten or twenty thousand years ago. I would
disagree, but even if that history is 100,000 years ago, it is a far
cry from 65 million years. Many things could have happened in that gap
to produce a bad sample of dating.

---

This just goes to prove poi's point - I would really recommend you get a grounding in archaeology, geology, etc. before you go making such statements as they really only just make you look silly.

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org | Justice for Pat Richard | FAQs: Emperor | Site Reviews | Reception Room

if I went 'round saying I was an Emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!

Not that it will sway those who want to believe but some people will find it interesting.

As I said above (probably) whale evolution is one of the most impressive set of palaeontological evidence for evolution (and a counter to ID) and a lon time period for it to take place in. SJG's essay is a good one on this topic and it is online at the SJG Archives:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_leviathan.html

and new reports of fossils are helping confirm the DNA evidence -I hate talk of "missing links" (as you can consider no animal transitional or we all are) but:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6863348/

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org | Justice for Pat Richard | FAQs: Emperor | Site Reviews | Reception Room

if I went 'round saying I was an Emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!

quote:

---

Still, our creationist incubi, who would never let facts spoil a favorite argument, refuse to yield, and continue to assert the absence of all transitional forms by ignoring those that have been found, and continuing to taunt us with admittedly frequent examples of absence.

---

quote:

---

I confess that I have never quite grasped the creationists' point about inconceivability of transition?for a good structural (though admittedly not a phylogenetic) series of intermediate anatomies may be extracted from these groups. Otters have remarkable aquatic abilities, but retain fully functional limbs for land. Sea lions are clearly adapted for water, but can still flop about on land with sufficient dexterity to negotiate ice floes, breading grounds, and circus rings.

---

quote:

---

The embarrassment of past absence has been replaced by a bounty of new evidence?and by the sweetest series of transitional fossils an evolutionist could ever hope to find. Truly we have met the enemy and he is now ours. Moreover, to add blessed insult to the creationists' injury, these discoveries have arrived in a gradual and sequential fashion?a little bit at a time, step by step, from a tentative hint fifteen years ago to a remarkable smoking gun early in 1994.

---

Pure gold! Puuurrre gold! Thanks for the links, Emps!

And to save Gideon time looking it up:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter5.asp

------------------
However, the SJG paper and this article address most of those points:

http://www.angelfire.com/fl/direpuppy/mindblocks.html

And (I know I shouldn't suggest actual paper reosurces) but for a good overviews see:

"At the Water's Edge: Fish with Fingers, Whales with Legs, and How Life Came Ashore but Then Went Back to Sea" by Carl Zimmer
www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684856239/

"The Ancestor's Tale" by Richard Dawkins
www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0618005838/

and I would recommend you do us the courtesy of reading those before making "yes but...." answers.

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org | Justice for Pat Richard | FAQs: Emperor | Site Reviews | Reception Room

if I went 'round saying I was an Emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!

[edit: Fixing typos - damn db's fat fingers ]

(Edited by Emperor on 01-25-2005 23:47)

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

you shove words and ideas in my mouth, that are not true! STOP BEARING FALSE
WITNESS!

---

Thanks for keeping me on track Webshaman. You are right, I am sorry. You said nothing of the sort about conclusions. I guess there was a word shuffle going on in my mind and I switched hypothesis and conclusion around. I give you my apologies.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

They don't make sense to you. You have yet to show facts and proof that
they are faulty. As such, your arguments are faulty and have no basis in fact.

---

They don't make sense to me. I have shown many facts, but they have been dismissed. I can show more, but they will be dismissed. You see, facts from the Evolution Creation and the Creation of the Bible stem from the same evidence, but are interpreted in two very different lights. The light of God helps interpret one, and the absence of it the other. The reason it doesn't make sense is because now that I am looking through the light of God, I can see the holes in the Evolutionary stand point. I think the advantage I have over most Evolutionist Scientists is that I can see Creation and Evolution, but they can only see Evolution.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Oh, you are starting to get emotional - why is that?

---

Maybe it is becuase I am a dying human being and I get emotional sometimes. If you want me to stop, just ask and I will try to stop being a human being.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

they are heavily manipulating facts and leaving massive amounts of material out

---

No, they are reinterpreting the facts. The evidence is the same Webshaman.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Do you truly believe, that Science is a tool of the Devil, designed to "cover
up" evidence and somehow lead people away from god?

---

No, no, no, no. And if I seemed to say that I am sorry. I think that Science is an incredible tool for discovering things that have not been revealed to us. I love scientific accomplishments like space travel, medicine, computers, etc. I think that Science can bring man closer to God. What I do think is that the Atheistic approach to Science is a tool of the Devil, especially if it can be indoctrinated soon into young children's minds.

quote:

---

poi said:

it looks like you've never attended a science or math class in your whole life

---

Actually, it may appear that way. I am a junior in Highschool. So, in that respect I do not have a doctorite in Bio or Chem, but I am in the top of my class. I have taken 2 Bio classes, 1 Earth and Space, 1 Chem, and am taking 1 physics. i am far advanced in math and have taken everything up to Calc, and am taking some extra math classes too. But relatively speaking, no, I do not know a lot about Bio, chem, Geology, etc. I know most of the basics, but I don't have a PHD (come see me in 10 years when I am a doctor, then we can talk about the courses I have taken.) That is the reason why I go to AIG, because there are many PHDs, who work for it.

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

quote:

---

What I do think is that the Atheistic approach to Science is a tool of the Devil, especially if it can be indoctrinated soon into young children's minds.

---

Ok, so let us put this straight - you believe, that without god in Science, that it is the tool of the devil?

quote:

---

I am a junior in Highschool.

---

Hooboy.

quote:

---

What I do think is that the Atheistic approach to Science is a tool of the Devil, especially if it can be indoctrinated soon into young children's minds.

---

As if religious education leading to the denying of facts and scientific approach is not indoctrination.

quote:

---

That is the reason why I go to AIG, because there are many PHDs, who work for it.

---

Let me suggest you to go to Nature or Science, there's a hell lot more PHD working there.

quote:

---

Gideon said:

That is the reason why I go to AIG, because there are many PHDs, who work for it.

---

Yes but that means nothing.

What were their PhDs in? Whats was their doctoral thesis? What institution issued them? etc., etc.?

Just having three letters after your name means very little - it has to be relevant, issued from somewhere "respectble", etc., etc.

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org | Justice for Pat Richard | FAQs: Emperor | Site Reviews | Reception Room

if I went 'round saying I was an Emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!

quote:

---

Gideon: But relatively speaking, no, I do not know a lot about Bio, chem, Geology, etc. I know most of the basics...

---

This is exactly why all of this "evidence" on AIG makes sense to you. You have the general principles of these subjects. This is as much as most people get. I have to echo Emperor - what are these PhDs that these people hold? If it is a PhD in theology - it's not going to hold much water in a geologic debate. It would be like someone who has a doctorate in astrophysics telling you how to perform brain surgery when you get your doctorate in Medicine.

To someone who only has the basics in earth science and biology - it is easy to "reveal" holes in theories. You need to go beyond the basics, Gideon in order to understand why you are receiving the responses you are. You say you love scientific accomplishments like space travel and computers? Think about this: you may be receiving electricity for your computer from power generated at a nuclear power plant. If we did not have an understanding of radioactive decay - precisely the principles employed in radiometric dating - those power plants would not function. If it works for generating electricity, how can the same principle not work for dating fossils? It can't. You have to think beyond the scope of "Creation" and "Evolution" when reading these articles. Look at what is being refuted in these articles think of the principles involved and how that refuted information would impact existing technology. It involves some critical thinking.

and a little off topic: what is so bad about the earth being 4.6 billion years old, anyway?!?

Because the bible only accounts for a human existance going back about 100,000 years.

Dan @ Code Town

I thought a literal interpretation allows for only around 20,000 years?

Could be...

Dan @ Code Town

quote:

---

Emperor said:

Just having three letters after your name means very little

---

Oh, okay. So people who spend 8 or more years in school after highschool are just wasting thier time then?

quote:

---

poi said:

religious education leading to the denying of facts and scientific approach

---

No, it is an education leading to open-mindedness. If you just teach one side of an argument, you are very close-minded. How would you feel if the young people in school were only taught the Creation view, and not allowed to do projects on the Evolution stand point like back in the Middle ages, and the Catholic Church era?

quote:

---

Emperor said:

What were their PhDs in?

---

You name it and there is at least one scientist that has publically affirmed his stance for Creation. I have a list if you would like to see them.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Ok, so let us put this straight - you believe, that without god in Science, that
it is the tool of the devil?

---

If science is twisted to say that there is no God, and then used to try and "prove" that point, then yes.

quote:

---

Moon Dancer said:

If it is a PhD in theology - it's not going to hold much water in a geologic
debate.

---

I realize that. That is why I went looking through some of them. Through the ones that I looked I did not find any theological PHDs. Granted it wasn't thorough, but I will look again. There are also many teachers who have spoken up about Creation. Do you not respect teachers either? Granted I know that most teachers don't have a PHD, but you might be suprised at how much a teacher knows about his/her subject.

quote:

---

Moon Dancer said:

Look at what is being refuted in these articles think of the principles involved
and how that refuted information would impact existing technology. It involves
some critical thinking.

---

I do that. I look through and test the information that I have read by the things I have learned before I post anything.

As for the whole nuclear powerplants, sure, there is much that has been learned about the decomposition of the atom. Quite a lot actually. The thing is that those known facts are constantly changing. Just a couple hundred years ago we didn't even know they existed. There are theories that are being tossed around now that don't hold much water, but in the future might. Like the string theory (I have been trying to start a discussion about that, but obviously my time has been held up somewhere else).

quote:

---

Moon Dancer said:

a little off topic: what is so bad about the earth being 4.6 billion years old,
anyway?!?

---

No, it isn't off topic at all. That is a good question. WS and WM are right. It is becuase the age is not realistic. For Christians it doesn't line up with the Bible. For Scientists it doesn't line up with evidence that has been found.

Going back a little bit...

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

grasp of even the most basic of the scientific concepts being discussed here is
completely missing

---

Not really. I am not as highly learned as many of you, I understand that. But, but, I do listen to people who are more highly learned becuase I respect them. Anyone who can stand 8-12 years of school after Highschool has earned my respect. I respect and love doctors especially, that is one reason why I am striving to be one.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

Any converation [sic.] on issues of science in which you will respond by saying "but in
this article on 'answersingenesis' they say..." is pretty much automatically
null and void, and a waste of everyone's time.

---

And why is that? What is the difference between these Doctors, Biologists, Chemiscists, Mathematicians, etc.? Please tell me, why do you call them "hooligans."

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

We've proven that in many threads so far

---

Well, I guess not too well, because I, a junior in highschool, am not convinced that the arguments that havae been brought to my attention were completely thought through. I find it interesting that if you take Darwin's reason for his theory as far as he does, it actually disproves itself. I might be wrong, but that is what it looks like at a surface glance. That is why I am looking deeper into it. But please DL, humor me and answer my question that I posed.

quote:

---

Emperor said:

educated statistical approximations

---

= educated guesses in more words.

quote:

---

Emperor said:

A far more satisfactory approach than unedcuated guesswork

---

So these PHDs for years in school, then for years of working in respected boards means that they are uneducated? Who is educated then?

quote:

---

Emperor said:

I would really recommend you get a grounding in archaeology, geology, etc.
before you go making such statements as they really only just make you look
silly.

---

Well, I am working on the groundings right now, but I wasn't aware that I had to be an expert in these things to discuss them in an open forum.

quote:

---

quote WebShaman posted said:

assert the absence of all transitional forms by ignoring those that have been
found

---

Or those that have been propsed to have been found. You all know that there is no such thing as a Brachiosaurus, right? Too bad, that was one of my friend's favorite dinosaur.

Hey, I got a question, when were dinosaurs invented?

I found something I thought was interesting. You know the scientific method that you keep on railing on me about? Do you know who was attributed with concieving it? Sir Francis Bacon. I remembered some things about him when I came across him in my web searchings. Guess who was a professing Creationist? You guessed it, Sir Franics Bacon.

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

quote:

---

If science is twisted to say that there is no God, and then used to try and "prove" that point, then yes.

---

I don't know where you get that idea from. Science has neither proven or disproven the existence of god. It has soundly disproven a literal translation of the Bible and a young earth. But you are avoiding the issue, like a slippery eel. Evolution does not disprove the existence of god (nor does it pretend to). In fact, it says absolutely nothing whatsoever about god. All it does, is explain how life has come to be like it is now. It does not explain where life originally came from, nor does it explain how life was originally created. Now, there are theories on this - but that is what they are at present. And you show your bias, when you say "If science is twisted to say that there is no God" - you have already decided that there is a god. Science does soundly show that a literal bible and a young earth are not possible in light of the facts. That does not disprove that god exists. It might for you, because you believe in a young earth and a literal bible. Others who do not, do not feel threatened in their belief in god in the least by either Science, or Evolution.

quote:

---

For Scientists it doesn't line up with evidence that has been found.

---

For the overwhelming majority of Scientists around the Globe, yes, it does line up with the evidence that has been found.

quote:

---

But, but, I do listen to people who are more highly learned becuase I respect them.

---

Ok, but which ones are you listening too? The majority of them, or a fringe group?

quote:

---

And why is that? What is the difference between these Doctors, Biologists, Chemiscists, Mathematicians, etc.? Please tell me, why do you call them "hooligans."

---

The difference is, first of all, that they are in the minority with their views, secondly, that their views have been soundly disproven by the majority views (in the case of a literal bible and a young earth).

(Edited by WebShaman on 01-27-2005 16:16)

Gideon - no, I will not be answering any more of your questions on this subject, as it a complete waste of time and bandwidth.

As I said, your questions have been answered ad nauseum, your "evidence" and "science" been shot down in flames many times, and so on and so on.

As I've said before - if you choose to beleive such things, then fine. That's up to you, and is a personal matter.

But don't for a second think that what these places present is in any way sound science.

The fact that you choose to not accept the vast difference between what science is, and what YEC's call "science" does not nullify that vast difference.

(Edited by DL-44 on 01-27-2005 19:32)

Okay, WS, really quick your post on Ga.: The Theory of Evolution, if used in context of Darwin's findings, does try to say that there is no God, or at least on who was not involved in the Creation of the world. His findings suggest that we came to being just by natural selection. There is no God in that senario.

Evolution is a bad word to use for species that are changing, mainly for the fact that there is a net loss of genetic information. There is little or no increase. Even mutation involved (which is generally a loss of a genetic coding) there is not enough to make a net increase.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

soundly

---

Well, I'm still not convinced, because thus far I have seen no other argument otherwise. I know that we could go on and on, you finding something in scripture that you think disproves it, then me refuting it, you find something, I refute it. It could be an exausting process, so I would rather not do that. Some other way might be better, though... Let me think about it.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

it says absolutely nothing whatsoever about god

---

There is the key WS, there is the key.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

in light of the facts.

---

Facts, or interpretations of certain evidence found?

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

you have already decided that there is a god.

---

Not really, the idea just kinda smacked me in the face one day and wouldn't leave. It is nice that way. You know, there is a verse somewhere (I wish I had time to find it) that says something to the effect that men don't seek after God, but God seeks after men. I like that verse.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

It does not explain where life originally came from, nor does it explain
how life was originally created.

---

Not the absolute instant of creation, no. Evolution does try to explain how all the different forms of life came from a few or even just one first life form. That isn't the instance of creation, but that is everything else.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

For the overwhelming majority of Scientists around the Globe, yes, it does line
up with the evidence that has been found

---

For a majority, maybe, but if the world wanted 2+2 to equal 5 would it? No. Why? Because 2+2=4. That is a truth. Even if everyone else really wanted it to be five, the truth is that it is 4.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Ok, but which ones are you listening too? The majority of them, or a fringe
group?

---

I listen to all who I have the pleasure and honor of listening to. I don't skip things in books because I don't like them, I read them anyway. I don't turn my ears off when I hear something I don't like, I listen anyway. That doesn't mean I agree (you have to choose a side sometime), but I do listen.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

The difference is, first of all, that they are in the minority with their views

---

I'm looking for a specific answer here, and this is on the right track.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

their views have been soundly disproven

---

You keep saying soundly, it isn't soundly if things are still shaky. Just like in court trials, you can't convict someone if you have a lot of evidence that you don't like them, you can only convict if things are proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Evolution Scientists have yet to do that.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

no, I will not be answering any more of your questions on this subject, as it a
complete waste of time and bandwidth.

---

Well, you can choose to answer them or not, that is your choice. The thing is that you still posted something directed at me. Yet you do not answer my questions, meerly push them aside as "irrevelant". This tells me that you either are too knowledgeable and high and mighty to answer someone else's questions, or that you don't know the answers. Well, I don't think it is the former, since you still posted something directed at me, so I guess it has to be the latter. So until you say something to the contrary, I will keep the mind set that you don't know.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

As I said, your questions have been answered ad nauseum

---

Not really. It seems that I am posting replys to everyone, yet some of the questions I have asked have still not been answered. Like who decides morals if there is no God? That one has been left aside for a while. There are others, but that is just an example.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

your "evidence" and "science" been shot down in flames many times

---

Well, it seems to me like this is just a bunch of rhetorical fluff. I despise rhetorical fluff. You see, those things that I have brought up have not been shot down "in flames". At most they have been responded to an equal argument on the other side. The same evidence is there, yet the interpreter is different, and you say that this is shooting my evidence and science down?!

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

As I've said before - if you choose to beleive such things, then fine. That's up
to you, and is a personal matter.But don't for a second think that what
these places present is in any way sound science.

---

First off, that is hypocracy. Second off, if that is not science, then what doctors, biologists, zoologists, etc. do is not science. Because they are certified doctors, biologists, zoologists, etc.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

The fact that you choose to not accept the vast difference between what science
is, and what YEC's call "science" does not nullify that vast difference.

---

It's not what I choose, it is what scientists choose. I just choose to listen to what the scientists and teachers have to say.

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

Gideon, I think you may have missed my point. What I was trying to say with my analogy was that you cannot take a scientific principle like the rate of radioactive decay and say that it works in one arena and not in another. It's like saying that gravity works to keep your feet planted to the ground but it doesn't work for keeping the earth going around the sun because it doesn't fit some predefined set of beliefs.

I have great respect for teachers. I know that many teachers don't have PhDs. What does that have to do with anything? They are knowledgable in their chosen fields - but I would be disinclined to call them all experts in their fields. But that is neither here nor there. The point of contention here is not Creationists. It is young earth creationists that are in question. I can neither prove nor disprove that some higher power made this planet. I can however, dispute when that occured. The idea that said higher power would "plant evidence" so-to-speak to make his/her experiment think that the planet was older than it actually is - that is just absurd. If every single piece of evidence that has been uncovered about the age of the planet is just some giant deific hoax - I can assure you that I really want no part of that deity. Or is this the part where the evil demon comes in and plants this evidence?

Creation and Evolution can very peacefully co-exist with a metaphorical interpretation of the creation story in Genesis. Time was a very relative thing back then and comprehension of vast amounts of time was likely very limited. Keep this in mind though, Gideon: As long as you have chosen to only believe in a literal interpretation of the creation story, everything you see will be filtered through that interpretation. Regardless of how sound any evidence is that is presented to you that points to the contrary, you will be inclined to disbelieve and doubt it - despite your declarations of having an open mind.

quote:

---

Like who decides morals if there is no God?

---

Man is certaintly up to the task.
Paraphrase: Do what you want as long as you don't hurt anybody - that shall be the whole of the law.
If you want to know more about that phrase, look into objectivism and you will find various flavors and wordings of it. You might even be able to find what that phrase is based on.

quote:

---

For a majority, maybe, but if the world wanted 2+2 to equal 5 would it? No. Why? Because 2+2=4. That is a truth. Even if everyone else really wanted it to be five, the truth is that it is 4.

---

Finally, you come to a correct conclusion. Thank you for proving everything we have been talking about - and I don't mean you, or the YECs. You just lost all pretense with that one. The evidence and the facts all add up to 4 on the side of Science and Evolution! On the side of the YECs it all adds up to 5, 6, 7,8...in fact, it just doesn't add up at all. Finally. It was about time you opened your eyes. Too bad your mind is not connected.

quote:

---

Well, it seems to me like this is just a bunch of rhetorical fluff. I despise rhetorical fluff. You see, those things that I have brought up have not been shot down "in flames". At most they have been responded to an equal argument on the other side. The same evidence is there, yet the interpreter is different, and you say that this is shooting my evidence and science down?!

---

Typical response from someone who has nothing left to respond with. And yes, they not only have been shot down in flames, but have been ridiculed in doing so. You even admit it above. You come to the right conclusion. You just are confused about who has the right conclusion. Unfortunately, you still don't seem to be able to add. Poor kid.

quote:

---

Like who decides morals if there is no God?

---

Man and Nature. Because that is who has been doing it, all along. Learn to add.

quote:

---

The Theory of Evolution, if used in context of Darwin's findings, does try to say that there is no God, or at least on who was not involved in the Creation of the world. His findings suggest that we came to being just by natural selection. There is no God in that senario.

---

Been sniffing the paint thinner again? It nowhere says that there is a god, nor does it say there is not. Man, you really are one brainwashed child. Learn to add. Dwarwin's Theory of Evolution never says ANYTHING about the Creation of the world. That is the stupidest conclusion I have ever heard. That is 2+2=230! Learn to add. There is no god in that scenario, because it is a natural process. It doesn't however mean that there is no god. Learn to add. Oh, you think it is the work of the devil! After all, you say that anything that is Science that tries to "disprove god" is from the devil. I take back the paint thinner sniffing. Lay off the hard drugs.

quote:

---

Evolution is a bad word to use for species that are changing, mainly for the fact that there is a net loss of genetic information. There is little or no increase. Even mutation involved (which is generally a loss of a genetic coding) there is not enough to make a net increase.

---

Come again? A net loss of genetic information? Have you lost all your marbles? You are not talking about a mutation, you are talking about damage to the DNA stucture, where information then is lost. A mutation of the genetic structure does not mean that anything is "lost" - just changed. Learn to add. Go to Observed Instances of Speciation. Read it. If your head threatens to explode, then come back here and ask for explainations.

So, what have we learned? Gideon can't add. We have also learned, that Gideon thinks that Evolution is the work of the devil. Sad stuff.

What a waste of education.

Here, I took the liberty of digging this up from Talk:Origins

quote:

---

A large part of the reason why Creationist arguments against evolution can sound so persuasive is because they don't address evolution, but rather argue against a set of misunderstandings that people are right to consider ludicrous. The Creationists wrongly believe that their understanding of evolution is what the theory of evolution really says, and declare evolution banished. In fact, they haven't even addressed the topic of evolution. (The situation isn't helped by poor science education generally. Even most beginning college biology students don't understand the theory of evolution.)

The five propositions below seem to be the most common misconceptions based on a Creationist straw-man version of evolution. If you hear anyone making any of them, chances are excellent that they don't know enough about the real theory of evolution to make informed opinions about it.

* Evolution has never been observed.
* Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
* There are no transitional fossils.
* The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.
* Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved.

"The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance."

There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn't understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.

Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go).

Some people still argue that it is wildly improbable for a given self-replicating molecule to form at a given point (although they usually don't state the "givens," but leave them implicit in their calculations). This is true, but there were oceans of molecules working on the problem, and no one knows how many possible self-replicating molecules could have served as the first one. A calculation of the odds of abiogenesis is worthless unless it recognizes the immense range of starting materials that the first replicator might have formed from, the probably innumerable different forms that the first replicator might have taken, and the fact that much of the construction of the replicating molecule would have been non-random to start with.

(One should also note that the theory of evolution doesn't depend on how the first life began. The truth or falsity of any theory of abiogenesis wouldn't affect evolution in the least.)


"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.

Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. The argument rests on a confusion between what "theory" means in informal usage and in a scientific context. A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.)

Lack of proof isn't a weakness, either. On the contrary, claiming infallibility for one's conclusions is a sign of hubris. Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be. Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you're operating in. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain.

What evolution has is what any good scientific claim has--evidence, and lots of it. Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others. If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better. Of course, to do this, you must know both the theory and the evidence.


Conclusion

These are not the only misconceptions about evolution by any means. Other common misunderstandings include how geological dating techniques work, implications to morality and religion, the meaning of "uniformitarianism," and many more. To address all these objections here would be impossible.

But consider: About a hundred years ago, scientists, who were then mostly creationists, looked at the world to figure out how God did things. These creationists came to the conclusions of an old earth and species originating by evolution. Since then, thousands of scientists have been studying evolution with increasingly more sophisticated tools. Many of these scientists have excellent understandings of the laws of thermodynamics, how fossil finds are interpreted, etc., and finding a better alternative to evolution would win them fame and fortune. Sometimes their work has changed our understanding of significant details of how evolution operates, but the theory of evolution still has essentially unanimous agreement from the people who work on it.

---

Now get that in your head. Memorize it. Tattoo it on your forehead if you must. But learn it!

(Edited by WebShaman on 01-27-2005 23:56)

(Edited by WebShaman on 01-28-2005 00:05)

quote:

---

Yet you do not answer my questions, meerly push them aside as "irrevelant". This tells me that you either are too knowledgeable and high and mighty to answer someone else's questions, or that you don't know the answers.

---

And if we hadn't gone 'round this circle a good 20 times already, with you simply dismissing all of the scientific fact presented to you, you might have a point.

As it stands, your contributions to the issue at hand have been completely void of any scientific understanding, and completely void of any attempt to learn from sources other than the creation pseudo-scientists. You regurgitate what the creationists tell you rather than trying to verify what they say.

This is proven by your outright refusal to even consider the things that have been said to you beyond a simple comparison against what the creationists say. If you aren't willing to even consider your view to be wrong, there is no point in debate.


On the other hand, everyone here so far who has given you real and valid information, has also done research on the creation websites, and given them a fair shot.
Most of the time, the creation sites are very honestly laughable (albeit sad, and a little frightening) in regard to these issues.

It is also IMPERITIVE to understand this point: "evolutionists" are not a group of people who run around with the sole purpose of refuting creationsim, and are not people whose whole basis of life is the idea of evolution.

Just as atheism is not a religion, "evolutionism" isn't even....a thing. It's just a "Creationist" term to make it more convenient to argue.