BlackBerry Forums Support Community

BlackBerry Forums Support Community (http://www.blackberryforums.com/index.php)
-   Sensitive Discussions (http://www.blackberryforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=129)
-   -   President Obama and Evolution (http://www.blackberryforums.com/showthread.php?t=172128)

JSanders 02-14-2009 05:38 PM

Wirelessly posted (9530; .108 MF231)

Quote:

Originally Posted by test54
believing in science has nothing at all with being Liberal or Conservative.

Jsanders, you really shouldn't throw stones....if you know the saying.

Oh give it a break. This thread has too much written proof of the intolerance of the evolutionists posting here.
Y'all resort to calling stupid anyone who disagrees with you. You didn't want a debate over this issue, you want to sit around and get all warm and fuzzy with agreements, I guess.
You continually claim your "education" as a superior point demeaning anyone who doesn't fall lockstep with you.
And, as was stated earlier, lol, you gain nothing as it won't matter in the end.

jsconyers 02-14-2009 05:52 PM

Everyone's standing solid behind their beliefs on this subject and it will not change. That seems pretty evident. As I stated before in this thread, I am agnostic. I believe there is a God, I also believe in evolution. I know some of you do not believe that is possible. There are just too many questions that I personally have to fully follow one religion at this point. I'm trying to research multiple religions and beliefs with an open mind. I want to get a better understanding of what each religion and/or belief has to offer before I put my complete faith into it.

Looking at this thread, there are a lot of good points made on both sides. I think now the debate/argument has become too personal. The accusations, personal attacks and so forth are not necessary. I have not posted a lot in this thread, but I have been reading it pretty consistently. I would love for this debate to continue, if it can do so without getting more personal. If not, this thread should probably be closed.

Having said that. If anyone, on any side of the fence, could point me to some good material on this topic, it would be greatly appreciated.

mriff 02-14-2009 06:35 PM

jsconyers, I mentioned a couple of books earlier in this thread. Dr. Sean Carroll is a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Wisconson - Madison. He has written two widely acclaimed books on evolution. Both for the lay person. Here is a website that you might find useful in choosing one of his books to read.

Carroll lab

I would start with Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo. It's a really good read.

mriff 02-14-2009 06:37 PM

If you want to seriously delve into the debate on evolution/creationism, then this website is very good.

TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy

jsconyers 02-14-2009 06:46 PM

Thanks for the suggestions, I will definitely give those a look.

Anyone that is opposed to Evolution have any good material?

JSanders 02-14-2009 06:51 PM

The thread was settled well enough in the first few posts as to the varying points on evolution. The rest, as was stated earlier is mostly "meaningless" and "gibberish."

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsconyers (Post 1285580)
I'm trying to research multiple religions and beliefs with an open mind. I want to get a better understanding of what each religion and/or belief has to offer before I put my complete faith into it.

What is your goal: To feel good now, find a manner of worship, or ensure yourself for eternity? Decide what you want, I guess, first. My beliefs were instilled in me as a young man, and have grown more completely understood as I got older. So I never shopped around. Knowing there is the one true God who accepts and loves me as I am and wants me to be with Him now and forever satisfies my soul.

mriff 02-14-2009 06:54 PM

If anybody cares to read, I think this is a very nice concise summary of ideas on evolution/creationism.

An Introduction to the Evolution versus Creation Debate

mriff 02-14-2009 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsconyers (Post 1285639)
Thanks for the suggestions, I will definitely give those a look.

Anyone that is opposed to Evolution have any good material?

This is generally considered the most widely recognized website which attempts to refute the Theory of Evolution:

Discovery Institute

jsconyers 02-14-2009 07:18 PM

I would say my goal is all three options you've given. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think fully putting your faith into something fulfills all of those. Eternity is a scary thing to fathom for me personally. I don't know if that's a reason I have a hard time grasping onto a religion or not.

I've grown up going to church and believing in Christ. My mother has always been a firm believer. I got away from it in my late teenage years and haven't ever got back into it. I respect the fact that you and many others can put your faith whole-heartedly into something. I would love to have that in my life at one point.

I will continue to view the differences and get feedback/input from believers of all beliefs. It is hard to do at times as some people try to push their religion on you as the only option. That tends to push me away a lot of the times.

mriff 02-15-2009 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mriff (Post 1285646)
If anybody cares to read, I think this is a very nice concise summary of ideas on evolution/creationism.

An Introduction to the Evolution versus Creation Debate

For those that didn't open the link and read, I wanted to post just one paragraph of the article. It's a very good point in the debate. At least I think it is. Evolutionary biologists are on a quest for truth through discovery, just as any other scientist. And yet, they are vilified by some for even being interested in this path of scientific work.

This short introductory article to the debate is one of the best I've read.

Evolution is no more atheistic than is medicine. Practitioners in both fields exclude supernatural interventions from their explanations of the phenomena they investigate. For example, you wouldn't expect your doctor to say, "We don't need to research your disease because we believe it's the result of a curse from God, so your only treatment is repentance." Just because medicine excludes supernatural explanations as a matter of method, it does not follow that medicine is therefore committed to atheism. Medical doctors are not being inconsistent when they both believe in God, and practice medicine under the working assumption that God has not jumped in to manipulate natural laws in order to create a disease or other medical phenomena. Similarly, evolutionary science also excludes supernatural explanations as a matter of method, but again, this is not equivalent to saying that evolutionists are committed to atheism. What medicine and evolution (and all the sciences) are saying is that direct intervention by God, or other supernatural beings, is assumed to be unnecessary in explaining the phenomena they investigate.

jsconyers 02-17-2009 04:05 PM

To bring some humor to this thread...

There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live.

Lucius J. Belmont 02-17-2009 04:47 PM

Fantastic quote, Mriff. It's amazing to me how people who don't believe in evolution still tend to have a full medicine cabinet of science-based medicines. It's like that scene in Life of Bryan...What did the Romans ever do for us, besides the roads, the aquaducts, the roads, the wine, the medicine, the irrigation, public safety...what did science ever do for us, anyway? :razz:

Anyway, it seems a moot point. There are way too many creation stories to teach them all, buffet-style. Just teach what science backs up and leave individual religion-customised teaching to the parents, where it should be. If your kids are learning their beliefs strictly from school, you're probably doing the parenting thing wrong anyway.

mriff 02-17-2009 07:36 PM

Salient points all, LJB!

mriff 02-17-2009 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsconyers (Post 1288854)
To bring some humor to this thread...

There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live.

Very funny! Although the not so funny part is that if you actually asked Chuck Norris if evolution should be taught in public school, I think the answer would surprise you.

Dawg 02-18-2009 06:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucius J. Belmont (Post 1288910)
Fantastic quote, Mriff. It's amazing to me how people who don't believe in evolution still tend to have a full medicine cabinet of science-based medicines. It's like that scene in Life of Bryan...What did the Romans ever do for us, besides the roads, the aquaducts, the roads, the wine, the medicine, the irrigation, public safety...what did science ever do for us, anyway? :razz:

Anyway, it seems a moot point. There are way too many creation stories to teach them all, buffet-style. Just teach what science backs up and leave individual religion-customised teaching to the parents, where it should be. If your kids are learning their beliefs strictly from school, you're probably doing the parenting thing wrong anyway.

I never said I didnt believe in science. I believe science is just discovering what God has allowed them to discover. I have met many Christian Surgeons that always pray that God guide thier hands as they open the patient up. Most of my fathers doctors were Christian doctors. They also said when they couldnt do any more that it was in Gods hands now.

mriff 02-18-2009 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dawg (Post 1289436)
I never said I didnt believe in science. I believe science is just discovering what God has allowed them to discover. I have met many Christian Surgeons that always pray that God guide thier hands as they open the patient up. Most of my fathers doctors were Christian doctors. They also said when they couldnt do any more that it was in Gods hands now.

Dawg, that's just the point I was trying to make earlier (see post 210). You trust that the doctors you rely on have studied all the latest science and that they know it well. That they have built their practice on an ever explanding and accepted body of knowlegde of medicine. You trust other branches of science. But when it comes to biologists, they are not afforded the same status. They are not believed, sometimes at all. As a matter of fact, they are attacked for what they choose to study, especially those doctors and scientists who study evolutionary biology. I don't think you can choose which science is convenient to accept. At least I can't. I would encourage you to carefully read the article that I quoted in the post above. I would be very interested to get your thoughts on it.

Dawg 02-18-2009 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mriff (Post 1289510)
Dawg, that's just the point I was trying to make earlier (see post 210). You trust that the doctors you rely on have studied all the latest science and that they know it well. That they have built their practice on an ever explanding and accepted body of knowlegde of medicine. You trust other branches of science. But when it comes to biologists, they are not afforded the same status. They are not believed, sometimes at all. As a matter of fact, they are attacked for what they choose to study, especially those doctors and scientists who study evolutionary biology. I don't think you can choose which science is convenient to accept. At least I can't. I would encourage you to carefully read the article that I quoted in the post above. I would be very interested to get your thoughts on it.

evolution is a theory and until it is proven with out one splinter of doubt it will be just that a theory. I chose proven science that to me was given by God. Not discovered by man because with out God there can be no discovery

djm2 02-18-2009 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dawg (Post 1289812)
evolution is a theory and until it is proven with out one splinter of doubt it will be just that a theory. I chose proven science that to me was given by God. Not discovered by man because with out God there can be no discovery

I just had a revelation from God who told me that Darwin was right and that he (Darwin) would never have figured out the beauty of evolution without divine intervention. Dawg, he wants you to start believing -- NOW!

Dawg 02-18-2009 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djm2 (Post 1290226)
I just had a revelation from God who told me that Darwin was right and that he (Darwin) would never have figured out the beauty of evolution without divine intervention. Dawg, he wants you to start believing -- NOW!

He also warns of false prophets.

Lucius J. Belmont 02-18-2009 07:14 PM

I could prove it pretty easily. Look at my dog; he's not a wolf, and God didn't change him from one. Selective breeding by humans put artificial evolutionary pressures on a subset of his species until he became something very different. I'd be willing to believe God inspired this, at least the non-cruel selective breedings (pugs are an abomination, I don't care what they say), but it certainly happened, over time, in a very real and not-in-the-least supernatural manner; my bed isn't full of wolves, though genetically it'd be hard to tell. Look at my bloodred morph cornsnake; they don't exist in the wild, man made them because they're pretty in ways that nature would never select for, they stand out too much and would become prey. They had the potential for all these bright colours and patterns, which is a fascinating, amazing, beautiful thing, but the pressures of reproducing and surviving optimised them for their practical surroundings. The forces that change things over time (ding, change over time, evolution) exist, that's all there is to it. It's like that famous experiment, breed foxes for ten or so generations and you almost get a different animal based on what humans, acting in place of nature, selects for. You can't work in animal husbandry at all without realising this. If a human breeder can do it in ten generations or less, think how much change the substantial power of nature has enforced over millions of years? Or even six thousand, if you want to defenestrate another innocent branch of science. Poor geology. *tear* The principles behind evolution are real forces that can be modified into a tool of humankind as much as fire or hammers. No one thinks hammers are a theory.

I think the idea that everything is filled with the potential for something else is amazing and fantastic. I can take drab animals and make works of art; nature could take my foofy creations and revert them to something that survives a natural state, optimised better than man ever could manage. There's so much more at work here than than unexplained "Poof! God made it!" like fairytale magic, reality is so intricate, how could a believer -not- think it's the work of God? Reality is a miracle and people would swap it for the folklore of primitive generations...that makes me really sad, no matter how beautiful and allegorical the stories are.

djm2 02-18-2009 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dawg (Post 1290475)
He also warns of false prophets.

Thanks for walking right into that one. I owe you one.

This post, combined with your immediately previous one, perfectly illustrates the circular logic and failure to adhere to the principle of falsifiability that is central to scientific reasoning, and which is at the core of the creationist/intelligent design approach to these questions.

Dawg 02-19-2009 05:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djm2 (Post 1290526)
Thanks for walking right into that one. I owe you one.

This post, combined with your immediately previous one, perfectly illustrates the circular logic and failure to adhere to the principle of falsifiability that is central to scientific reasoning, and which is at the core of the creationist/intelligent design approach to these questions.

I didn't walk into anything, That is a core belief I have. You said something that was totally false and condemned me for not believing it. You're the one who looks silly. You can try and rope me into anything you want. There is no scientific reasoning worth believing in regards to evolution. There are to many gaps and questions that remain unanswered.

Do you know how to tell when a science teacher is lying? He starts his sentence with millions and millions of years ago.

An evolutionist and God decide to have a competition to create man from dirt. As they walk along the beach God reaches down and graps a hand full of sand and goes to work. The evolutionist reaches down and God stops him and says wait now, you need to get your own dirt. :razz:

test54 02-19-2009 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dawg (Post 1290882)
Do you know how to tell when a science teacher is lying? He starts his sentence with millions and millions of years ago.
:

I know many Christian geologists that would certainly disagree. In your opinion are they really Christian if they believe the earth is millions of years old?

Dawg 02-19-2009 08:51 AM

No, I don't think they are. As I have stated many times in this thread, but I know how you guys work you keep forgetting when people say things.

Dawg 02-19-2009 08:55 AM

More Clues That the Earth is Young
Author(s): Bruce Malone
Evolution assumes that man dropped out of the trees 1 to 5 million years ago and became fully human approximately 100,000 years ago. Yet archeological records show civilization arising only about 5,000 years ago (based on evolutionary thinking). In other words, by evolutionary reasoning, it took mankind 95,000 years after becoming fully human to figure out that food could be produced by dropping a seed into the ground!

Another indication of both a young earth and a confirmation of the worldwide flood is the scarcity of meteors in sedimentary rock layers. Although some meteors have been found in sedimentary layers, they are relatively rare. Meteors are easily identifiable, and many thousands have been identified and recovered from recent impacts on the planetxxx8217;s surface. If most of the rock layers were laid down rapidly during the one year period of a worldwide flood, you would not expect to find many meteorites buried in only one year. However, if the sediment was laid down over billions of years, there should be multiple billions of meteorites buried within this sediment. The fact that we find so few is another possible evidence for the rapid accumulation of the sedimentary layers and a young earth.

Suppose you walked into an empty room and found a smoking cigar. You could assume that the cigar was very old and that it had only recently burst into flames, but the more logical conclusion would be that someone had recently been there to light it. The universe is full of similar "smoking cigars":

All planetary rings still exhibit intricacies which Should Have long ago disappeared.
All known comets burn up their material with each pass around the sun and Should Have a maximum life expectancy of 100,000 years.
The outer solar system planets should have long ago cooled off.
The spiral galaxies Should Have long ago un-spiraled, and the uneven dispersion of matter in the universe Should Have long ago dispersed.
Scientists working from the preconception that the universe is 10-20 billion years old have suggested controversial and complicated possibilities for how these types of transient phenomena could still exist but their explanations are based more on faith, not science. The simpler explanation is that these "smoking cigars" are smoking because they are young.

What about dating methods which do seem to indicate that things are very old ? As seen in the first article on dating methods, assumptions are everything. For instance, carbon-14 generation rate has never significantly changed. This method does not date the age of the earth but understanding it can have a profound effect on our interpretation of the "ice age" and the "stone age". A recent worldwide catastrophe would have caused an enormous change in the total amount of carbon on earth's biosphere. This event would completely invalidate one of the basic assumptions of the carbon-14 dating method (a known carbon-14 to carbon-12 ratio throughout the measurement period) and lead to excessively old dates for organisms alive shortly after this flood. This problem with carbon-14 dating assumptions will be described in detail in another article.

Dawg 02-19-2009 09:04 AM

A Creationist's Challenge To Evolutionists
Author(s): Robert Congelliere
In Time Magazine, August 23, 1999, evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould asserted that "evolution is as well documented as any phenomenon in science" and "we can call evolution a 'fact'". This is typical of the stratagem used by evolutionists: If you make a statement strong enough and repeat it often enough, you may be able to convince yourself and others that it may be true. I would like to remind evolutionists that, despite their dogmatism, there are many knowledgeable people who do not believe that the evidence supports the theory of evolution.

One of the most-powerful pieces of evidence against evolution is the fossil record. If evolution occurred by slow, minute changes in living creatures, there would be thousands of times more transitional forms of these creatures in the fossil beds than complete forms. Since the billions of fossils that have been found are all complete forms, the obvious conclusion is: Evolution has never occurred! Though evolutionists have stated that there are many transitional forms, this is simply not true. What evolutionists claim to be transitional forms all have fully functional parts. A true transitional form would have non-functioning parts or appendages, such as the nub of a leg or wing.

(1) Where are the trillions of fossils of such true transitional forms?

Critics of creationism often say that creationism is simply religion, whereas evolutionism is based on science. The Bible says in Genesis 1 that all creatures reproduce "after their kind"(no change to another kind, i.e., no transitional forms). So the complete absence of transitional forms in the fossil record supports creationism.

(2) Is this scientific evidence for creationism, or isn't it?

I have also noted that evolutionists only discuss this subject in the broadest terms. If evolution is true, why don't they give us answers to questions such as these:

(3)Where did all the 90-plus elements come from (iron, barium, calcium, silver, nickel, neon, chlorine, etc)?

(4) How do you explain the precision in the design of the elements, with increasing numbers of electrons in orbit around the nucleus?

(5) Where did the thousands of compounds we find in the world come from: carbon dioxide, sodium chloride, calcium hydroxide, hydrochloric acid, oxalic acid, chlorophyll, sucrose, hydrogen sulfide, benzene, aluminum silicate, mercaptans, propane, silicon dioxide, boric acid, etc.?

How was it determined how many bonds each element would have for combining with other elements? When did these compounds develop from the elements (before the big bang, during the big bang, after the big bang)? When evolutionists use the term "matter", which of the thousands of compounds are included? When evolutionists use the term ";primordial soup", which of the elements and compounds are included? Why do books on evolution, including grade-school, high-school and college textbooks not include such important, basic information? Evolutionists are masters of speculation. Why don't they speculate about this?

(6) How did life develop from non-life?

(7) Where did the human emotions, such as love, hate, and jealousy come from?

(8) What are the odds that the evolutionary process, proceeding by random changes, would produce human beings, plus millions of species of animals, birds, fish, and insects, all with symmetrical features, i.e., one side being a mirror image of the other? We take symmetry in all these creatures for granted, but is that a reasonable outcome for a random process?

(9) What are the odds that of the millions of species of animals, birds, fish, and insects, a male of each species developed at the same time and in the same place as a female of the same species, so that the species could propagate?

(10) Why are there 2 sexes anyhow? This is not foreordained in the evolutionary framework. Is there some sort of plan here?

(11) If the first generation of mating species didn't have parents, how did the mating pair get to that point anyhow? Isn't evolution supposed to progress when an offspring of a mating pair has a beneficial mutation?

Conclusion: No parents, no evolution. A species would have to jump from a primitive form to a fully developed male and female, each with the ability and instinct to mate.

(12) How did the heart, lungs, brain, stomach, veins, blood, kidneys, etc. develop in the first animal by slow, minute steps and the animal survive while these changes were occurring?

For example, did the first animal develop 10% of complete veins, then 20%, and on up to 100%, with veins throughout its entire body and brain? Then how did the heart slowly develop in the animal and get attached to the veins in the right spot? How did the blood enter the system? The blood could not enter before the veins were complete or it would spill out. Where did the blood come from? Did the blood have red corpuscles, white corpuscles, platelets, and plasma? At what point in this process of development did the heart start beating?

Did the animal develop a partial stomach, then a complete stomach? After the stomach was formed, how did the digestive juices enter the stomach? Where did the hydrochloric acid as part of the digestive juices come from? What about its kidney and bladder? The animal better not eat anything prior to this. How did the animal survive during these changes? (And over thousands of years?) Of course, at the same time the animal's eyes must be fully developed so it can see its food and his brain must be fully developed so the animal can control its body to get to the food.

Like the heart, brain, veins, and stomach, all of the organs and systems in the first animal's body must be fully functional in the first moments of life. This indicates that evolution couldn't occur, and the fossil record indicates that it didn't occur!!! In other words, if you cannot come up with a detailed, feasible scenario of how the first animal developed, the whole evolutionary theory goes out the window, because it never could have even gotten started! Or is your attitude going to be: "Don't bother me with such details. My mind is made up".?

(13) Why do books on evolution, including biology textbooks, always start with a fully developed animal when attempting to explain how one species developed into another species? Why don't evolutionists first explain how the first animal developed? (An animal with a heart, lungs, brain, stomach, etc.)

(14) What are the odds that the evolutionary process, proceeding by random changes, would produce a system in human reproduction whereby exactly 50% of offspring are male and 50% are female (based on 50% X-chromosomes and 50% Y-chromosomes)? Again is there some sort of a plan here?

To a creationist, the incredible complexity of human life, animal life, plant life, and the universe is absolutely overwhelming evidence that there must have been a designer. Evidence for a designer: The law of gravity is basic to an understanding of the universe.

(15) Where did the law of gravity come from? Did it have a beginning? Isn't it reasonable to assume that when matter was created, the law of gravity was established at the same time to regulate matter?

Further evidence: The earth receives an incredible amount of energy from the sun, even though the sun is 93,000,000 miles away. Yet the earth only receives one part in 2 trillion of the sun's total energy. And since the sun is only an average star among the 100 trillion billion stars in the universe, the total energy in all these stars is absolutely beyond human comprehension. ( I have read that the number of stars is greater than the number of grains of sand in every beach and desert in the world! )

(16) Where did this energy come from? Isn't the only reasonable answer that it was the result of a creative act by an almighty designer/creator?

(17) Why do evolutionists summarily dismiss the evidence from design without any serious consideration?

Professor D.M.S. Watson, zoologist and Chair of Evolution at University College London has given us some insight as to why this is so. He said, "Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible". This of course is an admission that the foundation of evolution is not science, but a rejection of the supernatural. Evolution then is simply the best alternative anyone has been able to come up with. This also means that evolution is the only field in science where one decides on the answer first, and then looks for evidence to support that predetermined answer.

(18) Other than rejection of the supernatural, how else can one explain the steadfast adherence of evolutionists to this theory even though they do not know the origin of the 3 main bases of evolution: the origin of matter, the origin of energy, and the origin of life?

If you believe in evolution:

(19) Can you give us just one coercive proof of evolution, i.e., a proof that absolutely eliminates any other possible explanation for the origin of the universe, the material world, and human life?

(20) Isn't it true that rather than proofs of evolution, all that evolutionists can come up with are evidences for evolution to someone who already believes in evolution?

Let's see some answers to important questions such as these, rather than a discussion of what is science and what is religion. That type of discussion is entirely irrelevant. What we seek is the truth, and creationism is a far more reasonable and logical explanation of the origin of the universe, the material world, and human life.

Students: Make a copy of this CHALLENGE TO EVOLUTIONISTS and ask your teacher or professor to give you answers to these questions. If they cannot, you have a right to be skeptical that what they are teaching you about evolution is true. Also, give copies to your fellow students so that they too will be aware that there are huge flaws in the theory of evolution. And of course it is still a theory, not a"fact".

Robert H. Congelliere

test54 02-19-2009 09:34 AM

Luke 6:37 (New International Version)
"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven."

Dawg, can you just post links - the long posts are a PIA to sort through all the time. Some of the questions are pretty easy to pick apart and answer.

and I don't forget what you had said in the past, I'm just shocked enough to ask a similar question to see if I understood you the first time. So to you all Catholics are going to hell along with all people who do not fully accept the creationist theory.

To me, evidence wise evolution is at 90% and creationism is at about 2%. There are gaps in the evolutionary theory but nothing like the gaps in the evidence of creationism. It still boils down to your faith in Religion or faith in what you see. There are just certain things not discussed in the Bible that make it hard to think that the Bible can be taken as the history of the physical world.

Dawg 02-19-2009 12:40 PM

Then answer the 20 question genius, dont just spout BS, answer the questions.

New International hahahaha
next youll wanna quote me the gay bible

test54 02-19-2009 12:46 PM

Umm NIV or KJV the meaning is the same. I have also read the greek version as well, guess what it still means the same thing.
I guess it doesn't matter to you though, everything is in black & white as you have stated.

also, I did not see you answering back on any of the previous articles regarding evolution. probably for the same reason I do not care to answer this guys questions that you plastered over half the page.

So I guess God just made the Earth to look old and put those fossils down there to throw us off. Maybe he saw better ways for things to live so he gradually changed them over time....that neanderthal man just needed a few changes in God's eyes. He also put flood stories into all the world's major religions and turned the Garden of Eden into the Oil capital(Islam) of the world just for the irony of it. - rant done. Free Will allows choice, choice in everything including the way you believe. at least in my mind.

and to compare the NIV version of the Bible to some gay bible is pretty bad even for you.

Dawg 02-19-2009 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by test54 (Post 1291340)
Umm NIV or KJV the meaning is the same. I have also read the greek version as well, guess what it still means the same thing.
I guess it doesn't matter to you though, everything is in black & white as you have stated.

also, I did not see you answering back on any of the previous articles regarding evolution. probably for the same reason I do not care to answer this guys questions that you plastered over half the page.

So I guess God just made the Earth to look old and put those fossils down there to throw us off. Maybe he saw better ways for things to live so he gradually changed them over time....that neanderthal man just needed a few changes in God's eyes. He also put flood stories into all the world's major religions and turned the Garden of Eden into the Oil capital(Islam) of the world just for the irony of it. - rant done. Free Will allows choice, choice in everything including the way you believe. at least in my mind.

and to compare the NIV version of the Bible to some gay bible is pretty bad even for you.

You are the one who said the questions were easliy answered. And your comments go to prove that you didnt read it anyway. The flood is the reasoning for the fossils they were buried in the sediment of the flood. Have you never witnessed settling after a flood. To me the flood explains fossils the Grand Canyon.

And for your information the people who print the gay bible are the same ones who print the NIV there are over 125 differences the NIV and the KJV. Now we are getting to my studies and I can guarantee that the NIV is not the same as the KJV. It also adds things that were never written in the Bible for instance try and find Matthew 17:21, Matthew 18:11. Mark 7:16, John 5:4, Acts 8:37, Acts 15:34, Acts 24:7, Romans 16:24 in the KJV its doesnt exist.

test54 02-19-2009 02:54 PM

I know nothing of a gay Bible but the NIV is published by Zondervan and I worked for one of their competitors for a number of years. Fanatics will attack anything I guess but the NIV opened up the Bible to millions of new people in the last 30-40 years. I personally think that its message is the same as the KJV.

But the holes in creationist theory exist in both versions.(y)

mriff 02-19-2009 03:07 PM

Dawg, look up the phrase 'False Dichotomy'. It's a well known tactic of creationists. In the case of the diatribe above, one can apply this question to EVERY ONE of the questions posed. EVERY ONE of the questions have been discussed to the nth degree across many diciplines, especially biology. There are answers to all of them, but you choose not to even try to understand.

mriff 02-19-2009 03:15 PM

But just for the hell of it, I'll take this one.

(17) Why do evolutionists summarily dismiss the evidence from design without any serious consideration?

Because it can't be tested scientifically. It's why it's called science. But believe me, if it could be tested and proved, it would be Nobel time for that scientist. So it's not for lack of interest.

usblues1965 02-19-2009 03:25 PM

I don't know alot about science or religion. I was taught when I was young that God created man and women in his own image. I believe this, but I look around the world and see that virtually no other person on this earth looks like me. (believe me that is a good thing! LOL!) I see whites, blacks, asians, muslims etc. I wonder who God make Adam and Eve to look like, and if there is no evolution how did the rest of us get here?

mriff 02-19-2009 06:34 PM

In a false dichotomy (also called a false dilemma, either or, black or white, the missing middle) you are presented with two choices, when in fact there are more than two choices. If one choice is discredited, then the reader is forced to accept the other choice. But this is not an adequate argument, the choice favored must be supported by evidence.

Examples:

"If today is not Tuesday, it must be Wednesday."

"I don't believe in evolution, so 'creation science' must be right."

"Its owls versus jobs, the environment or the economy." Not really, of course. Most of the jobs lost in the logging industry were from automation and exporting unprocessed logs, not from protecting endangered species. And several studies have shown that healthy environments and economies go hand in hand.

The dichotomy can also be in the form of a question, which not only restricts choices but also forces a decision. For example, a salesman will ask "Do you want the red car or the blue one."

djm2 02-19-2009 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dawg (Post 1290882)
I didn't walk into anything, That is a core belief I have. You said something that was totally false and condemned me for not believing it. You're the one who looks silly. You can try and rope me into anything you want. There is no scientific reasoning worth believing in regards to evolution. There are to many gaps and questions that remain unanswered.

Do you know how to tell when a science teacher is lying? He starts his sentence with millions and millions of years ago.

An evolutionist and God decide to have a competition to create man from dirt. As they walk along the beach God reaches down and graps a hand full of sand and goes to work. The evolutionist reaches down and God stops him and says wait now, you need to get your own dirt. :razz:

No, you did walk into it -- and you still don't even realize it. Not that you'd admit it even if you did, that's how beset with rigor mortis your brain is. Enough -- it reminds me of the old joke about internet arguments.

djm2 02-19-2009 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mriff (Post 1291546)
Dawg, look up the phrase 'False Dichotomy'. It's a well known tactic of creationists. In the case of the diatribe above, one can apply this question to EVERY ONE of the questions posed. EVERY ONE of the questions have been discussed to the nth degree across many diciplines, especially biology. There are answers to all of them, but you choose not to even try to understand.

Well, that would require being willing to consider evidence that would falsify his axioms. He's not willing to consider that.

Lucius J. Belmont 02-20-2009 12:15 AM

Seriously, the KJV? King James was a biased, lying sack of crap who would behead anyone who disagreed with him, of course his translators were faithful to the original and did a good job! I've translated a lot of the bible, Old and New Testament, the KJV just doesn't hold up at all. NRSV is the most accurate English translation currently available, but any translation is inferior to its original, just read that. It's pretty much impossible to accurately interpret a text outside of its cultural and linguistic context, anyway.

Dawg 02-20-2009 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djm2 (Post 1291904)
No, you did walk into it -- and you still don't even realize it. Not that you'd admit it even if you did, that's how beset with rigor mortis your brain is. Enough -- it reminds me of the old joke about internet arguments.

you keep telling yourself that, skippy. You disagree with me I disagree with most of you. We arent ever going to get anywhere. This thread has about run its course.

mriff 02-20-2009 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dawg (Post 1292280)
you keep telling yourself that, skippy. You disagree with me I disagree with most of you. We arent ever going to get anywhere. This thread has about run its course.

Maybe for you. But given it's number of views, I'd say there are lot of people interested in reading it.

Dawg 02-20-2009 09:01 AM

I would say the views are the ones posting here and since there are only maybe 5 of us active in the thread. But as I said you are not going to change anyones views and I am not going to change anyones views.

These are things that you either believe in or you don't.

mriff 02-20-2009 01:32 PM

Hot off the press. A very interesting story. There were paleontologists at this construction site because they might uncover fossils, due to it's proximity to the La Brea Tar Pits (prediction of a fossil find before it occurs). Sure enough a nearly intact mammoth was uncovered. But one sentence caught my attention:

The construction was being monitored by a consulting firm because the site is so close to the La Brea tar pits -- a site that has yielded between 3 million and 4 million fossilized bones.

So that many fossils have been found in one site, so far. No stretch at all to then make the conclusion that there are trillions of fossils around the globe. Check mark on question number one of the absurd list of questions from Robert Congelliere.

mriff 02-20-2009 01:48 PM

This is what drives scientists crazy. It's this kind of stuff that I consider an assault on rational thinking.

Blaine woman trying to get anti-evolution initiative on state ballot
SAM TAYLOR / THE BELLINGHAM HERALD

Kim Struiksma doesn't think evolution should be taught in schools. So the 25-year-old Blaine resident, along with a group of friends from her church, have fashioned Initiative 1040, which "concerns a supreme ruler of the universe." The initiative would prohibit "state use of public money or lands for anything that denies or attempts to refute the existence of a supreme ruler of the universe, including textbooks, instruction or research," according to paperwork filed on the Washington Secretary of State's Web site. Struiksma said during a telephone interview Wednesday, Feb. 18, that the initiative version online is being revamped and a second one would be offered to improve some the language.

"I think probably at least that more creation science is overlooked as not belonging in the public school system because of the religion (aspect)," she said. Citing the state Constitution, the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, the initiative states it "is about requiring our government to do its job, to protect our liberty, a liberty which has been endowed by our Creator, the one responsible for Blessing us, the Supreme Ruler of the Universe."

Struiksma and her grassroots group of supporters have a long road to go to get the initiative on the ballot. An initiative sponsor has to submit 241,153 valid voter signatures by July 3 to qualify, said Secretary of State Communications Director David Ammons.

Struiksma got the idea to offer up the initiative after hearing a presentation at Grace Baptist Church in Bellingham by Tom Hoyle, who operates Bible and Sciences Ministries out of Tacoma. Hoyle has been "actively involved in creation science missions for over 20 years," according to his Web site, hoyle.nwcreation.net. Hoyle disagrees with Struiksma and says it's OK to teach evolution in schools. He argues that evolution is a legitimate scientific theory, but it's incomplete and can't fully explain the existence of design in nature. And he is upset that schools don't allow those conversations to be had in public schools. "You don't have to mention God, you can simply emphasize the fact that wow, nature is awesome, it's very well designed and that macroevolution is an insufficient mechanism to explain all this stuff," he said.

Western Washington University biology professor David Leaf has taught classes on intelligent design and evolution to biology majors and has acted as a consultant to a group of Burlington-Edison School District residents who fought against intelligent design being offered in schools in the Skagit Valley. He said he believes the initiative operates on a "flawed assumption ... that the teaching of evolution in schools has anything to do with supporting or not supporting whether or not there is a supreme being." Struiksma and others are trying to contact conservative talk-show hosts and other groups to get their initiative message out, hoping they can get more support that way.

mriff 02-20-2009 01:55 PM

And on the lighter side, Virginia GOP Chair Jeff Frederick shares his views of Lincoln and Darwin. I say on the lighter side, only because of his inneptness. I guess it's more sad than funny.

Virginia GOP Chair goes all Cro-Magnon on Darwin, on his birthday | Right Wing Watch

usblues1965 02-20-2009 02:06 PM

This is, as is evident from the posts in this thread, a sensitive subject. Those who have posted have very definite positions on this issue. Positions that will not change no matter how many posts end up in this thread. I have no intentions to change any of the positions already stated, but to merely state my opinion as others have already done.
First off I am not a highly educated man; I do not work in a professional realm where intellect is abound. I rather consider that what I know of most things in life, I have gained through my experience and observation. Most of my working life has been spent in steel mills and construction. In these xxx8216;middlexxx8217; middle years I have found myself in more of a public relations/ sales role. Being of this type of employment has afforded me the opportunity to meet and talk to a wide range of people. What I have learned from many discussions about many varied issues is, to me at least, the core difference between the two main positions stated in this thread.
I have learned in my conversations that and this is a simple generalization Evolution occurs by a genetic mutation. Why such mutations occur we don not understand we just know they do occur. So in essence all of the change that has ever occurred has by chance. xxx8216;Somethingxxx8217; sparked the beginning of the universe, as the universe has expanded, debris happenxxx8217; to collide. These collisions caused chemical, magnetic, and electrical reactions that gave birth to the planets. Once formed our planet the earth sustained collisions from meteors and comets that caused further reactions similar to those mentioned above. Some of these reactions caused the beginning of life. From there genetic mutations explain, to some degree, the progression of life from that of a single celled organism to the life forms found on Earth today. As I said this is a very simple generalization of the Theory of Evolution as put forth by Charles Darwin. There are many articles, and papers that go into much greater detail than I am able to understand, as many people have devoted their entire careers to the study of this very Theory.
My knowledge of Creationism has come to my very much the same way. As I understand it. God created the Heavens and the Earth. He created the flora and fauna and lastly he created man. He created man not only for himself, but as custodian, caretaker to everything that came before him. That is pretty much it. It is simple as is my interpretation of the Theory of Evolution.
So what is the difference? To me it is simple; purpose. The Evolution theory does not give any purpose for us to exist. Without purpose there is no responsibility. Why should I struggle in an attempt to raise my child to be good and moral and responsible if only chance is going to determine her future? Why should I conserve fuel, live healthy, or any of these other things we are confronted with in this day in age, if there is no purpose to my life. I reject that. I reject not the notion that my life, my species, my world only exists by chance. At the end of the evening as I walk down the hall to my bedroom I look in on my daughter, I make sure she is sleeping and ok. In the morning I drive to work, surrounded by some of the most beautiful country anywhere in the world. Looking at all of this I know my purpose. I know my responsibility I know why Ixxx8217;m here. Evolution lacks that. I have seen too many times that people are no longer responsible for their actions. My parents are to blame, that cruel teacher in grade school is to blame, and a bully is to blame. Could this attitude be the result of teaching someone that he/she is on this earth only because of chance? Could it be that without that faith and the understanding of onexxx8217;s self that comes with it, we are in fact unable to determine what is best for not only ourselves, but our children and our earth? You may not think that teaching a child Evolution does no harm, but we know children think, they learn, they absorb what is going on around them. Children have the capacity to know that if they are here only by chance then there is no point to the rest of it. All the societies that have ever existed have taught that their existence has a purpose, all of them. It appears that having that purpose, that sense of responsibility, is key.

That ladies and gentleman is my $1,000.02!

mriff 02-20-2009 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by usblues1965 (Post 1292835)
So what is the difference? To me it is simple; purpose. The Evolution theory does not give any purpose for us to exist. Without purpose there is no responsibility. Why should I struggle in an attempt to raise my child to be good and moral and responsible if only chance is going to determine her future? Why should I conserve fuel, live healthy, or any of these other things we are confronted with in this day in age, if there is no purpose to my life. I reject that. I reject not the notion that my life, my species, my world only exists by chance. At the end of the evening as I walk down the hall to my bedroom I look in on my daughter, I make sure she is sleeping and ok. In the morning I drive to work, surrounded by some of the most beautiful country anywhere in the world. Looking at all of this I know my purpose. I know my responsibility I know why Ixxx8217;m here. Evolution lacks that. I have seen too many times that people are no longer responsible for their actions. My parents are to blame, that cruel teacher in grade school is to blame, and a bully is to blame. Could this attitude be the result of teaching someone that he/she is on this earth only because of chance? Could it be that without that faith and the understanding of onexxx8217;s self that comes with it, we are in fact unable to determine what is best for not only ourselves, but our children and our earth? You may not think that teaching a child Evolution does no harm, but we know children think, they learn, they absorb what is going on around them. Children have the capacity to know that if they are here only by chance then there is no point to the rest of it. All the societies that have ever existed have taught that their existence has a purpose, all of them. It appears that having that purpose, that sense of responsibility, is key.

That ladies and gentleman is my $1,000.02!

Very interesting. I get what you're saying. All I can say is that it should not be the purpose of evolutionary biologists to infer some moral code from their studies. Why should it be? I don't know of any other branch of science that is so burdoned.

Why should you do all the things you mention? Because you are a good and decent human being. And it is your responsibility to teach your children well. That shouldn't be the responsibility of your child's public school science teacher.

usblues1965 02-20-2009 07:03 PM

Wirelessly posted

I believe that evolutionary science does have that burden. I believe that beacuse it is the only one that has undertaken the origin of mankind. To think in science, any disclipine, that they only answers the question of how and never endevor to answer why is a bit careless. Chemistry not only wants to know how chemicls react they way but why do they react the way they do. Physics does not ony try to understand how thing act but why they act that way. So evolution science has to not only answer the question how 'we' happened, but why.

djm2 02-20-2009 07:21 PM

To answer the theoretical linkage questions of "why" and "how" is of course part of the package that must be addressed by and science. To generalize that to the level of addressing the questions of morality is, IMHO, a significant stretch.

usblues1965 02-20-2009 07:38 PM

Wirelessly posted

To think that science has no moral effect on society is a far greater stretch. Every major scientific discovery has not only had a profound effect on its immediate community. Those discoveries have also had efects on society. To think that evolutionary science only has to answer the simple mechanics, without reguard on its effect on society is careless.

mriff 02-20-2009 08:07 PM

I just don't get your arguments. There are other branches of science that help with these areas (Psychology and Psychiatry), as well as clergy, friends and others. And really, eminent scientists do struggle with how their findings will affect society at large. Have you ever read any biographies on Darwin? He struggled greatly with his discoveries and how he should communicate them to other scientists. He knew he would be vilified by many. But does that mean he should withhold his discoveries? And again, I don't see other branches of science that others feel compelled to closely examine with a skeptical eye. Scientists who study medicine make discoveries that effect society in much bigger ways than those studying evolution.

mriff 02-20-2009 08:25 PM

From Talkorigins:

Claim CA001: Evolution is the foundation of an immoral worldview.

Source: Moon, Rev. Sun Myung. 1990 (27 Mar.). Parents day and I.

Response:

Evolution is descriptive. It can be immoral only if attempting to accurately describe nature is immoral.

Any morals derived from evolution would have to recognize the fact that humans have evolved to be social animals. In a social setting, cooperation and even altruism lead to better fitness (Wedekind and Milinski 2000). The process of evolution leads naturally to social animals such as humans developing ethical principles such as the Golden Rule.

Some bad morals, such as eugenics and social Darwinism, are based on misunderstandings of evolution. Therefore, it is important that evolution be taught well to negate such misunderstandings.

Despite claims otherwise, creationism has its own problems. For one thing, it is founded on religious bigotry, so the foundation of creationism, by most standards, is immoral.

Probably the most effective weapon against bad morals is exposure and publicity. Evolution (and science in general) is based on a culture of making information public.

Scientists are their own harshest critics. They have developed codes of ethical behavior for several circumstances, and they have begun to talk about a general ethics (Rotblat 1999). Creationists have nothing similar.

Some people feel better about themselves by demonizing others. Those people who are truly interested in morals begin by looking for immorality within themselves, not others.

djm2 02-21-2009 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by usblues1965 (Post 1293227)
Wirelessly posted

To think that science has no moral effect on society is a far greater stretch. Every major scientific discovery has not only had a profound effect on its immediate community. Those discoveries have also had efects on society. To think that evolutionary science only has to answer the simple mechanics, without reguard on its effect on society is careless.

After thinking about your posts a little bit, I suspect that I am coming part way toward agreeing with you. The standard that I am comparing to is the nuclear bomb effort in WWII and the physicists who worked on it.

Clearly, their efforts there had huge moral impact, and is still being debated to this day. Some would argue that they should have refused to create the bomb. Others are aghast at the number of lives -- both Japanese and American -- that would have been lost in an invasion of the Japanese mainland. Obviously it was built and we live with the consequences to this day.

In this context I can readily agree that an individual scientist's humanity must come to the fore and they must address for him/herself their personal moral stance on the subject. And once having taken that stance they must be willing to accept the consequences of their actions.

Where I differ with you is that you appear to wish that this linkage is a part of the science per se. I disagree. It is in my opinion a consequence of the science, and a moral obligation of the scientist to evaluate the consequences of the science and their actions. An immoral or amoral scientist could elect to behave in ways that humanity would shudder at -- think Nazi eugenics in WWII -- and should accept the legal and moral consequences not for their science but for their complete and utter lack of humanity.

That is why even though I aam a firm advocate of the scientific method I also am an advocate of teaching philosophy and the humanities, and that as a person one is not whole without some balance in these domains.

mriff 02-21-2009 01:13 PM

I agree to an extent. And I would emphasize that it is not the biological scientist's domain to teach philosophy and humanities.

To say to an evolutionary biologist that he must consider the moral implications of his research doesn't make sense. To attempt to understand the natural world is neither moral nor amoral. It's simply a quest for truth.

djm2 02-21-2009 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mriff (Post 1293837)
I agree to an extent. And I would emphasize that it is not the biological scientist's domain to teach philosophy and humanities.

To say to an evolutionary biologist that he must consider the moral implications of his research doesn't make sense. To attempt to understand the natural world is neither moral nor amoral. It's simply a quest for truth.

Agree 100%. Have people skilled at teaching philosophy do that training..

Dawg 02-21-2009 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mriff (Post 1293837)
I agree to an extent. And I would emphasize that it is not the biological scientist's domain to teach philosophy and humanities.

To say to an evolutionary biologist that he must consider the moral implications of his research doesn't make sense. To attempt to understand the natural world is neither moral nor amoral. It's simply a quest for truth.

Genesis 1:27
the truth

djm2 02-21-2009 11:09 PM

So what is this bible thumping BS supposed to mean?

jsconyers 02-22-2009 01:46 AM

The combination of the favorite comedian thread and this one made me think of this George Carlin skit on religion.

YouTube - George Carlin: Religion is Bullshit

Dawg 02-22-2009 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djm2 (Post 1294357)
So what is this bible thumping BS supposed to mean?

Its not BS. Its the truth believe it if you want or not. Its your choice to burn in hell for all eternity or not. But hey if thats what you want so be it.

Dawg 02-22-2009 09:58 AM

But since you started this now I will get ugly as well. I think you are so full of shit your breath stinks.

JSanders 02-22-2009 10:14 AM

Let's restate that this area will remain for the most part unmoderated.

djm2, whether you agree with it or not, insulting one's religious is quite personal. Please refrain from the personal insults. You know what you are doing.

Dawg, ditto. Some people can't help that what is down inside comes up in the breath. :) So, please watch the language.

mriff 02-22-2009 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dawg (Post 1294301)
Genesis 1:27
the truth

This is theology. To be taught in church. Or in a philosophy class. Or in seminary. Or to your children. It has no place, however, in science class.

Dawg 02-22-2009 03:27 PM

You said it was a quest for the truth. And I told you where the truth was, just in case the "Christian" part of you forgot.

jsconyers 02-22-2009 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dawg (Post 1294880)
You said it was a quest for the truth. And I told you where the truth was, just in case the "Christian" part of you forgot.

Here is the definition of truth

truth
Noun
1. the quality of being true, genuine, or factual: there is no truth in the allegations
2. something that is true: he finally learned the truth about his parents' marriage
3. a proven or verified fact, principle, etc.: some profound truths about biology have come to light [Old English trxxx299;ewth]

Genesis 1:27 is not a proven or verified fact.

dmead 02-22-2009 04:22 PM

If God Created man in genesis 1:27 then where did he put him until eden was created in chapter 2?

mriff 02-22-2009 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dawg (Post 1294880)
You said it was a quest for the truth. And I told you where the truth was, just in case the "Christian" part of you forgot.

The quest for scientific verification has nothing to do with being Christian or not. But then again, I'm Catholic, so according to you, I'm not Christian.

Dawg 02-22-2009 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsconyers (Post 1294917)
Here is the definition of truth

truth
Noun
1. the quality of being true, genuine, or factual: there is no truth in the allegations
2. something that is true: he finally learned the truth about his parents' marriage
3. a proven or verified fact, principle, etc.: some profound truths about biology have come to light [Old English trxxx299;ewth]

Genesis 1:27 is not a proven or verified fact.

Youre here thats proof enough for me.

Dawg 02-22-2009 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmead (Post 1294936)
If God Created man in genesis 1:27 then where did he put him until eden was created in chapter 2?

You admit you don't believe at all, so no sense in even talking to you about it.

The ones I am concerned with are the ones who claim to believe in God, yet do not believe that God created us. I just don't understand how you can even say that. Its such Blasphemy

djm2 02-22-2009 10:51 PM

Rolls Eyes

djm2 02-22-2009 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dawg (Post 1294880)
You said it was a quest for the truth. And I told you where the truth was, just in case the "Christian" part of you forgot.

Theology and truth have as much in common as politicians and truth. It's all about the $$.

djm2 02-22-2009 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dawg (Post 1295083)
You admit you don't believe at all, so no sense in even talking to you about it.

The ones I am concerned with are the ones who claim to believe in God, yet do not believe that God created us. I just don't understand how you can even say that. Its such Blasphemy

My oh my!! Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!!

Dawg 02-23-2009 06:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djm2 (Post 1295286)
Rolls Eyes

my 12 year old does this too. I am so glad you have something in common with a 12 year old. Drama Drama

And Evolution and and truth have has much as common as Bill clinton and truth

Wow three posts directed at me I am so flattered I have gotten your goat

bigolsparky 02-23-2009 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dawg (Post 1295083)
You admit you don't believe at all, so no sense in even talking to you about it.

The ones I am concerned with are the ones who claim to believe in God, yet do not believe that God created us. I just don't understand how you can even say that. Its such Blasphemy

Dawg,

I believe you are not understanding much about the Catholic religion, as is evident based on your previous post. Catholics do not interpret Genisis, as well as most of the Old Testement, literally. That would be the biggest difference between Catholics and Protestants.

Dawg 02-23-2009 08:22 AM

So they pick and choose what they want to believe? Either you believe or you don't.

test54 02-23-2009 08:38 AM

everyone does.

Dawg 02-23-2009 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by test54 (Post 1295556)
everyone does.

No, they don't. I believe the Bible from cover to cover. I think every word is the truth. Now its my choice to whether I follow its guidelines or not but I believe every word is the truth.

If you believe in God as the Father, Son, and Holy ghost then there is no way you can believe in evolution. If you believe in Evolution then there is no way you can believe in the Trinity. Both contridict the other.

test54 02-23-2009 09:14 AM

Everyone, every church interprets the Bible. And being that it was written by man and then translated by man leads to even more interpretation.

JSanders 02-23-2009 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigolsparky (Post 1295519)
Dawg,

I believe you are not understanding much about the Catholic religion, as is evident based on your previous post. Catholics do not interpret Genisis, as well as most of the Old Testement, literally. That would be the biggest difference between Catholics and Protestants.

Perhaps you mean "Catholic denomination", it is not a religion unto itself.

So, would you tell us what parts " of most of the Old Testement" you think that Catholics don't interpret literally?

test54 02-23-2009 09:25 AM

Yeah I would be interested to hear about what the Catholics do not interpret literally. To me I think Catholicism interprets a lot of things more literally in general.

Also, JSanders is correct about the denomination. Its not a religion but a form of Christianity, even if some (not sparky) do not agree.

dmead 02-23-2009 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dawg (Post 1295083)
You admit you don't believe at all, so no sense in even talking to you about it.

The ones I am concerned with are the ones who claim to believe in God, yet do not believe that God created us. I just don't understand how you can even say that. Its such Blasphemy

is this because you don't have an answer? i really want to know what a Christian's answer is for where was man in between genesis 1:27 and genesis chapter 2. also if you could point me to the verse that tells us that, that would be helpful too.

Dawg 02-23-2009 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmead (Post 1295605)
is this because you don't have an answer? i really want to know what a Christian's answer is for where was man in between genesis 1:27 and genesis chapter 2. also if you could point me to the verse that tells us that, that would be helpful too.

Ummm, its not a minute by minute or day by day account. But if you read the last verses of the chapter it tells you that he gave them food to eat and commandment of all the animals and fowl of the earth.

And from my studies I have also learned that the days in Gods eyes arent the same as our days.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.


28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.


29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.


30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.



31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

test54 02-23-2009 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dawg (Post 1295635)
And from my studies I have also learned that the days in Gods eyes arent the same as our days.

I agree with you there. But that again opens up that the earth is older than what is portrayed by most creationists.

dmead, in my opinion if one believes that God did create man then certainly he can take care of him for a day before putting him on earth.

Dawg 02-23-2009 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by test54 (Post 1295643)
I agree with you there. But that again opens up that the earth is older than what is portrayed by most creationists.

dmead, in my opinion if one believes that God did create man then certainly he can take care of him for a day before putting him on earth.

Not really. If a day to us is only seconds to God. I made my points about fossils and how they came to be and no one on the other side wants to hear my arguments.

I believe the flood caused all the fossils

Dawg 02-23-2009 09:56 AM

A link to an awesome book on the time line of the earth

test54 02-23-2009 09:59 AM

The flood causing the fossils has a ton of problems though because then they would be evenly distributed all at the same levels, they are not.

Great documentary on the Flood yesterday that came to a pretty good conclusion that the Flood likely could have been a result of a major flood of the Black Sea, and that the people living there fled to the middle east and their flood event because the source of the Noah flood and the Gilgamesh flood of the Koran. Its supported by fossils of fresh water shellfish at the bottom of the black sea and ancient beach and farms that have been underwater for thousands of years.

The question of time is a huge question mark in terms of the Bible. Like Noah being 500 years old, which was not unusual during his time according tot he Bible. Christian scholars do not agree whether he actually was 500 years old or that the term is used to show that he was more respected than the average person. There are so many questions that come from the Bible that every branch of Christianity has its own way to read it.

Dawg 02-23-2009 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by test54 (Post 1295663)
The flood causing the fossils has a ton of problems though because then they would be evenly distributed all at the same levels, they are not.

Great documentary on the Flood yesterday that came to a pretty good conclusion that the Flood likely could have been a result of a major flood of the Black Sea, and that the people living there fled to the middle east and their flood event because the source of the Noah flood and the Gilgamesh flood of the Koran. Its supported by fossils of fresh water shellfish at the bottom of the black sea and ancient beach and farms that have been underwater for thousands of years.

The question of time is a huge question mark in terms of the Bible. Like Noah being 500 years old, which was not unusual during his time according tot he Bible. Christian scholars do not agree whether he actually was 500 years old or that the term is used to show that he was more respected than the average person. There are so many questions that come from the Bible that every branch of Christianity has its own way to read it.

Have you ever been to the grand canyon and looked at the walls of the canyon? They are in perfect lines of sediment and signs of erosion by a massive amount of water not just a river running through.

I do believe that people lived longer during that time. Prior to the flood the earth was much different than it is now. I believe there was a layer of protection around the earth kind of like an embrionic sack a baby is in. I think this was destroyed by God during the flood to release all the water on to the earth.

I believe that the first humans on earth were much larger in statue than we are now. Just look at the size of the buidlings and things that were built in ancient times massive buildings that were built with out machines we have today.

test54 02-23-2009 10:22 AM

Yes but if one event caused it then the fossils in the grand canyon would all be at that same depth, they are not.

The Bible mentions nothing about a sack of water. It mentions rain & the tradition is that Moses was given the Torah on Mt. Sinai so do you think that Moses was not told the truth by God?

Not sure where you get the bigger people, not saying your wrong but I think slave labor was responsible for many of the ancient projects.

dmead 02-23-2009 10:32 AM

So that means there were other people before Adam and Eve, right?

test54 02-23-2009 10:41 AM

why does that mean there were people before them? all that we have said with regards to Christianity is that adam & eve were the first. I think dawg is saying that they were perhaps bigger than current humans.

Dawg 02-23-2009 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by test54 (Post 1295699)
Yes but if one event caused it then the fossils in the grand canyon would all be at that same depth, they are not.

The Bible mentions nothing about a sack of water. It mentions rain & the tradition is that Moses was given the Torah on Mt. Sinai so do you think that Moses was not told the truth by God?

Not sure where you get the bigger people, not saying your wrong but I think slave labor was responsible for many of the ancient projects.

the fountains of the great deep broken up,and the windows of heaven were opened. I used the phrase sack not the bible. Not sure what Moses has to do with the discussion of the flood and fossils.

JSanders 02-23-2009 10:42 AM

Ok, so many of you don't believe in the creation story and the flood during Noah's time.

Let me throw this out there... do you believe Jesus:
a) turned the water into wine,
b) fed the thousands from a few loaves of bread and fish,
c) brought Lazarus to life
d) or even rose from the dead, himself?

Dawg 02-23-2009 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmead (Post 1295713)
So that means there were other people before Adam and Eve, right?

No the bible says Adam and Eve were the first people and they had quite a few children in eight hundred years. they were told to go fourth and multiply.

Marrying your sister or brother was common up until the time when Moses declared it illegal.

Dawg 02-23-2009 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSanders (Post 1295729)
Ok, so many of you don't believe in the creation story and the flood during Noah's time.

Let me throw this out there... do you believe Jesus:
a) turned the water into wine,
b) fed the thousands from a few loaves of bread and fish,
c) brought Lazarus to life
d) or even rose from the dead, himself?

Yes 100% I believe it all. No doubt in my mind what so ever.

bigolsparky 02-23-2009 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSanders (Post 1295597)
Perhaps you mean "Catholic denomination", it is not a religion unto itself.

So, would you tell us what parts " of most of the Old Testement" you think that Catholics don't interpret literally?

When I was in school (Catholic School), we were taught that much of the bible consists of parables. We are tasked with discerning what is parable and what actually happened. This method of understanding the Bible perhaps opens some doors for the possibilty of evolution and religion coexisting. All parts of the bible are open for interpretation and I acknowledge that someone has to be wrong, even if it is me.

test54 02-23-2009 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dawg (Post 1295728)
the fountains of the great deep broken up,and the windows of heaven were opened. I used the phrase sack not the bible. Not sure what Moses has to do with the discussion of the flood and fossils.

Moses is thought to have been given the first four books of the Bible directly from God. So if Moses did not include that the flood came from a sack then I was pointing out that either God did not tell him that or that Moses deemed it not worthy of being in Genesis.

and your idea of the sack is interpreting the Bible, there are millions of interpretations just like that.

JSanders 02-23-2009 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigolsparky (Post 1295739)
When I was in school (Catholic School), we were taught that much of the bible consists of parables. We are tasked with discerning what is parable and what actually happened.

I think the current and last Pope would take issue with your teachers on that.

test54 02-23-2009 11:22 AM

Bigolsparky, I was taught the same thing in school (non-denominational christian school).
we were taught that the Bible consisted of both parables and of actual events. The parables are often in it for the effect of showing the power of faith.

my understanding has always been the Catholic traditions are far more rigid and therefore they are more traditional than other forms of christianity. And in fact there might not be a Bible if not for the Catholic Church protecting it in the past.

JSanders 02-23-2009 11:43 AM

There are numerous accounts in the Bible of parables being told. Jesus taught primarily through parables throughout His ministry.

Old Testament acts like the Flood, parting of the Red Sea and the plagues are not parables, and are not indicated as such. New Testament teachings contains many parables such as the rich young ruler, building on sand vs. a firm foundation, casting seed on hard ground are parables, and stated to be exactly that.

Dawg 02-23-2009 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by test54 (Post 1295786)
Moses is thought to have been given the first four books of the Bible directly from God. So if Moses did not include that the flood came from a sack then I was pointing out that either God did not tell him that or that Moses deemed it not worthy of being in Genesis.

and your idea of the sack is interpreting the Bible, there are millions of interpretations just like that.

It wasnt a interperetation. I didnt know how else to explain it in print.



Quote:

Originally Posted by JSanders (Post 1295830)
There are numerous accounts in the Bible of parables being told. Jesus taught primarily through parables throughout His ministry.

Old Testament acts like the Flood, parting of the Red Sea and the plagues are not parables, and are not indicated as such. New Testament teachings contains many parables such as the rich young ruler, building on sand vs. a firm foundation, casting seed on hard ground are parables, and stated to be exactly that.

exactly, I know the difference in a parable and fact.

test54 02-23-2009 11:54 AM

that is your opinion, and I know yours is a very popular one but its not the only way to interpret the Bible. There are parables used in the Old Testament as well. One comes to mind within the story of David.

Parables have been used in religion forever and to think that either God or the writers of the Old testament did not include them is something I do not believe in.

test54 02-23-2009 12:01 PM

But dawg if you believe the Bible as 100% fact then what is there to interpret? It should be followed as written then.

I mean interpretation of the Bible is what lead to the current belief that the New Testament should be important than the Old Testament. Certainly if we all followed the entire Bible as law then the world would be a different place.

Certainly there are miracles and deeds done in the Bible that are there to show what actually happened, but there are parables in both the new and old Testaments that are there strictly to show the benefits of faith. All I am saying is that I do not think it would be unthinkable that the Old Testament contains stories that are not in their because they are fact but they are included to show the struggles and the rewards of the faithful.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:32 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions Inc.