I’m writing this because I’m appalled (though not surprised) at the lack of respect the Bible seems to command among so many of you. My goal is to change your outlook, if only slightly. There are a number of reasons why you should take the Bible seriously. Even Aristotle said "...the benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, not arrogated by the critic to himself." If we can’t trust the Bible then we can’t trust any significant work of antiquity.
Despite bad press, the Bible has proven to be insanely accurate in its accounts of historical events. Time and time again archaeologists and historians have scoffed at many of the Bibles’ stories as mere fable, but time and time again they have found themselves to be wrong. The best example I can think of off the top of my head is the Hittites. The Bible mentions a nation called the Hittites, that according to geographic accounts would have existed just north of present day Israel in Asia minor, and play an important part in many Biblical accounts. For years no evidence could be found of their existence, and archaeologists were open and derisive in their skepticism. However, near the end of the 19th century, what were later identified as Hittite monuments were discovered. Further discoveries suggest that the Hittites not only existed, but were the inventors of iron tools and chariots: a major discovery in the march of mankind.
There are many more examples: Moses could not have written the first five books of the Bible because writing was not invented yet (disproved); no secular evidence exists for the flood, it could not have happened (massive amounts of secular evidence has since been discovered); no secular evidence exists for the life of David and Solomon (likewise, disproved). There are many such examples of unbelievers anxious to foster doubt in the Bible, and in the end all of them have been proven wrong. Their skepticism is the product of ignorance, either willful or not.
Beside the historical evidence there is textual evidence within the Bible itself. For instance, no part of the Bible contradicts the central themes; a common thread runs throughout the Bible, despite the fact that it was written by some 33 authors over the course of three to four thousand years.
The Bible is full of statements of scientific fact long before it was widely known. Here are a few examples:
Isaiah 40:22 says concerning God that “It is He that sitteth upon the circle of the earth.” The Earth was believed to be flat until at least 300 B.C. when Eratosthenes measured the earth using geometry (which was also a new invention).
Job 26:7, ". . . and hangeth the earth upon nothing." During the time of Job, it was believed a god named Atlas held the earth on his shoulders! Nobody believed the earth "hangeth upon nothing!" Job is the oldest book in the Bible, written over 3500 years ago. How could he have conceived the existence of empty space?
Levitical law also required the Israelites to wash themselves after handling a dead body, as well as before eating. This is a sanitary precaution that they couldn’t possibly have known about without the science of bacteriology. But God knew, and he warned them more than 3000 years before science could have.
I believe that’s enough examples. There are many more, but no doubt you understand my point.
A third piece of evidence deals with the existence of Jesus Christ specifically. Most people don’t know that, in point of the number of manuscripts, both of secular and religious origins, there is more evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ than there is for Julius Caesar, or Plato.
But the fourth and perhaps most convincing evidence for the reliability of the scripture is prophecy. Bible prophesies are numerous (approximately 2000), and specific, and so far all of them have come to pass. My favorite prophesies concern Israel. In Ezekiel 22:15 God says concerning Israel “And I will scatter thee among the heathen, and disperse thee in the countries, and will consume thy filthiness out of thee.” Ezekiel prophesied this hundreds of years before Titus invaded Israel and dispersed them across the globe.
But here’s the real chiller. The same prophet Ezekiel also said this:
(Ezekiel 11:16-17)
“Therefore say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Although I have cast them far off among the heathen, and although I have scattered them among the countries, yet will I be to them as a little sanctuary in the countries where they shall come.
Therefore say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will even gather you from the people, and assemble you out of the countries where ye have been scattered, and I will give you the land of Israel.”
When I confronted a co-worker with that prophecy he said “Well, it was self-fulfilling prophesy.” As if to say that the Jewish people after World War II saw that verse and just said “Let’s go back to the home land.” But anyone who has studied the history of Israel since 1947 can’t possibly hold on to this ridiculous notion. From a military and logistic standpoint, they didn’t stand a chance. In the war of 1948 the little nation of Israel (which then included only 600,000 Jews) fought and defeated the combined forces of the King of Transjordan (with a highly trained and well supplied Arab force commanded by a British war veteran), the Mufti of Jerusalem (and his blood thirsty band of Palestinian Muslims), and the nations of Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, and Iraq converged on Israel. It was millions and millions against a few thousand, and Israel won. How can anyone be so deceived as to believe it was merely self fulfilled prophecy. Israel has since fought for its life on at least two different occasions, always in the face of unbelievable odds and won. In fact, they actually took ground. In the war of 1967, Ariel Sharon routinely attacked Egyptian positions with less than half of the suggested number of troops for such assaults and routinely won.
I have only touched the thousands of pieces of evidence that vindicate the Bible. It’s up to you to decide what to do with it.
Though you seem to have touched upon some very interesting things it does not change my point of view about the Bible. I do not believe it's stories to be true... it was written by man after all. I've decided that you have not changed my view a bit. It was intriguing to see you try though. Definately an interesting post to read.
As well as that, it's our choice as to whether we choose to believe the bible or not. You should not be appalled at the so called lack of respect. It's not that I don't respect it, it's that I don't believe it. It's an interesting book, but one full of fairy tales if you ask me.
~The Vixen: Alyssa~
Fairy tales that have been validated by secular and archaeological evidence? Hmmm.... I've never heard of that kind of fairy tale...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Build a man a fire, he'll be warm for an evening.
Light a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
I can understand your hestitancy to accept the Bible since man wrote it. But it's the fact that they were scribes for a divine purpose that, I think, makes it more credible. None of the writers glorify themselves, only God. Man makes errors, but God does not. There are problems in the Bible, but it is so with every translated book, especially one so highly influential.
The Bible isn't fairy tales so much as fables. Much of it is meant symbolically (again, I think) and to teach the ways of life.
Unless you believe in God, anything any Christian or other religious person says will be difficult to believe. :)
I agree. There is no reason that your post would change what I think about the Bible, because I dont believe its stories are true. There will always be arguements to both sides.
True, I may never convince you, but it is not for lack of evidence. Despite what you believe about the stories, they are true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Build a man a fire, he'll be warm for an evening.
Light a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
I have to agree with you 100%, and I am one who has always believed what the bible has said.
I respect the bible. It preaches sound advice such as "honor your parents," "do not kill others," etcetera. However, I do not believe in it, and I will state my main reasons.
1. It seems that the devil (who is not human, but a fallen angel) still exists - why hasn't god erased him (or her) from existance?
2. People are punished for believing in other religions.
3. The babies of Christians are sent to limbo (because they do not believe in any religion, they are babies!)
4. Evolution makes sense to me, but the bible goes against it.,
5. I have to pay for the sins [of Adam and Eve] that I did not commit.
6. Women are a derivative of man (Eve was created to erase Adam's boredom - I would think women would be displeased with this part).
--Let us sit down and debate this matter like civilized individuals. Now where is my hammer!?--
I understand where you're coming from, but there are a few things that I need to mention.
1. The Devil is a part of God's plan. God wants to develop character in us, and the only way to do that is through hardship. God knew that Lucifer would fall, and he knew he would be an adversary. God WILL erase Sata, but only when he has carried out God's plan.
2. People are not punished for believing other religions, they are punished for NOT believing the truth. Let me ask you a question. If I went to school and had a hamburger for lunch, how many different versions of the truth of that event are there? Did I eat a hotdog? Did I eat a taco? No, I ate a hamburger. There is only one truth. The fact that the scriptures of other religions give no exclusive authority to themselves should make you seriously doubt their validity. Jehovah God is the only deity that attributes to himself omnipotence and omniscience. Why is that?
3. I'm a Christian and I have no idea what or where limbo is. Babies, no matter what the religion of their parents, go to heaven because they didn't have the capacity to understand truth yet.
4. Evolution makes no sense. People use the fact that "most" scientists believe in evolution to give some credence to the theory. While this may or may not be true (and more and more scientists are abandoning the theory, though it is by no means endangered) scientists are biased. To believe in God means to believe in accountability, which means they can't do whatever they want. Of course Christians are biased too; If evolution is true then there is no God and life has no purpose. But the point is we can't put unfailing trust in scientists, whose conclusions can be and are warped by their world view. Naturally all of thier published conclusions, unless they are perfectly honest, will agree with their world view.
But the truth is that evolution has no credibility with honest scientists. Darwin himself said that "if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." It amazes me how evolutionists skirt this issue and then come up with stories more unbelievable than the "fables" of the Bible trying to explain it. How could humans have evolved a sense of curiosity? The first mamal that acquired it would have died a brave death, investigating some dangerous oddity. What about imagination, bravery, guilt (which serves no practical purpose) and the like? Moreover, how come no mechanism has been discovered that would enable evolution to take place? There is no natural mechanism that allows a specie to add chromasomes to its genetic code. The only one they can find is mutation, which has never produced a healthy mutation. Moreover, mutation only occurs in individual organisms. It should be obvious that even if a useful mutation did occur that animal would have no other animal to reproduce with.
Another question which nobody has been able to answer has to do with ecology. As any biologist knows, our world is made up of a complex system of organisms that rely on eachother for survival (i.e. elephants need trees to feed off of, trees use insects as one means of transporting their pollen, insects would be virtually wiped out by birds if birds had no predators, etc.). The odds of one animal evolving into even a slightly different animal are anywhere from nothing to insanely small, how can you believe that all of them evolved at once so as to produce a perfectly balanced ecosystem? It takes more faith to believe in evolution, which has less evidence than creation, than it does to believe that a transcendent God designed and created everything we see.
5. There is nothing to say that you would not have done the very thing Adam and Eve did if you were in their position. Moreover, if they had NOT done what they did then we would never acquired character or understood the true meaning and value of love, happiness, health, and everything else we hold dear.
6. Physically women may have been a derivitive, but Genesis is very clear that male and female were created synchronously:
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
God didn't create physical beings in that verse. God is a spirit and he made a spirit that had both male and femal attributes. In the next chapter God seperated them and gave them physical bodies.
I hope that has cleared up some doubts for you. I don't expect to convince anyone of what I believe any more than they can convince me of what they believe, I am only trying to make you think.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Build a man a fire, he'll be warm for an evening.
Light a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
There is a divine and all powerful God who is all forgiving, created the world, and loves everyone and everything in it so much that he was willing to sacrifice his only son for us.
This is great, except if you believe this why does God have to heel-toe to Lucifer all the time? And why woudl an all powerful, all forgiving God send someone to Hell simply because the chose to go to Synagogue on Saturday instead of Church on Sunday? That is unless this God is either NOT all powerful, or NOT all forgiving, or neither. And if you believe in Hell, how can you NOT believe in limbo? In christain tradition (dating back to the creation of the first churches in 150 and 200 ad these were both mainstays of the belief system)
Those are my main contentions with your philosophy. Having grown up Mormon, left the church, joined a UCC church, then a Presbyterian church and regularly attended Four Square services and enough Mass services to have a pretty clear idea of a few spectrems of christianity I find that I agree with most of the ideals set forth by all church leaders. Kindness, forgivness, honesty, acceptance, etc. What I have a hard time understanding is how the constitutients of such an open-minded and open-hearted religion can close thier minds so thoroughly to the world and to those living in the world with unique and diverse viewpoints.
Now while I may be hanging myself out to dry with these comments, I'd just like to state that I believe christianity had a very good start, and has some very good ideas--but christians need to take a closer look at thier beliefs and realize that maybe there's more to life, the universe and everything than a single book can answer. If God took all this time to create this world, then that God is far more complex and wonderful than we can even begin to imagine. And for us to imagine that we might know what this God expects of us--besides doing our best to make the world a better place--is a assuming a bit much.
I won't even touch evolution. That's a firecracker I don't have time to get into, but I think your on the right track, God gave us hearts and hands and HEADS for a reason. After all, wasn't it Albert Einstein who said "to understand physics is to see into the mind of God" and "God doesn't play dice"
Funny, one of the most quoted individuals by Christian philosophers and leaders and he had to flee Germany in the 1930's because he was Jewish.
~CallieV
I have to say, I really apprciate the oppeness of this comment: I can tell you're not some arrogant crank.
First of all I have to address your question about God's constant "heel-toe" battle with Satan. The answer is simple. God allows Satan to go about causing trouble. It was man that loosed Satan in the garden of Eden: it was man's choice. God eventually will destroy Satan, but only after the fallen angel has carried out God's plan for him, namely, to perfect His people.
The answer to your other question is a little more difficult. Why indeed DOES God "an all powerful, all forgiving God send someone to Hell simply because the chose to go to Synagogue on Saturday instead of Church on Sunday?" (this is a poor example simply because Jewish people are God's children. Jews and Christians believe in the same God, except that Jews, in general, don't believe that Jesus was the messiah) First of all, God DOESN'T send people to hell because they don't go to church. In fact, God doesn't send people to heaven because they go to church. It's all about a relationship with Him. It's not about religion.
You ask another legitimate question: how can we possibly expect to know an all powerful, transcendent God? The answer is that, in one sense, we can't. His nature is such that we can't comprehend him, or completely understand him. On the other hand, if He did create the earth, chances are he would want us to know Him. Why else would he have created us if not to interact with us? You've made the first step in your thinking to recognize that God DID create us. Take the second step and consider that he might have created us to worship Him. To that end, he would have revealed himself to mankind. The Bible is the story of that revelation, begining with Adam and Eve.
For this reason I find it interesting that the Bible is the only sacred text that even claims to be inspired by God, except maybe the Q'ran, but even the Q'ran accepts the old testament as inspired (and the evidence I've given here squares with that claim). I think if you believe that God created the earth, you should be seriously intrigued by these claims.
I don't mean to insult you or yours, but the Mormon church is far from Christian. They believe a truckload of things that contradict scripture (which is the basis of Christianity). This could have something to do with your disenchantment with Christianity. The reality is that most Christians DO need to examine what they believe and compare it and their lives with the Bible.
I don't believe in limbo because it's not in the Bible. I don't care if every tradition in christendom said that limbo exists, the Bible doesn't, which means that they are wrong. There were many things wrong with the early church, especially after the council of nicea in the 300s (where they established the trinity, infant baptism, and many other lies).
God is NOT all forgiving, in the sense that you're thinking. His IS all forgiving in the sense that if you merely accept the gift of Jesus' sacrifice (which fulfilled all of the messianic prophecies of the old testament), then it is as if you had never done anything wrong. Unfortunately, people shrug off this invitation on a daily basis, and it is their rejection of this free gift, this ultimate sacrifice, that dooms them. Christians don't derive joy from this fact, and it's this knowledge that drives people to donate their entire lives and millions of dollars to missions. Why don't you see this motivation in other religions? The Bible says things that go directly against the teachings of Budhism. If Budhist really believed Budhism is true, why don't they try to convert their fellow men?
This leads to another interesting observation. No less than 68 millions Christians were slaughtered by the apostate Catholic church throughout the dark ages. Each and every one of them could have recanted and saved their lives if they wanted to, and yet they all marched willingly to gruesom deaths. What earthly power could have given them such resolve? You would have to be awefully sure what you believed was true in order to die for it. You won't find atheists, Budhists, Hindus, or New Agers GIVING UP THEIR LIVES WILLINGLY for their faith. Even Muslim suicide bombers do so in order to kill others (which every other religion other than the occult knows is wrong). Even today, Christians in oppressed countries around the world are being imprisoned and killed for their faith. That is special. So many factors make Christianity stand out from other religions: you would be a fool not to pause and ask yourself if the claims of the Bible might be true.
One thing you must stop doing is looking at religion for your sample of Christianity. Religion is a satanic institution designed to deceive its adherents from truely serving God. It traps more people than perhaps any other lie. The Bible offers two suggestions for finding truth:
"Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."
"Trust in the Lord with all thine heart, and lean not unto thine own understanding."
If the Christian martyrs were confident enough in the truth of Christianity to give their lives for it, and since no other religion or form of atheism is 100% positive (i've never met one atheist that knows there is not God beyond a shadow of a doubt) that what they believe is true, I'm willing to lay down my silly finite reasoning and just believe what this extraordinary book says.
I know I'm sounding sappy, but I believe this with all my heart.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Build a man a fire, he'll be warm for an evening.
Light a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Nice rebuttal, very well thought out and enjoyable to read and respond too.
First off, trust me I'm not insulted about the mormon thing (why do you think I left the church?), but with that out of the way let the discussion continue!
1) So Jews are alright since they believe in the same God, what about Muslims? Not only do they believe in the same divine father that inspires the Christian and Jewish faiths, but Muslims also believe that Jesus was divinely inspired if not divinity himself--that's the closest any religion besides Christianity comes to recognizing the message set forth by the Christ. And what about Buddhists? The believe in a divine 'force' and all powerful and knowing essence that created this world. What makes thier diety a false one and ours a true one?
2) God created us, through whatever fashion it doesn't matter once that basic fact is recognized, but why would an all-powerful being create other beings simply to worship itself? Is that the only thing that God wants us to accomplish in our lives? To worship him?
3) Buddhists don't try to actively convert people to their religion because it is directly stated in the teachings of Buddha that each spirit on the planet will one day be enlightened, and that each of our journeys is our own--when we ask for help we may recieve it but to force help upon another is harmful.
4) If God is not all forgiving then why does the bible talk about his mercy so much?
5) 1939-1945, 6 million Jews gave up their lives for thier religion--and many of them were offered less painful deaths if they would recant their beliefs and their heritage, most refused. The zen buddhist priests of northern Japan known as Samauri who were killed systematically and completely wiped out from 1850-1870 because they wouldn't renounce the lifestyles that their religion demanded of them.
6) I will agree that religion has its faults, but all Christian religions are based off of the same document--the holy bible, why is my individual interpretation of those words any better than anyone elses? And why should the bible be the only defining factor for a modern Christians life, many of the laws laid down in it's text no longer apply to our society?
Once again, I too believe in one God, but I believe that God gave me a head for a reason--to think. And discussion, debate and polite conflict are the best ways to stimulate thought.
~CallieV
(sorry it took me so long, I only just noticed your reply)
Man, these are great questions. Happilly, I think I have an answer for each one.
1. Muslims may CLAIM to believe in the same God as the Jews, but if that's the case, why do their scriptures also classify both Christians and Jews as enemies to be killed? Here is the qualifier. We identify God by his attributes, not just by His name. It is apparent that while Muslims claim to believe in the same God, the Q'ran's characterization of God is much different than that of Christians and Jews. (this could be a whole different study on its own). They do believe that Jesus was a prophet, but it stops there. He was more than just a prophet.
Budhism is another interesting topic. According to the Bible, the earth was repopulated after the flood by Noah and his sons. They would all have the same belief system: a single, all powerful, all knowing, personal God. As they spread throughout the globe, no doubt this truth was diluted more and more, and even lost in some cases. It would make sense that so many religions believe in this God, or someone like Him. That explains the monotheism of many Native American indian tribes as well.
The bottom line is that Budhists may believe some similar things about God, but if they ever were on the right track they aren't anymore. There are obvious differences between the Budhists' deity and the Christian deity, such as the fact that He is not some vague "essence" but that he is a personal being, and the fact that there are not many paths to Him (Jehovah that is). I'm not that familiar with Budhism, though. Here's are some interesting verses:
Mt 10:40 "He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me."
Luke 10:16 "He that heareth you heareth me [Jesus]; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me [Jehovah]."
John 5:45-47 "Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. 46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. 47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?"
These verses lead to some collolaries. In other words, if Christians and Budhists really believed in the same God, then Budhists would recognize Christ as His son. It's that simple. On the other hand, many Budhists probably haven't even heard of Jesus. In that case it's hard to say where their eternal destination is. The Bible doesn't go in to great detail in this respect. However, here is another verse that might help:
Romans 2:14 "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves..."
In other words, we all have a conscience, which, if you are without God's law as many people are, is a law unto itself if you obey it.
It would be easy to interpret from that that those who obey the truth that they have are in God's fold. Unfortunately, most people don't even obey their conscience.
That's all I have time for at the moment. I'll reply to your other questions later!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Build a man a fire, he'll be warm for an evening.
Light a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Here's my response to your second question.
God did not create us for the SOLE purpose of worshipping Him. That's what the angels were created for. It is apparent from many scriptures that God wants us to be joyful and full of life.
John 10:10
"The thief [Satan] cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I [Jesus] am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Build a man a fire, he'll be warm for an evening.
Light a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
ACtually, if you look at the story of the vineyard, you'd understand the fullness of our purpose. It talks about fruit & the vine, & how He is the vinedresser we (as His followers) are vine. As we abide in Him we will become fruitful, & even more fruitful when we are pruned. So really, First we are made to worship, then to be fruitful (I.E. fruits of the spirit). which is really, our becoming more like Him. Which of cource that pruning may look like an attack, but really, that's what it is! He attacks our unvaluable regions so they transform into valuable ones! anyways, I hope I have brought clarity ;)
Ashes to ashes dust to dust, all shall return to the captian crunch.
1. That's a pretty cruel thing, to erase someone's existence, even if he's the ultimate evil. I think of Satan as the negation and opposite of God. Every force must have its equal and opposite! So says physics. Satan is the representation of a choice between good and evil. God isn't going to take that choice away from you.
2. It was their choice to believe. God will not destroy their most sacred gift, choice, by intervening and dictating their beliefs. Anyway, God in the end is the ultimate judge. We truly don't know His ways and rules.
3. Limbo is a Catholic belief, not all Christians. Most contend that children are innocent and therefore worthy of heavy. Cherubims.
4. I believe in evolution and the Bible. It sounds tricky, but it's not if you go creation science route. It may seem crazy, but it's pretty symbolic. It has to do with God's sense of time and His not wanting to frighten us with too much knowledge.
5. Original sin is a beautiful thing. We all are paying together. We all sin. It's a binding force of humanity. It holds us together. By being human, we have commited the original sin.
6. But only women are whole. Men are missing a part of themselves, a rib, and only women can complete it. It's part of our appeal. We're a whole and a part simultaneously. Man and woman are equal, as Snoopy said.
1. That's a pretty cruel thing, to erase someone's existence, even if he's the ultimate evil. I think of Satan as the negation and opposite of God. Every force must have its equal and opposite! So says physics. Satan is the representation of a choice between good and evil. God isn't going to take that choice away from you.
2. It was their choice to believe. God will not destroy their most sacred gift, choice, by intervening and dictating their beliefs. Anyway, God in the end is the ultimate judge. We truly don't know His ways and rules.
3. Limbo is a Catholic belief, not all Christians. Most contend that children are innocent and therefore worthy of heavy. Cherubims.
4. I believe in evolution and the Bible. It sounds tricky, but it's not if you go creation science route. It may seem crazy, but it's pretty symbolic. It has to do with God's sense of time and His not wanting to frighten us with too much knowledge.
5. Original sin is a beautiful thing. We all are paying together. We all sin. It's a binding force of humanity. It holds us together. By being human, we have commited the original sin.
6. But only women are whole. Men are missing a part of themselves, a rib, and only women can complete it. It's part of our appeal. We're a whole and a part simultaneously. Man and woman are equal, as Snoopy said.
Dinosaurs? All the animals in one boat, and then how did they get back to all the seperate continents that they reside on now? Not to be critical, but just food for thought.
No, those are very legitimate questions. First of all, Noah didn't have to take two of every specie of animal. For instance, all of the cats and dogs we see today could have (micro) evolved from a pair of wildcats and a jackals. Most of the species of animals on earth are insects, bacteria, or fish, and wouldn't have been bothered with.
Also, it is likely that such a catastrophie like a flood could have resulted in an ice age, which would have created land bridges over which other continents could easily have been populated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Build a man a fire, he'll be warm for an evening.
Light a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Eh. The Bible mentions events that did happen, but it's not quite that accurate. Besides, I'm always skeptical of the Biblical version of how Earth was created, but that's another story.
In what ways is it "not quite that accurate"? It has never been shown to be inaccurate in any of its historical accounts!
The problem with the Biblical account of creation is that it is often misinterpreted, even by Christians.
The earth IS billions of years old. The Bible gives no definitive age (as young earthers would have you believe). Adam and Eve were created a a spirit, not as physical beings until the next chapter. The "serpent" was an upright being like man, not a snake.
It would take me pages and pages to disprove all these fallacies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Build a man a fire, he'll be warm for an evening.
Light a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Well, that's YOUR interpretation.
There were two King Herods, I heard, and the one who killed babies either lived before or after Jesus' time. That's only one of the inaccuracies.
Furthermore, it is in my belief that the Bible is not supposed to be taken seriously as a historical book.
Those are some pretty shakey claims you make. "I heard" that there were two king herods? I happen to KNOW there WERE two king Herods in succession, and that the first one DID die early in Jesus' life (which the Bible itself says), but that he did indeed kill babies. Pseudoscience claims that there is no historical evidence that Herod killed babies under the age of two. However, Bethlehem was a very small village, and the number of babies killed could have been not much more than 20. From a historical standpoint, this would hardly have been worth mentioning, but it was enough to give King Herod his contemporary label of "childkiller".
In the end, I can believe that accounts of the holocaust aren't meant to be taken as historical, but that doesn't mean they aren't. That just makes me diluted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Build a man a fire, he'll be warm for an evening.
Light a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
So, like, because you happen to KNOW--while I just happen to have HEARD--your claims are not shakey? Eh.
On a related note, you're still a self-righteous bastard and your writing is a bunch of bullcrap. Fix that.
Don't get mad at me just because you can't write yourself out of a wet paper bag.
When you come to me trying to provide contradicting evidence, you better have a reason other than "I heard...". I don't care what you heard. I care what you have facts to back up. Which is apparently nothing.
I'm not self-righteous, I just know that I'm right and that you're wrong. But that's not the way it has to be, and I'm not somehow superior just because I know the truth.
Take your nonsense elsewhere.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Build a man a fire, he'll be warm for an evening.
Light a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
"I just know that I'm right and that you're wrong." Damn. I mean, you sure aren't self-righteous all right.
Sorry, I didn't bother backing up what I heard/know with some facts because anyone with sense knows how useless it is arguing with a Bible thumper.
I think your problem is that you don't know the definition of self-righteous. Self-righteousness means that you believe you are somehow better than someone else morally because of your own merits. This is not the case. I've just been blessed to know truth and it comes out authoritative or arogant because I'm super confident. Don't mistake confidence for self-righteousness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Build a man a fire, he'll be warm for an evening.
Light a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
The trick with learning is that you need to discuss not argue. Try to understand your fellow man, not beat him into submission. Because then you lose the ability to share the very knowledge you are trying to communicate. Please don't look down at 'believers' because we firmly believe something, but maybe try to take the higher road. If the road is really higher, then we will all be looking up to you ;)
Ashes to ashes dust to dust, all shall return to the captian crunch.
As a Christian I tend to have a respect towards the Bible, but I have a much deeper respect for the word of God rather than the easily flawed, physical adaptation of his word. What we call "The Bible" today is just what some English King wanted to be read, there's multitudes of other selections that aren't added as well as some dubious once which were added.
In short, "The Holy Bible" is not all it's cracked up to be.
That's an interesting take, but I'm afraid it's not historical. King James was a closet catholic who would have had no interest in seing an English version of the Bible produced. Great pains were taken in translation to ensure no outside forces influenced it (such as Catholic bribery). In short, the only thing that could have inspired King James to commission the translation of the Bible was God himself.
If you are a Christian then you MUST have faith that God is and has been able to preserve His Word. Sure, man can botch things up (for instance, with the New International Version of the Bible) but you MUST believe that God has preserved His Word somewhere.
If you don't believe in the Bible then what is the basis of your Christianity? Tradition? Jesus said that by our traditions we make his word of none effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Build a man a fire, he'll be warm for an evening.
Light a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Damn. So you're one of those Catholic-bashing bastards.
I don't bash Catholics (at least, not modern Catholics), I bash the corrupt system that deceives them. Catholics are no worse off than anyone else. It's just that the Catholic church went off in the very beginning, and murdred 68 million genuine christians throughout the dark ages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Build a man a fire, he'll be warm for an evening.
Light a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Yes. Because the Protestant/Presbyterian/Baptist/Methodist/nondenominational system is perfect. Gosh darn it all to heck, the Catholics are losing again.
No denomination is perfect, neither are nondenominational churches. There is no such thing as "perfect" on earth. But there is a huge difference between being mistaken or off the mark, and murdering 68 million people in ice cold blood. Catholicism is rotten to the core, but even protestant denominations are sliding in that direction every so slowly. The only solution is to forget about church systems and focus on the Bible. IT won't fail.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Build a man a fire, he'll be warm for an evening.
Light a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
~CallieV
Just a nagging question, but after the incident of the great flood (Noah's arc) how did reproduction occur? I would think that inbreeding would have to take place, since only two of each animal species was taken on board. I would thank someone for an answer.
--Let us sit down and debate this matter like civilized individuals. Now where is my hammer!?--
I'm sketchy why interbreeding causes the defects it does, but antideluvian animal populations at that time must have come from a small population of animals originally. You can't posibly believe that the entire population of any given organism acquired the same exact mutation at the same exact time to allow them to interbreed. And if you believe the Biblical account then you know that animal populations must have come from an initial few. Why couldn't it happen again?
Not only that, but the different tribal diversities of the human race obviously arose from a small few, accounting for the similarity of appearance. They've been interbreeding for years, and they have not problems.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Build a man a fire, he'll be warm for an evening.
Light a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
People PLEASE, this as a discussion board not a DART board. Just because this is an online forum and not a physical conversation does not give anyone permission to be rude, no educational debate can be had withoug serious thought and consideration on the part of all members contributing. Don't dismiss an opinion just becuase you don't agree with it--getting out of wet paper bags and away from bull crap isn't our main goal, our main goal is to share IDEAS, not insults.
Sorry, had to put my two cents worth in.
~CallieV
This has to be one of the most intellectual and thought provoking posts that I have read yet and though I realize you are all battling and fighting what is true and what is not it is really interesting to read. To those of you that have supported the BIble, you've done a beautiful and eloquent job. I teach CCD class and have for 3 years now.
We can all battle this out. THe truths of the Bible versus archaeological evidence and historical facts and what not but we will be here forever. Everyone makes their own decisions of whether or not to believe in God or the Bible and those that do not have faith cannot possibly comprehend or in many cases do not even want to believe that anything the Bible states could possibly be truth or fact. If anything the BIble is considered a piece of literature, though I can assure you they are not considered "fairy tales" by the account of any English major or teacher I've ever come in contact with.
As for the historical point, well I guess those that do not believe will have to wait around until they die to know the truth. For those with faith, well I guess we live a bit of an easier life. We do not question we believe.
Snoopy Daniels, I cannot get over how masterfully you have backed up the Bible. Your knowledge makes this post not only educational, but very well researched. We can certainly learn from not only what you wrote but that you actually knew your subject. God Bless.
I suppose I could strike up more questions in an attempt to argue against the legitimacy of bible, but I think it would be futile.
I could ask questions such as
"what prevented the incompatible animal species on Noah's ark from slaughtering each other?"
"how did insects whose life span lasted only a day or so reappear on earth?"
"why do humans have tail bones?"
“Why did god, if he is as merciful as people have said, kill off the first-borns of every Egyptian, babies included.
Amen.
No, any honest, reasonable Christian will openly admit that some things in the Bible have no naturalistic explanation, but I'm glad for that. God wouldn't be God if he didn't work the occasional miracle. This would be the case when you have a boat full of incompatible animal species and they don't attack each other.
I thought about taking your advice about not answering the questions you posed, but I can't pass up the opportunity...
I chuckled when I read your question about the human tail bone. Not because I think you are trite or somehow stupid. You can't help what kind of nonsense they teach as science in text books. The coccyx is one of those vestigial organs that were once thought to be "undeniable proof" for evolution. In reality, the coccyx serves as an anchoring point for several abdomincal muscles that literally keep our internal organs from falling between our legs.
Why would a merciful God kill all the first born of Egypt? The answer is very simple. If you've ever read the story you will remember that the killing of the first born was the last of ten plagues. The Egyptians saw Moses perform one undeniable miracle after another. They could have joined the Hebrews in putting blood on their doorposts and thus have saved themselves from the agony of losing a child. It is apparent from the story that the Egyptians were stubborn, and refused to believe Moses despite the vindication of miracles. Either that or Pharaoh forbate the blood on the door by royal decree, in his stubbornness. Either way it was the Egyptians' fault.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Build a man a fire, he'll be warm for an evening.
Light a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
I really enjoyed your point on Job 26:7, but you should always remember that people are people not nails to be hammered with philosophy Dan. As Paul said, "..even if I give my body to be burned, & have not love, I am nothing."
Ashes to ashes dust to dust, all shall return to the captian crunch.
Regarding your answers to the questions that you did not need to answer.
You seem to be quite knowledgeable on the human tail bone. Would you explain why there are humans who receive true tail bones? I admit that those true tail bones are rare, but they do help to support the theory of evolution. Scientists reason that mutations or environmental factors may activate a dormant "tail-making" genome in human babies. In fact, scientists have already identified the genes that control the development of tails in mice and other vertebrates.
In regards to the theory of evolution versus the bible. It is easy for opponents of evolution to attack the theory. Evolution did not get a very good start (as with any other theory) when Darwin advocated his "descent with modification." However, over time, new technologies and hard evidence surfaced to help support Darwin's theories. The main, damaging questions of anti-evolutionists were appropriately addressed. Of course, there are still many holes that need to be filled, and only time (and human ingenuity) will tell whether or not these holes will be filled. I am confident that they will be filled.
It is important to realize that although Darwin never intended to attack any religion, scientists have taken his theory further and added their own theories and reasonings. That is the nature of the scientific community. To cite only Darwin in attacking evolution is unreasonable. I have seen arguments that view evolution as solely Darwin's thoughts which is why I have addressed it.
The theory of evolution cannot fall back on “reasons” similar to those of the ones I have previously listed (it is part of the divine plan, the devil caused it, etc.). This is why evolution is at a disadvantage.
As for your attack on textbooks “You can't help what kind of nonsense they teach as science in text books,” it was my poor memory that deserves the affront, not the textbooks. Your “Not because I think you are trite or somehow stupid.” is completely unnecessary and your condescending tone is obvious.
“They could have joined the Hebrews in putting blood on their doorposts and thus have saved themselves from the agony of losing a child”
To address that, here is a quote from the King James version of exodus: “And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of beasts.”
It seems that the Egyptians had no choice at all, save for the Pharaoh. The message was simple: if the Pharaoh does not comply, every firstborn will die regardless of their [Egyptian citizens] individual choices. This is obvious of the beasts. They are animals and, thus, have no say in the matter. Yet, they are doomed to death for the crimes of the Pharaoh. I do not see how this is merciful. I do not see how flooding the earth and killing all the animals that were not on Noah's ark are merciful.
I do not see why humans need to acquire character. Why not instill character in every human being? Since god is all-knowing, he would know how humans would turn out, so why must humans go through the grueling process of living on earth? It seems that god is willing to let individuals be swayed by secular factors that are beyond their control. For example, think of the native Americans. They were on a separate continent from Christians. How could a child born to a native American even have the option of being saved if there are no Christians present? That child had no say as to whom he was born to and because of that, he was doomed to hell. He was ignorant of the teachings of god. This would be the same as telling a child to find the second derivative of a function even though that child never took a calculus class. I do not see the fairness.
I retract my statement that I have lost. Your underlying tone has impelled me to once again fight the good fight.
--Let us sit down and debate this matter like civilized individuals. Now where is my hammer!?--
I'm sorry, I honestly didn't mean to sound condescending. It's just that I've heard that argument so many times. And maybe it was because my subconscious wanted to keep you intrested in this debate...
First of all, there is not one documented case of a true tail bone. There have been cases of a fleshy outgrowth coming from the base of the spine in newborn babies, but scientists admit that these growths bear no resemblence to an actual tail, other than the superficial likeness. There were no bones in this "tail" and consequently no muscles attatching to the bones. They are called caudal appendages, and are merely a fatty growth. Animalian tales are not noted for their fat content. Despite this fact, scientist still push the issue. Only in evolutionary science will you find such willful ignorance.
Your claim that evidence for evolution is mounting is also mistaken. On the contrary, real evidence for evolution is deteriorating and is virtually non-existent, while theoretical "evidence" and speculation is mounting. There are dozens of theories of how evolution works, but not one of them has been demonstrated to actually work, nor have they been observed to happen. The stories that scientist come up with to explain evolution are increasingly more ridiculous than the simple account of the Bible.
I understand where you're coming from with your challenge of God's status as merciful. However, God's nature is unchanged, and in the new testament Jesus repeatedly plead with the people to simply believe in him and be saved. God would have done the same for any Egyptian who came to accept Jehovah as their Lord and merely obeyed Moses' command (which no doubt many of them did). But the bottom line is even if God had not made that acception it would still have been Pharaoh's fault for refusing to convalesce to the command of the sovreign God.
But this whole discussion is very interesting. What if God DID kill all of those Egyptians, animals, and whatnot with apparent disregard for their lives? That would mean, no matter how terrible you thought He was, that He exists, and this whole argument is pointless.
What amazes me, though, is how people can be so resentful toward someone who they profess not to believe in. If God does exist, then it would make sense that He would be beyond comprehension. I wouldn't want to serve a God that I understood completely. That sounds like a cop out but it's not. Let me use this analogy. Imagine that you are in danger of your life. However, you have a body guard. Would you feel safe if they seemed uncertain of themselves and used outdated and simple equipment that you could probably build yourself? Of course not! You would want to be able to look at their unbelievably complex technological weaponry and have them tell you "Trust us, we know what we're doing. Everything will be okay."
You may have the same problem with faith that many people have. They don't resent God, they resent their conception of God. I don't know but that you might want to believe in God but find yourself unable because of a misunderstanding of who God is. Nobody wants to believe in a destructive, mean, grumpy God. But He is not mean and grumpy and everything else. Few people can read the whole Bible and come away thinking that God is a merciless murderer. I myself have questioned in the past. For instance, why did God let 6 million of his chosen people die in the holocaust? Well, the first reason is that the prophecies of the Bible had to be fulfilled: the Jews HAD to return to the homeland. In the second place, each and every one of those Jews who died in the holocaust received eternal life, according to the sixth seal of Revelations.
We're all hounded by those questions, but they are the result of an inability to understand God's ways, and His sovreignty. He can do whatever he wants. And yet He doesn't. He is mindful of us and cares about us, despite our apparent insignificance.
Oddly enough I had that very same question about character. But character, by definition, can only be gained through hardship. God wanted us to love Him by choice, not because He forced us to.
That's all I have to say for now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Build a man a fire, he'll be warm for an evening.
Light a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
“What if God DID kill all of those Egyptians, animals, and whatnot with apparent disregard for their lives? That would mean, no matter how terrible you thought He was, that He exists, and this whole argument is pointless.”
The basis of this argument was that god did exist. The argument questioned that since he exists and is merciful, why would he do such a thing? It is not pointless. However, I can infer from your other answers that your response would be “some things cannot be understood.” In this sense, I suppose it is pointless for me to ask. . .
The body guard analogy is a bit strange. I understand what you are trying to convey, but it does raise some of its own questions. I am sure that people are impressed with and are drawn to the unknown. However, some people will not be content with the unknown for long. I would be impressed by a body guard with high-tech weaponry and other futuristic gadgets, but I would eventually like to understand what they serve for. I would wonder whether or not some of the body guard’s tools actually serve a purpose other than to deceive me into feeling safe (well-intentioned, I would admit, but still questionable).
“We're all hounded by those questions, but they are the result of an inability to understand God's ways, and His sovreignty. He can do whatever he wants. And yet He doesn't. He is mindful of us and cares about us, despite our apparent insignificance.”
…which still leaves my question unanswered. How can Native Americans be minded by god if they were never introduced to god in the first place? I asked you about individuals who did not have the fortune of being raised by Christian parents or having any Christian influences on the entire continent. They were doomed to hell and nothing could save them merely because of their parental and geographical origins. That is rather unfair. It took many years for Christians to arrive on the “new world.” Before that time, all these ignorant peoples were fated to hell. Is that true? Is that merciful?
“But character, by definition, can only be gained through hardship.”
You side-stepped the question again. I asked why god did not anticipate out hardships and our decisions on earth, since he is all-knowing. To the eternal god, the years of our lives are infinitesimal, hardly anything. To us humans, our lives can be very long. Why would god bother to put us on earth if time is nothing to him? Again, this raises the question of “is god merciful?”
Free will – the ability to choose between right and wrong
If you answered the preceding argument with this, it is not the appropriate answer (it would mean that my question was still funny or you misinterpreted my question).
With regards to “free will,” I give you the following situation. You have the ability to instantly make cows. You can make perfect cows, bad cows, good cows, free-thinking cows, et cetera. However, you decide to make free-thinking cows (the reason is unknown). You also have the ability to see the future – you can predict how the cows will behave, how external factors will affect them, how they will undoubtedly suffer. Would you place them on a temporary, dangerous earth despite knowing what you know (including the outcomes)?
“What amazes me, though, is how people can be so resentful toward someone who they profess not to believe in.”
I am not being resentful towards someone I do not believe in. I am, however, exercising my free-will. I am reasoning why I should or should not believe in something, as it affects the world I live in.
I hope that I am not being disrespectful in asking this question, but how can you be sure that the devil did not alter the bible? Since the bible was a tangible object, I would assume that it is subject to the laws of this world. Perhaps the devil had the agenda to convince people that they had to impose beliefs upon other people through violence (and perhaps the devil only managed to alter some parts of the bible). What if the devil added the part of the holocaust in hopes that it would be full-filled? How would one distinguish between what are truly god’s words and what are false? It is also important to emphasize that the bible has been through many translations. Which one is the definitive one? The oldest one? How can one be sure of that (since science has its faults in determining the age of materials)?
I must admit, you seem to be quite versed in counter-arguing evolution. You are right, there are many problems with the theory (altough I still fancy the theory). Perhaps the theory is untrue. However, it is the theory that humans can probe and question. Without scientific inqueries, the human race is doomed to stagnation (where would we be if man did not look at the birds and ask "could I not fly also?").
--Let us sit down and debate this matter like civilized individuals. Now where is my hammer!?--
It probably sounds like I'm side stepping your question because there simply is no good, direct answer to it.
Hahaha... Yeah, the body guard analogy is obviously rickety. I came up with it on the spot... But the bottom line is, God wouldn't be God if we could understand Him. If we could understand him, then we would be gods.
Somewhere else in this thread I answered a similar question about peoples that could not have known about Jesus or Jehovah. The Bible doesn't say much about it, but their is one verse which, I believe, pertains to your question.
"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) "
It sounds to me that if the gentiles (most of whom hadn't heard of the Law or of Jesus) merely obeyed the conscience that God placed in them to do what was right (not knowing the law, but abiding by it), then they would be saved just like those who knew the law and obeyed it.
"You side-stepped the question again. I asked why god did not anticipate out hardships and our decisions on... ...if time is nothing to him? Again, this raises the question of 'is god merciful?'" I guess I'm a little confused by this question. What does the space of our lives have to do with God's mercy, or God anticipating our hardships?
I'm also confused about the cow analogy. I fail to see your point. Let me try to describe the situation to you, as I understand it.
In the beginning, God was alone. He had an infinite number of wonderful attributes which he wanted to reveal to someone, so he created us. He already created angels, but they had no free will (except when he allowed them to choose to follow Him or Lucifer), and no character because they never suffered hardship. It would be like having a robot for a companion: shallow. So he created Adam and Eve and put them in a garden (which was NOT perfect, and NOT paradise, because it contained the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and evil [which, by the way, is only a figurative tree]) and gave them free will, knowing that his adversary, Satan, would cause them to fall. This was the only way he would be able to show them His attributes. How could he show them that he was a healer, a savior, a father, a brother, a councilor, etc. if there were no evil? In essence, he was trying to instil His wisdom in them, which could only be gained by experience. I don't know why He chose to do it that way, he just did. He also wanted them to choose to serve him despite their hardships, and for them to eventually become the perfect companions for Him.
The story of the Bible is a miraculous one. Men bled and died to preserve it, which is more than you can say about any other book. But to answer your question, God preserved His Word. Yes, Satan has tried to distort it over the years, and he has succeeded in doing so with a number of translations, such as the NIV, which distort the meaning of the original text and even leave out whole verses. One of the only reliable versions is the King James Version. The reasons for this are beyond the scope of this discussion. You'll just have to take my word for it. If you're interested in learning more about how we inherited the Bible we have today you can probably find a video at your library called "The Forbidden Book" (and if you can't find one there I can send you one for free) that explains more.
But that raises another question. Why is it that the Bible (which, although some people deny as truth, can certainly do no harm) was so violently suppressed? Why is Christianity the most persecuted and derided religion in the world? Certainly not because it's the most dangerous, or the most silly (consider the absurdity of Hinduism). In my opinion it gives credibility to the Bible's claims, since the Bible warns that Christians would be persecuted, and warns us about Satan. The existence of Satan would certainly explain all of the persecution and suppression of the Christian faith that has gone on.
But back to your question. Satan can't change one thing about the Bible without God knowing. God has preserved His word.
Look at your own question for a moment: "What if the devil added the part of the holocaust in hopes that it would be full-filled?" Let's say that he did. Why? Who could have suspected that one man could have taken over the government of an entire nation almost overnight? THEN, who would have suspected that that same man just happened to have a blind hatred of Jews? THEN, that this same man could turn on of the most backward countries in Europe into a military superpower and take over most of the continent, enabling him to carry out his genocidal intentions? What reason would Satan have to hope that this would happen?
My statement about resentment wasn't necessarily aimed at you. It's just that so many people ask that question with a tone of bitterness in their voice, like they're mad at God for disappointing them. Many times they are.
One thing to consider is that if God is real and all knowing, it is silly for us to question His justice. It's more likely that we're wrong than that He's wrong.
I have one last question relating to evolution for the time being (Sorry, I can't help myself). If any intermediate species ever existed between man and monkey, why do none of them exist today? Sure, you could say that higher forms of the homo genus wiped out the previous inferior form, but then, why didn't those inferior forms wipe out, say, monkeys? This is a hole that I don't believe evolutionists will ever fill.
Good grief I'm long winded.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Build a man a fire, he'll be warm for an evening.
Light a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
I would like to ask why is it that God has lived forever yet He can make things happen in time for us? Basicly the best way to illustrate the question is.. If a man can lift 10,000 pounds on a whimsical impulse (& i mean IF), then how can he be gentle enough to hold a baby? Simple! He would hafto RESTRAIN himself to fit the situation. But is that what God has done with us relating to time & knowledge?
Also I'd like to ask, does that mean that the 'hardships' we face might actually be God's way? Sence we established that God is unknowably greater, then wouldn't it be insane to say that we couldn't fully understand His ways?
Ashes to ashes dust to dust, all shall return to the captian crunch.
Hmm, perhaps the cow analogy was also sloppy. What I wanted to ask was “why didn't god give us experience.” Why put us on the earth? Why not anticipate what we will go through and instantly instill it in us. It will produce the same results, only humans will not actually have to be on the earth. It would be like the movie “the matrix,” where the people do not actually have to learn how to fly a helicopter; they learn how to do so through “brain programming” (essentially the same thing, only the latter is instantaneous).
“It sounds to me that if the gentiles (most of whom hadn't heard of the Law or of Jesus) merely obeyed the conscience that God placed in them to do what was right (not knowing the law, but abiding by it), then they would be saved just like those who knew the law and obeyed it.”
Does this mean that someone who embodies the principles of god, but does not believe in god, will go to heaven?
“What does the space of our lives have to do with God's mercy, or God anticipating our hardships?”
Because we are on the earth for a certain amount of time, we will experience pain and suffering. Why make us (physically) go through such ordeals if god knows exactly what will happen to us (and do the matrix thing instead – give us the experience without our having to actually go through the experience)
“But back to your question. Satan can't change one thing about the Bible without God knowing. God has preserved His word.”
I wanted to know how we would know whether or not a bible is tainted. The King James Version could have been corrupted and the only way to prove that it was not corrupted is through pure faith. Or am I wrong?
“What reason would Satan have to hope that this would happen?”
Since satan wants people to doubt god, this would suit his agenda perfectly. “make god appear evil (because he allowed such atrocities to happen).” If you say that the holocaust prediction (even if it were to be written by satan) would only help to give evidence of god, this only helps my argument in that satan left his mark without our knowledge of his crime.
“if any intermediate species ever existed between man and monkey, why do none of them exist today?”
There is a hypothesis that states that man did not evolve from the monkey (especially the ones we see today). Man and monkey probably evolved from a common ancestor. The monkeys stayed in the trees and perhaps wiped out the common ancestor (since they were more “fit” than the common ancestor). Meanwhile, man was thrown from the trees and had to make a living on the ground. Man went through various steps before reaching the “modern” man. As for the intermediates, they were probably unfit to compete with the ever-changing human (the one that went on to become the modern one), and were wiped out as a result.
It is also important to note that the fossilization process is not a simple one. There are many conditions that need to be satisfied. This is why there are some many missing links in fossil records. Fortunately, paleontologists have found some fossils of species that showed gradual changes over time (I believe that the horse was one of them, but I am not completely sure).
A question I asked a while ago was what happened to the babies who died before acquiring any character (something like that). I believe that you said they automatically go to heaven. Since this is true, isn't this unfair to the people who were not killed as babies? Wouldn't abortion doctors be hailed as saviors? Despite killing unborn children, those doctors sent those children to heaven. Perhaps some confused doctor (on the verge of becoming a Christian) reads this blog and thinks “If I abort babies, I will send them to heaven.” However, he is ignorant of only one of the ten commandments (you shall not kill). In addition, he unconsciously embodies all the other principles of the bible – he has a clean slate, save for the abortions. Since his intentions are obviously good, would the confused, but well-intentioned doctor go to heaven?
I am beginning to see more of the kinds of responses that I had hoped not to see (such as: we cannot understand the ways of god because to understand is to become [god], to understand the ways of god is impossible). I wanted to avoid seeing these types of responses, but I suppose it cannot be helped in some cases :(
--Let us sit down and debate this matter like civilized individuals. Now where is my hammer!?--
I honestly don't think you'll ever be satasfied with any answer that I give you... (or at least you will choose not to be). I'm experiencing some major deja voux with your questions because I've asked just about each and every one of these at some point, right down to Satan possibly perverting the Bible. You wouldn't happen to have been born in late October-early November, would you?
I understand your question now. Once again, by definition, experience takes active participation. But what's up with all of the Matrix examples? You're basing your arguments on a complete fantasy? I'm not poking fun, it's just something to consider.
But let's pretend that you could do "the Matrix thing" and automatically instill experience. The problem with that is you still lack the hardship, which makes it impossible for you to appreciate the knowledge you got from the experience. Not only that, but there would be no way for us to learn patience if we received instant gratification like you propose.
Maybe that still doesn't satasfy your very honest curiosity. Consider this. In your hypothetical situations, you assume that God is eternal, and He is. Therefore, from His point of view, and as far as He is concerned, the process of us acquiring character is instantaneous. However, to us who are subject to time, it seems like a long, arduous process.
I'm still confused about your question about the Bible. What are the chances of Satan picking the one outrageous event that ended up coming to pass? The whole premise is ridiculous. But why stop at changing the Bible? Couldn't Satan have written the Bible himself in order to deceive us? I guess my point is that there is no reason to suspect that Satan wrote the Bible. Not only that, but Satan would be writing a book that condemns himself. He would also be writing a book that, if obeyed, produced a happy and well ordered society.
But as I said, the whole premise is ridiculous. If his goal was to deceive everyone, he sure hasn't succeeded very well. What if you are deceived?
"Does this mean that someone who embodies the principles of god, but does not believe in god, will go to heaven?" This is a hypothetical situation. It is impossible to embody the principles of God without believing in God. Why? Because in order to obey your conscience, you have to have a reason to obey it: accountability to a higher power. Guilt is obviously not an adequate motivator, because people ignore their conscience on a daily basis.
It is interesting to note that no human society (at least no major one) in history has been atheistic. There seems to be a primitive desire in man to believe in God. Some might argue that this is because "religion is the opium of the people", but Sigmund Freud claimed that the moral restraints of religion made man miserable.
I don't see what the difficulty of fossilization has to do with anything. All kinds of other fossils have been found, what makes primitive humans immune to this force of nature? Every piece of "fossil evidence" for the evolution of mankind from any creature at all, be it moneky or any other beast, is non-existent. The fossil affectionately refered to as "lucy" is a great example. All the pictures you see show the precious few fragments of bone assembled in what might be imagined to be a primitive human, along with the stereotypical article supporting evolution. What they do not mention in the article is that the skeleton was assembled from fossils that were spread over several hundred feet. Is that good science? Why is it that evolutionists are so ready to make the evidence fit their theory, rather than the theory fit their evidence? Up until this point, I don't know of one valid transitional fossil. All previous fossils have either been proven to be fakes or have magically disappeared.
You said something very interesting in your earlier post.
"You are right, there are many problems with the theory (altough I still fancy the theory). Perhaps the theory is untrue."
If there are obvious holes in the theory, why do you fancy it? Is it possible that your atheism (which you no doubt consider very reasonable and scientific) involves just as much faith as belief in the Bible, if not more?
You pose another very good quetion about abortion. I am honestly not sure that I am right about all babies going to heaven. Once again, the Bible is silent on this (although I assure everyone on there that none of them go to Limbo any more than adults go to Mordor and Lothlorien). The Bible is silent on this issue, and I don't think it's wise for me to make any definite pronouncement on the subject. It is possible that God allows a baby to die because in his omniscience he knows that that child would have no chance in life. That would be merciful. However, we must never presume to make such a decision ourselves. It is one thing if a baby dies of natural causes, another thing entirely when we intentionally kill it. It could just as easily be the case that abortion doctors, without any malicious intent but nevertheless ignoring God's law, are actually sending babies to hell. In this case, it's not God's fault, it's the abortion doctors' fault. God respects humans' free moral agency (right to make descisions) that he endowed them with.
"(such as: we cannot understand the ways of god because to understand is to become [god], to understand the ways of god is impossible)"
I don't understand why you are disappointed with that response. There is nothing unreasonable in this idea.
Here is something else to consider. If the majority of evidence points to the existence of the God of the Bible (which it does), wouldn't it be wise to assume that anything you consider contradictory to His character as set forth in His Word is not an actuality, but a flaw in perception, an inability to understand it, or a limitation on our finite minds to understand an infinite God?
Food for thought.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Build a man a fire, he'll be warm for an evening.
Light a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
You are correct; I probably will not be satisfied with the answers you give me. A few of the answers you provide are similar to the ones adults give to little children: you can’t understand because you’re too little (or in my case, I am a mortal and, thus, cannot understand the ways of an immortal)
I know that I repeated some questions; I did so because you answered something I did not ask. I rephrased in hopes of getting a different answer.
“You're basing your arguments on a complete fantasy?”
I do not see how I based my arguments on a complete fantasy. I asked you a question before, and you did not understand it. That is why I provided an analogy to help you.
“The problem with that is you still lack the hardship”
Very well, let me rephrase my argument on this matter again. If you are an all-powerful being who wants people to appreciate your wonders, why don’t you instantly create humans who will appreciate the things that you do. In addition, give them the characteristics and experiences that you desire so as to avoid putting people on earth for a grand plan. They do not need hardships since you can instantly give them character (after all, you are the judge in the end; this means that you pick the qualities that will determine whether or not people went to heaven). Why bother to experiment with the free-will in the earth plan? In the end, you just want people who will marvel at your wonders. It seems wasteful and cruel to experiment with people and let them run amuck in order to determine who will marvel at your wonders in the end.
“Not only that, but there would be no way for us to learn patience if we received instant gratification like you propose.”
There seems to be no point in patience. Mortals die. People in heaven do not. As you said, god is eternal and mortal time is nothing to him. This would also apply to people in heaven. Patience is for what purpose? You said that god wants companions who will marvel at his wonders. Patience is obsolete since everyone in heaven is immortal (unless people can die in heaven?).
“Therefore, from His point of view, and as far as He is concerned, the process of us acquiring character is instantaneous. However, to us who are subject to time, it seems like a long, arduous process.”
That was my point. It is terrible for us and nothing to god. One would expect mercy, which would spare us from the arduous and long process called life on earth.
“But as I said, the whole premise is ridiculous. If his goal was to deceive everyone, he sure hasn't succeeded very well. What if you are deceived?”
The premise is not ridiculous. The question is legitimate. Obviously, some people in history have gotten the notion that they had to force religion upon others. Some even resorted to violence. Perhaps the parts of the bible that subtly encouraged violence were inspired by the devil. What parts you ask? Parts that are ambiguous; parts that are open to many interpretations (such as parts concerning homosexuals). Also, alteration is not limited to making additions. Erasing parts of the bible is also altering the bible. What if there were passages that said homosexuality or abortion was okay? Perhaps the devil erased those parts in order to have people hate homosexuals and pro-choice people. Perhaps the devil did erase certain parts of the bible. No one knows.
“This is a hypothetical situation. It is impossible to embody the principles of God without believing in God. Why? Because in order to obey your conscience, you have to have a reason to obey it: accountability to a higher power.”
What if you choose not to kill people merely because you think that it is wrong to take away life? What if you honor your parents because you feel that it is your duty to give respect to people who have experienced more of life than you have? What if you choose not to envy others because you are happy with what you have? Are you saying that people who do not believe in god cannot think this way? I know people who do not believe in god (and they acknowledge that) and yet they follow some basic principals of the bible (such as do not kill, honor your parents).
Accountability to a higher power? It sounds as if one would fear how god would judge him or her. If someone chooses to obey all the laws of the bible out of fear of judgment, then that does not show much character to me – that is submission to coercion.
“Guilt is obviously not an adequate motivator, because people ignore their conscience on a daily basis.”
I think guilt is an adequate motivator for some people. You do them no justice by saying this.
“It is interesting to note that no human society (at least no major one) in history has been atheistic”
I do not think it is interesting. The science we use to explain phenomenons were not available to the early human society. By the time science experienced a surge of progress, it was too late – religions were deeply embedded in society.
“I don't see what the difficulty of fossilization has to do with anything. All kinds of other fossils have been found, what makes primitive humans immune to this force of nature?”
You are wrong to compare the number of human fossils to all other animal fossils, because human fossils are very specific. It would be similar to asking “how come there are so little apples in this store? There are all kinds of other fruits in this store (oranges, pears, et cetera).”
“If there are obvious holes in the theory, why do you fancy it? Is it possible that your atheism (which you no doubt consider very reasonable and scientific) involves just as much faith as belief in the Bible, if not more?”
The message in your parentheses is obviously insulting in tone and absolutely unnecessary.
The theory of evolution is a product of many human minds. It helps us to attempt to understand our origins. It has many individual theories within itself. Some have strong evidences backing them up. Some, however, either fail or are left with a large question mark.
Of course, I can choose to believe that the environment can alter animals, and that the animals which mutated with an advantage would have a better chance of survival; therefore, more of these “advantaged” animals reproduced, eventually shifting the entire species. What evidence supports this? Bacteria. We have experimented with bacteria. We placed them in growth cultures and later gave them poison. Most died. However, some were resistant to the poison and reproduced. Eventually, the general bacteria became immune to the poison. I take in this information and say to myself “Yes, it would make sense that some changes are good for animals to reproduce. Then overtime, the species will change (externally or internally).”
Think of a jigsaw puzzle. Some parts do not belong, and some are missing. However, the pieces that we have gathered and assembled seem to hint of the word “evolution.” It is as if the word was spanning across all the pieces.
However, you cannot believe in only certain parts of the bible. With the bible, one has to believe everything in the book. It is an “all or nothing.” If you find a part that is missing, you have to throw away the entire puzzle. The difference is that evolution is fluid and subject to changing theories. The bible is stagnant.
Here is something else to consider. If the majority of evidence points to the existence of the God of the Bible (which it does)
What evidence? I think that the predictions set forth in the bible are very ambiguous.
The Hittites? Perhaps one of the bible authors traveled there or heard about it. Overtime, people forgot about the Hittites. What is unusual about this? It would be similar to William Faulkner’s Yoknapatawpha setting, which was based on a real life place. Perhaps some time in the future, the place where Faulkner based his story will be destroyed. Then people would doubt the existence of Yoknapatawpha. The Hittites situation is similar.
Secular evidence for the flood? I have heard of many secular evidences that went against the flood.
“A common thread runs throughout the Bible, despite the fact that it was written by some 33 authors over the course of three to four thousand years.” Have you ever drawn a maze before? I have drawn many and I have always managed to keep only one true path. I would assume that these bible authors were staunch bible defenders and were also very familiar with the contents. So they were careful, what of it?
Isaiah 40:22 says concerning God that “It is He that sitteth upon the circle of the earth.”
So the earth is a circle? Aren’t circles flat? Spheres are round.
“ He stretches out the north over empty space, and hangs the earth on nothing.”
This is open to interpretation. He could mean that there seems to be nothing holding the earth from above. That is the definition of hang – the earth has to be hung on something above the earth (which there was nothing to be seen.)
“Levitical law also required the Israelites to wash themselves after handling a dead body”
Perhaps the authors were superstitious people who believed that dead bodies bring them bad luck, which prompted them to write that particular law.
As for the Israel “prophecy,” I will need to look into that a little more. I will adress that soon enough.
--Let us sit down and debate this matter like civilized individuals. Now where is my hammer!?--
Am I annoying you with all these questions? I think I am just as stubborn as you are - I like my reasoning and you like your reasoning. I remember that you said that perhaps you subconsciously wanted to keep me interested in this debate. I am interested in this debate, but I do not think we are getting anywhere. . .
--Let us sit down and debate this matter like civilized individuals. Now where is my hammer!?--
No you're not annoying me. This is the whole point of a website like this. Ask on. I am finding it annoying debating over 8 different subjects at once...
But I wasn't trying to be derisive at all with that parenthetical. I was pointing out that atheists seem to think that evolution is scientific, and accuse the Bible of being unreasonable because it requires faith to believe.
"What if you choose not to kill people merely because you think that it is wrong to take away life??" I always laugh when people ask questions like this. What basis do you have to think it's wrong to take life? Certainly compassion and consideration for your neighbor can have no place in the theory of evolution. The "fittest" didn't survive because they thought of what the impact of their actions would be on other creatures. I have one simple question. If God doesn't exist, then what is the basis for your moral standards? If there is no God then there is also no right and wrong, because the universe is purely physical.
"However, you cannot believe in only certain parts of the bible. With the bible, one has to believe everything in the book. It is an “all or nothing.” If you find a part that is missing, you have to throw away the entire puzzle. The difference is that evolution is fluid and subject to changing theories. The bible is stagnant." You are progressively making less and less sense. I haven't a clue what point you're trying to make. I would rather believe in something that was true, is true, and always will be true and isn't subject to the whim of science or anything else, rather than something that is constantly changing because it's repeately proven wrong. If life is a puzzle, then evolutionists are cutting pieces to make them fit. The Bible is stagnant? I don't know one person who's life has been improved by learning evolution. Instead, kids just start committing suicide more frequently because they think that there is nothing worth living for. Evolution = futility and death.
"Have you ever drawn a maze before? I have drawn many and I have always managed to keep only one true path. I would assume that these bible authors were staunch bible defenders and were also very familiar with the contents. So they were careful, what of it?" So you're saying that every Bible author memorized every bit of scripture written by a previous author in order to make it perfectly consistent? What motive would they have to keep this continuity? How many other cases are there of a book written by 33 different authors, all writing seperately and over a span of 4000 years that never contradicts itself on any major theme? How many other religions can find 33 influential men that can agree long enough to write a book together? There is no possible comparisson or analogy between a maze and continuity and consistency of thought. Also, it is obvious that you've never read and studied the Bible in any depth. I also wonder if you have even studied evolution in deapth.
"So the earth is a circle? Aren’t circles flat? Spheres are round." Have you ever heard of figurative language?
"This is open to interpretation. He could mean that there seems to be nothing holding the earth from above. That is the definition of hang – the earth has to be hung on something above the earth (which there was nothing to be seen.)" There is no possible way to misinterpret this. I think that the phrase "the earth hangeth on nothing" means that the earth hangeth on nothing.
Here's what I was referring to when I talked about secular evidence for the flood. Almost every major culture from around the world has a story about how god flooded the earth, including Greek, Roman, Celtic, Mayan (the list I found included roughly 40 different cultures around the world that have flood stories similar to the one found in the Bible. In fact, the lore of one particular southwestern native American tribe went on to claim that they had left their homes in the west to come to the "new world" because the people were so wicked. This squares with the Bible's account of the Tower of Babylon.
I urge you to study the prophecy about Israel by all means. You will never explain it. You'll only find more reason to believe the claims of the Bible. Here's another prophecy
"And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the LORD hath heard thy affliction. And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him."
Ishmael is the father of the Arab nations, according to the Bible. There is no question about this, since the Arabs themselves claim to be descendants of Ishmael. Kinda funny how the Arabs are enemies with virtually the entire world, just like the Bible said they would be. Go figure.
You will never be able to explain that either, just like you will never be able to explain how people have been raised from the dead, healed of cancer and all kinds of terminal illnesses, and healed psychologically, all through prayer and faith in Jesus. Don't even bother trying to question the legitimacy of these claims. I know people who personally witnessed these events, and there are doctor's records of people being declared dead, and then coming back to life. In one instance that I recall, one man was raised from the dead after he had already been embalmed.
I can see you're never going to consider any other point of view until I destroy your faith in evolution (if it's possible, which I doubt.)
"Of course, I can choose to believe that the environment can alter animals, and that the animals which mutated with an advantage would have a better chance of survival; therefore, more of these “advantaged” animals reproduced, eventually shifting the entire species. What evidence supports this? Bacteria. We have experimented with bacteria. We placed them in growth cultures and later gave them poison. Most died. However, some were resistant to the poison and reproduced. Eventually, the general bacteria became immune to the poison. I take in this information and say to myself 'Yes, it would make sense that some changes are good for animals to reproduce. Then overtime, the species will change (externally or internally).'"
You have just described a very natural process called adaptation (micro evolution). Micro evolution is observable, testable, and provable. I don't have any disagreements with it. You'll notice in your example that some of the bacteria already had this resistance to the poison inherent in their DNA. The bacteria didn't acquire a trait foreign to it's species, or change into another species. How does this prove evolution?
"Of course, I can choose to believe that the environment can alter animals, and that the animals which mutated with an advantage would have a better chance of survival; therefore, more of these “advantaged” animals reproduced, eventually shifting the entire species."
How would this "shift" the entire species? You would just end up with a superbacteria, not a plan, a fish, a bird, or anything else, just an especially strong bacteria. There is no natural process that allows one species of animal to "shift" into another. It has never been seen, tested, or observed. Neither have its effects been seen, tested, or observed. Evolution exists only in the human mind.
You keeps saying that there are different theories, and that some have evidence to back them up, and others don't, yet you have never bothered to describe what this mysterious evidence is.
As to your explanation of why monkeys exist, but not primitive forms of man, gorillas are not tree dwellers, and yet they still exist. In fact, gorillas are undeniably stronger than homo sapiens. Why didn't gorillas wipe out early man? And don't try to use the explanation "well, man was smart and invented weapons". At what point did man go from not being able to make weapons to being able to make weapons? How many generations of man somehow managed to survive the ravages of gorillas until they were finally able to make a weapon that could combat the gorilla?
Evolution is so utterly ridiculous I don't know how anyone can believe it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Build a man a fire, he'll be warm for an evening.
Light a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
“No you're not annoying me”
I am glad for that. You are a patient and civil person.
“But I wasn't trying to be derisive at all with that parenthetical. I was pointing out that atheists seem to think that evolution is scientific, and accuse the Bible of being unreasonable because it requires faith to believe.”
Some times I read things in the wrong tone. I apologize for that. Yes, I agree that evolution needs faith. A great many things require faith.
“What basis do you have to think it's wrong to take life? Certainly compassion and consideration for your neighbor can have no place in the theory of evolution. The "fittest" didn't survive because they thought of what the impact of their actions would be on other creatures.”
On the contrary, not killing your neighbor has many benefits in evolution. Think of piranhas, lions, and many other group predators – teamwork is good. If they had killed each other, they would not be here today.
“if God doesn't exist, then what is the basis for your moral standards?”
The answer is simple – I do not want to harm others because there are consequences. It could be incarceration, fines, et cetera. The weighing of action versus outcome. What need is there for me to harm others, as it only brings more troubles. Also, family values play a large role in moral standards.
“You are progressively making less and less sense. I haven't a clue what point you're trying to make.”
I apologize for that. Let me make sense again. The bible is supposed to be one hundred percent correct because it is from god, yes? Therefore, one mistake will prove that god is not omniscient. If I find at least one mistake, that will prove that the bible is not from god, since it has a mistake(s).
I do not know if you have already addressed the “creation of the earth in 7 days,” but that is an obvious mistake that even you must admit.
With science, things are a bit different. Science is from a community. The community admits to mistakes when enough counter-evidence is provided. This is what I mean by fluid. It is not whimsical because that word has a negative connotation of random, unjustifiable fancy. Science is not that. Evidence helps to make a theory acceptable.
I should be more careful with my analogies, because those can backfire quite a bit. I will be more careful.
“instead, kids just start committing suicide more frequently because they think that there is nothing worth living for.”
Since we are talking about murder here, lets address the bible. Obviously, more people have gotten the impression to murder others from the bible than the theory of evolution. Think of atrocious events such as the crusades and imperialism. Besides, the kids are killing themselves and not others – that is free-will (not that I would encourage it).
“Evolution = futility and death”
No, it does not. Evolution = fitness to reproduce. Reproducing is not death is it?
“How many other cases are there of a book written by 33 different authors, all writing seperately and over a span of 4000 years that never contradicts itself on any major theme?”
That means that they did not have to “memorize every bit of scripture written by a previous author.” So I was wrong there. That makes it easier for them to not contradict themselves, thanks.
“What motive would they have to keep this continuity?”
If they want to make people believe that it was the word of god, then they would do that.
I did admit that the bible is good advice on how to live (does not mean that I believe that it was written by god). That is the incentive – to teach people to live and appreciate life (if they could not do it by themselves).
“Also, it is obvious that you've never read and studied the Bible in any depth. I also wonder if you have even studied evolution in depth.”
I am not a scholar on the bible, but I did read genesis, exodus, Job, John, and Matthew. I also watched an old movie of Jesus and the crucifixion. You are probably right though, I should not be focusing on arguing the face context of the bible, but rather more on the principles and other questionable things behind it.
As for evolution, I read a biology book (Raven Johnson, I believe) and some websites of merit. I must state that I agree with the general idea of evolution. As you can tell, I am not familiar with many of the details – I have not even seen most of the arguments against evolution, until recently. The text books made it seem as if it was undisputed. I posed some poor arguments in defense of evolution, I will admit to that.
So allow me to remedy that. Here is a situation in which evolution makes sense.
1.There is a specie (an insect perhaps) that contains three generally variants (but not enough to qualify as different species)
2.I will call the variants Type A, Type B, and Type C
3.Type B has a mutation that prevents it from mating with Type A
4.Type A can only reproduce with Types A and C
5.Type B can only reproduce with Types B and C
6.Type C can reproduce with Types A, B, and C
7.The population of the specie (living in Area1; Area1 favors type A but is not adverse to the other types) is dominated by type A while the other two types are rather low.
A significant environmental change occurs and Type B gains a significant advantage (one of the effects of the mutation), while the other two types are at a disadvantage. The following happen.
1.Type B numbers increase.
2.Types A and C decrease.
3.Type A and some Type C migrate to Area2 because conditions in Area1 do not suit them.
4.Type B in Area1 dominate the population and Type C becomes almost non-existent.
5.Type A in Area2 dominate the population and Type C becomes almost non-existent (Area2 has a huge disadvantage for Type C).
6.Once Type C phases out, only Types A and B remain.
7.The two types will also experience micro-evolution. In addition to the fact that the two types were never compatible in reproduction (together) to begin with, the two types qualify as different species.
This is how evolution makes sense.
"'So the earth is a circle? Aren’t circles flat? Spheres are round.' Have you ever heard of figurative language”
It does not even fit the definition of figurative language. Very well then, it is “figurative language”.
“I think that the phrase "the earth hangeth on nothing" means that the earth hangeth on nothing.”
How about figurative language? Why not?
“Here's what I was referring to when I talked about secular evidence for the flood. Almost every major culture from around the world has a story about how god flooded the earth, including Greek, Roman, Celtic, Mayan (the list I found included roughly 40 different cultures around the world that have flood stories similar to the one found in the Bible”
All those cultures are trying to make sense of why there is so much ocean (about ¾ of the earth!). “There is too much water and we cannot live in it. How did it come to be this way?” Their answer to put their minds at ease: “god made it so.”
“I urge you to study the prophecy about Israel by all means. You will never explain it. You'll only find more reason to believe the claims of the Bible. Here's another prophecy”
I will try to get to doing that.
“Kinda funny how the Arabs are enemies with virtually the entire world, just like the Bible said they would be.”
The bible did not say that. It said that “his (singular, Ishmael) hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him." It does not mention his descendants, does it? “Figurative language” again?
“You will never be able to explain that either, just like you will never be able to explain how people have been raised from the dead, healed of cancer and all kinds of terminal illnesses, and healed psychologically, all through prayer and faith in Jesus.”
I cannot explain resurrections. People cannot be raised from the dead. If they rose up from being dead, then the claim that they were dead is made false because being dead is a permanent condition.
Payer and faith through Jesus cannot break the laws of this physical world (god would be playing favorites if that were true). How many people have prayed to Jesus and still died? I will let you think about that (the answer is not "less than those who prayed and survived").
However, having a strong belief that one will get better has proven to be a helping factor. I do not dispute this. I know that fake medicine has be given to ill people, and they miraculously recovered. A strong confidence is good for the immune system. Religion can boost self confidence, but it does not break the rules of this world.
“I can see you're never going to consider any other point of view until I destroy your faith in evolution (if it's possible, which I doubt.)”
Even if you break my faith in evolution, I will still not believe in the bible and the particular god it advocates. I might later believe in a “laissez-faire god” that forgot about his/her/its creations, I will admit that.
I will list some reasons other than evolution
1.I grew up in a non-bible family (practices ancestral worship)
2.I question the motives of the bible god
3.I do not want to worship anything, especially something I should not and cannot understand (that does not make sense)
4.I can find happiness without the aid of a god
5.I can accept the fact that when I die, I will stay in the ground and the elements will do their work (I will be dead and I will not care – I cannot think!)
“You have just described a very natural process called adaptation (micro evolution)”
I was too ambiguous in the explanation because I was lazy. I did not do the information justice. This will explain it better.
“Many experiments have successfully shown the principles of evolution. We hear of the evolution of TB for example to a point where drugs that use to be effective now are not because the organism has evolved to a organism that is no longer effected [in other words, the change is permanent]. Darwin's idea of natural selection is and has been clearly demonstrated. However, when it comes to the evolution of Homo sapiens and other higher plants and animals, though the evidence seems clear as to how these organisms evolved, science never lists anything as fact unless it can be clear demonstrated. This can not be done due to the fact that the predecessors are no longer living to positively verify what the fossils suggest. In other words: The process of evolution is fact. We can clearly demonstrate evolution by how we define it. The evolution of higher organisms is a theory, because the facts are not available to be absolutely sure, but there is a growing amount of facts that clearly suggest that evolution of all living things did occur.”
This was taken from Ask A Scientist- General Science Archive. Whether or not you think it is credible is up to you, here is the site if you want to take a look http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen99/gen99291.htm
“Why didn't gorillas wipe out early man? And don't try to use the explanation "well, man was smart and invented weapons".”
“well, man was smart and stayed away” Man had the trait of intellect. Yes, they probably made tools and had weapons when gorillas were around. However, it is not very smart or practical to attack a gorilla for food or any other reason. What is there to gain? It is far too troublesome. Would a mouse attack lion? I think not.
“Evolution is so utterly ridiculous I don't know how anyone can believe it.”
The bible is so utterly ridiculous I don't know how anyone could believe it.
--Let us sit down and debate this matter like civilized individuals. Now where is my hammer!?--
The Bible is only a guide for the Christian. One shouldn't believe all that is written in it. I have written a post where I put only a few of the things that ''don't fit' in the Bible. Maybe you want to read it: http://www.progressiveu.org/190000-absurdities-in-the-bible
Yikes. I don't have time to respond to all of that, but I'll address your first few points.
"On the contrary, not killing your neighbor has many benefits in evolution. Think of piranhas, lions, and many other group predators – teamwork is good. If they had killed each other, they would not be here today."
You're right that passivism towards those of the same specie might have been beneficial to some species, but most of the animals you mentioned don't need eachother to hunt, and when they did take down their prey individually, they would have more meat for themselves. No doubt in lean periods some members of the pride, pack, or what have you, die. I just can't imagine a scenario where an animal could evolve a more social behavior. Not only that, but you would have to have several creatures evolve cooperative habits simultaneously. Impossible.
"The answer is simple – I do not want to harm others because there are consequences. It could be incarceration, fines, et cetera. The weighing of action versus outcome. What need is there for me to harm others, as it only brings more troubles. Also, family values play a large role in moral standards."
You are calculating the personal gain of killing someone against the potential consequences. That's not morality. What you have just described is utilitarianism. It doesn't explain why we feel pangs of guilt when we lie to our parents, steel, hurt someone's feelings, etc.
"I do not know if you have already addressed the 'creation of the earth in 7 days,' but that is an obvious mistake that even you must admit."
I admit nothing of the kind. The Bible is not inconsistent with science. Genesis 1:1 says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." It doesn't say when this happened, and it doesn't say how much time passed between verses 1 and 2. Where is the problem?
The crusaders were no more Christians than the muslims were. They didn't know how to read the Bible. Where would they have gotten the impression? The answer is that they went on the crusade because the Pope told them to, and no matter what anybody says, the Pope isn't and never has been a Christian.
By imperialism I'm assuming you were talking about British imperialism. First of all, British imperialism brought many social benefits to formerly barbaric nations, bringing them out of abject poverty and opressive regimes. Secondly, earlier you claimed God was unmerciful because he let millions of people die without hearing about the gospel. British imperialists brought the gospel with them to the places they colonized, and now that's somehow cruel and violent? Sure, bad things happened, but those who perpetrated them were not motivated by the Bible. Evolution caused Africans to be enslaved and aborigines to be killed and stuffed like game animals, not Christianity,
"No, it does not. Evolution = fitness to reproduce. Reproducing is not death is it?"
But what is the purpose of reproduction? Reproduction is a pretty lousy reason to live. We are surviving for the sake of surviving?
"That means that they did not have to 'memorize every bit of scripture written by a previous author.' So I was wrong there. That makes it easier for them to not contradict themselves, thanks."
Um, no. Despite the fact that some of them didn't even have access to previoiusly written scripture, the Bible remains perfectly consistent. That's impossible for man to do. I only said "major" because most skeptics jump on the term "perfectly consistent" because there are so many perceived contradictions. I didn't want to widen the scope of the discussion even further. All of these "contradictoins" have a good explanations. All it takes is an open mind, an honest heart, and a bit of research.
I'll have to come back to this later.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Build a man a fire, he'll be warm for an evening.
Light a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
"If they want to make people believe that it was the word of God, then they would do that."
Why would they want to make people believe it was the Word of God?
"I did admit that the bible is good advice on how to live (does not mean that I believe that it was written by god). That is the incentive – to teach people to live and appreciate life (if they could not do it by themselves)."
"If the cyould not do it by themselves" is a key statement. That's the whole point, we can't do it by ourselves. Look at our culture. America has been steadily rejecting God in one way or another: banning prayer in schools, eliminating God from the curriculum, pushing evolution, Roe v. Wade... the list goes on. Isn't it interesting that at the same time mental diseases and nervous breakdowns have practically become pandemic? Isn't it interesting that the Bible condemns homosexuality and says that they will receive recompense for their sin, and now AIDs is indeed ravaging the homosexual community. "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." Doesn't any of this make you wonder about the authorship of the Bible?
There are several major problems with that explanation of evolution.
1. There is no example in nature of three almost identical creatures that have such dramatic differences in survivability between climates.
2. Many breeds of dogs cannot mate, but they are not different species.
3. There has never been a documented case of a favorable mutation. Mutations are DAMAGE to the organism's genome, not some kind of accidental improvement.
4. Even if one insect inherited a favorable mutation, by some miracle, there would be no chance in this world or any other that two individuals developed the same exact mutation in the same exact generation so that the two of them could mate.
5. DNA has been shown to deteriorate over time, not improve. Natural selection maintains the quality of DNA by allowing weakened strains to die off.
6. If mutation is responsible for evolution, and mutation adds information to the organism's genome, then that should mean that the more complex the animal, the more chromosomes in the genome. Unfortunately for evolution, some ants (which are undeniably more advanced than any microorganism) have only 1 chromosome as opposed to bacterium's 4, and some plants have 600 chromosomes, as opposed to humans 43. I guess we know what we have to look forward to when we evolve.
7. Consider mutations in flies. They have been known to form useless wings, different colored exoskeletons, different colored eyes, and deformed heads. They have never mutated powerful hind legs, an extra pair of legs, an extra pair of eyes, more complex eyes, leather sheathed wings, an extra pair of wings, no wings, or ANYTHING ELSE THAT WOULD CLASSIFY THEM AS ANOTHER ANIMAL.
That text book explanation is the worst example I can think of to prove anything. See? I can do it too.
1. There are three bears.
2. Bears one and two are stronger than bear three.
3. Bear three has a mutation that makes his head bigger so he can't mate... for some..reason...
4. Bear two can jump a million miles, but he has no skeleton.
5. Bear one gets killed in WWII so his specie is done for.
6. The other two bears are incompatible, and the both die.
7. Therefore, Cinderella killed JFK.
Only in Anthropology and Biology can you find such sloppy science.
I'm getting tired of refuting the same point over and over again. Face the music, friend. Evolution is toast. Start looking for another belief system.
Meanwhile, I need to get to bed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Build a man a fire, he'll be warm for an evening.
Light a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
I've seen these kind of arguments ad nauseum over the last few years and it amazes me how many people are truly bamboozled into thinking that evolution is "losing support" and has almost no real evidence for it.
The fault of this is the many pseudo-scientific Christian oriented debators that pop up websites that cite outdated and discredited studies, and references impressive sounding credentials that end up being nothing more then a diploma at a worthless organization that isn't even accredited or recognized.
Now this is particularly aimed at SnoopDaniels...If you really think you have the answers against all of the "conspiracy scientists" that have a warped world view, I have a place for you to visit.
This site tackles the entire issue:
http://www.creationtheory.org/
If you want to be added to his mail page that shows the debates between the website operator and everyone that has failed to even put a crack in his position, you can give a shot at it.
Or more simply, dive into the web board:
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewforum.php?f=5
Don't be fooled by the fact that this webboard is focused on sci fi entertainment interests as well. This guy is one of the most intelligent and scientifically educated men I've ever come across and you'll see that quite clearly if you read through his Creationontheory site above. He has attracted many of like mind over the years on his webboard.
You'll find more TRULY educated people per capita than probably any other site that scope from biology, physics and every scientific discipline in between. Be warned though. It's a very straight talk board, and he allows flaming, even with blatant profanity. He doesn't have anything against it as (rightly so), style over substance matters not. You'll have to back yourself up with real evidence and logic or you'll very quickly get your ass handed to you in a handcart. I would love to see how you'd do on the board personally....If you do sign up, my handle is Justforfun000 and I'll bring out the popcorn and watch the show. hehehe.
For the record, one of the MANY things that was bothering me immensely is your distorted view of science and scientists. Your suggestion that scientists are "biased" and they try to fit the earth to match their worldview is so incredibly ass backwards I couldn't help but laugh when I read it.
Science is a discipline that does one simple thing. It observes. It does not do what religion does which is exactly what you were trying to intimate about science and that is have a dogma and then try to make everything fit the conclusions.
Science interprets reality by verifying EMPIRICAL evidence. The very nature of science forbids conclusions before observation. They construct a theory as to HOW something might be, but then they have to make PREDICTIONS and see if they stand up. The point is that science has to be verifiable by every other scientist and there can be no contradictions if something becomes a fact. The theory of gravity works the same in middle America as it would even if it was tested by an 8 year old mongoloid in Timbuktu dropping an apple. THAT is what makes it superior and above reproach. Evidence.
There is no "faith" involved in science whatsoever and the fact that you try to ascribe these motivations to it simply shows that you are truly ignorant of the scientific method. However, you can learn about this in more detail here:
http://www.creationtheory.org/Essays/GrandIllusion.shtml
In any event, I hope you give it a shot because whether you realize it or not, you are way way off on your opinions on science. Not to mention the Bible and its supposed evidence.
And I suppose that scientists are all perfectly objective...
And I suppose that scientists believe in evolution because they have all done their own independent study on the subject, and not because they have been spoon fed it since their elementary school days and merely accept what the writers of their text books (who also blindly accepted what the writers of THEIR text books had to say) had to say.
It would be okay to claim that evolution is based on empirical evidence if any empirical evidence existed. In order for evolution to be proved with empirical evidence, as you claim, several things would have to happen:
1. Someone would have had to live and personally observe the march of life from microbe (which survives just as well as any other creature, despite it's primitive makeup) to man. This is impossible.
2. Since number 1 is impossible, we would have to accept some more realistic evidence. Therefore, someone would have to demonstrate, through observation, that mutations can be beneficial.
3. Then, someone would have to show, through observation, that despite statistical impossibility, two creatures of the same species and opposite sex could acquire the same exact mutation in the same exact generation, allowing them to pass it on to the next generation.
The only reason evolution has a lease on life is because sience doesn't use purely empirical evidence.
It is poor reasoning indeed to say that you believe something is true just because a majority of "truely educated" peoplel believe it. How do you know if someone's credentials are better than the next guys? Have you taken a census of creationists scientists and asked them to present their credentials in order to come up with your statistics?
Do the names Hugh Ross and Guillermo Gonzales mean anything to you? Both of them have Ph. D's from prominent universities. Guillermo Gonzales, an astro-physicist, wrote a peer-reviewed book that mathematically proves that the universe was designed.
I've watched debates between prominent evolutionists and creationists, and over and over again the evolutionists get owned. One creationist in particular named Kent Hovind (who I don't exactly consider the most reasonable or credentialed creation scientist) has repeatedly beat the pants off of his evolutionist contemporaries. How do you get off claiming that creationists are somehow pseudoscientists and evolutionists are the
Next to the guy who called me a "bastard" for bashing catholics, yours was the most laughable argument yet.
I'll take a look at those websites later just to humor you.
----------------------------------
One more thing. How come every evolutionist I argue with always says "I hear that argument all the time" or "this is exactly what I expected to hear from someone like you"? If you hear them all the time, how come you can't come up with a logical response to them? You say things like "I hear that all the time" as if that somehow excuses you from answering the question!! How logical is that.
I'm this close to vowing never to debate evolutionist again simply because most of them can't have a logical argument. I found it ironic when I looked at that website you suggested and found a section about debating creationists. It said that creationists don't respect the rules of debate because they are trying to convert you. Then, a few sentences later, the author goes on to say that you might even change the mind of a type 2 creationist. So what exactly is the aim of an evolutionist in an argument, if not to convince the opponent of their point of veiw? Then I get the kind of "arguments" that I just mentioned and you call it valid debate. This is so hypocritical it makes my head want to explode.
If there IS real evidence for evolution why don't you present it instead of just claiming its existence? And if you hear my kind of arguments all of the time, why can't you seem to respond intelligently to them?
Here's another question.
Evolution could be summed up in one phrase "survival of the fittest". The whole theory of evolution is built around the idea that the strong survive, and that thousands of years of rooting out the weak has finally led to the evolution of man.
The problem with this idea is that all creatures survive marvelously in their respective environments. Bacteria don't have any more difficulty surviving than any other living organism. They are all equally well-suited to their environments. How does this leave room for evolution?
Take your generic fish. What possible change in the fish's genome could make it survive better in the water? Becoming a reptile certainly wouldn't help it. Okay, so maybe it could become a better fish. But then, if there were one superior specie of fish, why is there such a huge variety? Certainly evolutionary theory would dictate that one fish would have a decided advantage over the others.
I would like all of you evolutionists to try an experiment. Catch a fish and throw it on a beach. What happens? Does it eventually evolve lungs and grow arms and legs and adapt to its new life on dry land? No, it dies. "But evolution is gradual!" I can hear you all saying. Of course it is. But what does a fish do in the meantime before it evolves all of the necessary organs to live on land? You could then postulate that they evolved all of the necessary organs to live on land while it was still in the water. This doesn't make any either, because every change that made it more suitable for land would make it less suitable for water! In addition, it doesn't square with the "survival of the fittest" portion of evolutionary theory. In order for a trait to "catch on" as it were, it would have to pose some decided advantage to the organism that acquired it. What possible advantage could an aquatic animal gain from a "mutation" that helps it survive on land?
I'm sure someone more eloquent than me has already written a book about this idea... I'll have to look for it.
But before you come back with one more "argument" I want you to watch two different documentaries. They're both computer animated and extremely high quality, so you should find yourself at least entertained, if not educated. One is called "The Privileged Planet" and the second is called "Unlocking the Mystery of Life". Either way it will end our debate. Either you will finally realize the stupidity of evolution, or you won't. If you don't come to your senses then I would be wasting my time to continue debating with you because it is clear that nothing I say will every convince you. Either way the case is closed.
This goes for you too, Crovax.
Don't take this as "I've won the argument and I'm done talking to you." This is a clear case of "If those documentaries don't convince you then there's nothing that I can do that will every convince you, and vice versa. Therefore, I'm not going to waste any more time debating."
I think you can agree to that.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Build a man a fire, he'll be warm for an evening.
Light a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
SCIENTISTS can be subjective, but the scientific METHOD is objective. Eventually subjectivity will be discovered because other scientists have to be able to get the same results by repeating the experiments and peer reviewing the data. Unlike religion, there isn't anything to "believe", you have to PROVE your theories.
See this is again where people like you demonstrate not only your ignorance, but your unbelievable arrogance. You have probably skimmed scattered creationist or ID literature and assumed this gives you an understanding of the issue enough to decide you don't "believe" evolution.
The people who TRULY understand this in as much of an entirety as can be possible have studied for YEARS in university and have probably had more hands on experience then you can shake a stick at. The very fact that the damn near universal unanimity among scientists and archeologists that do not question the basic theory of evolution one bit and accept it as fact should be enough for anybody to use common sense and realize that the evidence and consistency is there. Just because you can be superficially bamboozled by deceptive pseudoscientific arguments does not mean the people in the know are mistaken.
No you wouldn't and it is precisely these stupid arguments that gets scientists so they just tune out idiots who spout this kind of crap. You need two basic things to show evidence for the theory of evolution.
Fossil records that consistently show connections between species of animals by proving extremely small changes along the way changed successive generations through the magic of adaption. This over a long enough period of time can change living creatures into very different life forms. That is a HIGHLY simplified description by the way.
Secondly, you can show it actually happening as you watch it in cases where the natural process of evolution is speeded up incredibly through human intervention. Scientific studies on fruit flies, the domestication of animals like dogs from their wolf ancestors, and numerous other examples demonstrate QUITE clearly, right in front of your face, that evolution is a fact. Eventually, you can evolve animals into a change far enough from the original state that they can no longer interbreed and hence, you have a new species.
Even this above is just my own generalized understanding. I have studied very little of the in depth subject of Evolution, but I've seen the arguments over and over and I have never failed to see every single creationist or ID argument fail miserably once they went up against the people in the know. You'll discover it yourself when you go to that site and try it as you say you're going to try later in your post...
I hope I didn't screw up my responses above. I could even be a little off on the exact way I described the above, although I'm correct in essence. It really IS a very complex subject and many people also get evolution and abiogenesis mixed up.
They have. Many many times. Go ask the board. They tend to have the actual citations of examples and studies. To my memory, the problem with creationists is they have this incredibly simplified idea of mutations having to be very drastic and immediately functional. Again, the complexity of fully understanding the science behind this is important. Without having the comprehensive knowledge to grasp every major interlocking discipline and corrobarative biology behind the theory, people strawman parts of evolution and end up arguing against a specific sentence that it never actually SAID. Quick example, "mankind has never been shown to descend directly from monkeys so evolution is wrong". Evolution never said that. Not even close. It said we shared a COMMON ANCESTOR. Huge difference.
That is not necessary. They don't need to share the same mutation. It can still be passed on and be recessive. Many things happen in micromutations. This should be common sense. Where are you getting this information?
How? Because of COOPERATION! The very fact that the majority of people around the world created international standards that all agreed on shows that people can actually use strength in numbers in a way that DOES matter. These are disciplines that can be PROVEN to be effective.
Let me put it to you this way. If you end up with a tumour that has to be surgically removed from your colon, you can go to a medically trained surgeon who has gone to an accredited medical school following standards that have been shown to be exemplary and effective, or instead a witch doctor from the Unga-Bunga tribe in western Africa can arrange a local witch doctor to cast the demon out of you that resides in your tumour thereby enabling it to break down and be absorbed into your body without harm and curing you.
If you can feel perfectly comfortable with the second option because who cares what the majority thinks, then fine. I guess if you feel that way, then your viewpoint on scientists and evolution is consistent and you aren't being a hypocrite.
after all the witch doctor could be just as effective, right?
I waded into this thread after 5 million paragraphs. Do you think I have time to spend the 6 hours necessary to answer everything brought up before I posted? Like I said before, I'm not even the most boned up on it. Others have this kind of rebuttal info right at their fingertips and can be much quicker at this than I. That's why I suggested you give it a try over there. I'm making stabs at where you're going wrong just to try and give you at least a general idea where your premises are flawed.
LOL! that is the silliest thing you've said yet. First of all, there is no such thing as an "evolutionist". The term doesn't even exist. Second, you'll get logical arguments all right when you head over there. If you aren't an expert in logical fallacies either, you're going to be educated quite thoroughly on that aspect as well because they'll identify yours in a second. :)
That's what university is for! This is nothing but an appeal to laziness. Just because you haven't learned the entire theory and science behind evolution doesn't make the science invalid, it just makes you ignorant of it. People have to SEEK this information and it isn't simplified into little handy-dandy "proof kits". The world doesn't work that way. You need to do the damn work like every other ACCREDITED scientist that actually has the doctorates to speak as authorities on the subject.
What are you talking about? You are saying that because most existing creatures (that you are AWARE of by the way), seem to be living well without dying off this is proof evolution is wrong? Most living organisms have been around for BILLIONS of years so common sense would suggest that these have been the most successful in coexisting harmoniously enough to continue the species even as part of the food chain.
The point is that many species HAVE died and become extinct. They failed to overcome the challenges necessary to continue. Maybe the birth rate was too low. They didn't evolve speed enough as a trait. Maybe they became too localized in a habitat and man screwed them over. All of this is really very easy to see and I'm not even researching it. Just think about it for a bit.
Evolution is not a design or plan. It is chaotic and unstructered. Many divergences are possible and have created many different possibilities. Mutation is both potentially beneficial or detrimental. Only the beneficial ones were likely to survive to this day obviously, so the detrimental ones would be gone.
Now see, this just shows you know absolutely nothing about true evolution. You are ascribing a meaning to it that has nothing to do with the theory. Evolution is not immediate and drastic like that. That is as stupid as saying that since an antiobiotic doesn't cure you the instant you swallow it, that it doesn't really work. There is a little something called "time" that matters in these cases. The process of breaking down the capsule, having it assimilate into the bloodstream, start killing the bacteria that exists there, and ultimately remove the infection is a gradual one because that is the way reality is. Same with your silly example. Evolution does not intantly transform characteristics like magic.
Anyway, your remaining arguments simply show the same lack of understanding. You don't know the subject, and you have been deceived by pseudoscience. You want your logical arguments? You want proof and evidence? You want to be humbled and possibly make a real step towards realizing you don't know as much as you think you know? Visit the web board and start learning.
"SCIENTISTS can be subjective, but the scientific METHOD is objective. Eventually subjectivity will be discovered because other scientists have to be able to get the same results by repeating the experiments and peer reviewing the data. Unlike religion, there isn't anything to "believe", you have to PROVE your theories."
I agree that the scientific METHOD is objective. Unfortunately, the men who use it, are not. A instrument of measurement is only as accurate as the person using it.
"See this is again where people like you demonstrate not only your ignorance, but your unbelievable arrogance. You have probably skimmed scattered creationist or ID literature and assumed this gives you an understanding of the issue enough to decide you don't "believe" evolution."
What do you know? I've sat through hours of lectures on Intelligent Design and Creation. I have read books on the subject. I was taught evolution in elementary school. I have read about evolution in numerous sources, including my college biology text book, which showed how evolution was genetically impossible. I have watched debates between evolutionists and creationists (where the evolutionists were unequivocally beaten) over and over again. I have assessed the evidence on both sides. Let me ask you a question. Have you ever done any research on intelligent design?
"Secondly, you can show it actually happening as you watch it in cases where the natural process of evolution is speeded up incredibly through human intervention. Scientific studies on fruit flies, the domestication of animals like dogs from their wolf ancestors, and numerous other examples demonstrate QUITE clearly, right in front of your face, that evolution is a fact. Eventually, you can evolve animals into a change far enough from the original state that they can no longer interbreed and hence, you have a new species."
So, dog breeders have been able to breed dogs into bears? No, they have bred dogs into arguably better dogs (even though I would hate to see a domestic dog of any kind get in a fight with its wolf ancestor).
"Even this above is just my own generalized understanding. I have studied very little of the in depth subject of Evolution, but I've seen the arguments over and over and I have never failed to see every single creationist or ID argument fail miserably once they went up against the people in the know."
If you don't know much about it, why are you so ready to defend it? You still haven't shown how my argument above are false, you merely point and declare like a hysterical child that I'm wrong whithout showing how.
"Fossil records that consistently show connections between species of animals by proving extremely small changes along the way changed successive generations through the magic of adaption."
For instance? There is certainly no evidence that humans were the result of such a change.
"I waded into this thread after 5 million paragraphs. Do you think I have time to spend the 6 hours necessary to answer everything brought up before I posted? Like I said before, I'm not even the most boned up on it. Others have this kind of rebuttal info right at their fingertips and can be much quicker at this than I. That's why I suggested you give it a try over there. I'm making stabs at where you're going wrong just to try and give you at least a general idea where your premises are flawed."
The problem with this claim is that nobody has been able to answer my challenges so far. It's not you I'm talking about. All of the evolutionists I've debated with on here so far are either irrational, or know less than I do about evolution. I'm noticing a pattern...
Nobody has told me anything that I haven't heard before. I'm getting tired of this.
"LOL! that is the silliest thing you've said yet. First of all, there is no such thing as an "evolutionist". The term doesn't even exist."
Mhmmm... Another evolutionist demonstrates his brilliance.
Evolutionist - a student of or adherent to a theory of evolution.
www.dictionary.com
"Second, you'll get logical arguments all right when you head over there. If you aren't an expert in logical fallacies either, you're going to be educated quite thoroughly on that aspect as well because they'll identify yours in a second. :)"
And yet you can't seem to. Why can't you defend your beliefs yourself? You are just like the other two guys I'm debating. You claim that my arguments are flawed an illogical, but you can't tell me why.
"That is not necessary. They don't need to share the same mutation. It can still be passed on and be recessive. Many things happen in micromutations. This should be common sense. Where are you getting this information?"
Here is a whole website full of quotes from (evolutionist) scientists about mutation. See what they have to say.
"That's what university is for! This is nothing but an appeal to laziness. Just because you haven't learned the entire theory and science behind evolution doesn't make the science invalid, it just makes you ignorant of it. People have to SEEK this information and it isn't simplified into little handy-dandy "proof kits". The world doesn't work that way. You need to do the damn work like every other ACCREDITED scientist that actually has the doctorates to speak as authorities on the subject."
On the contrary, I've probably done more research on the subject than you have. Have you ever read or listened to material about ID or did you just pass it off as nonsense because "scientists disagree with Intelligent Design". You can't even give me any evidence or even reasons why evolution is true, which demonstrates that (pardon me) between the two of us, you are the lazy and ignorant one.
"What are you talking about? You are saying that because most existing creatures (that you are AWARE of by the way), seem to be living well without dying off this is proof evolution is wrong?"
Not at all. I'm saying that a gigantic variety of creatures, regardless of their complexity and "advancement", seem to survive just fine. The whole basis of evolution is survival of the fittest. But it would seem that many different types of creatures seemed to be well suited to the same environment. Have you ever heard the word "ecosystem"? Well, if you have, then you'll know that the world is a complex system of organisms that rely on eachother for survival. In other words, the ecosystem had to be created in its present state, or something close to it, in order for any one of those organisms to survive. Evolution cannot account for this.
"Evolution is not a design or plan. It is chaotic and unstructered. Many divergences are possible and have created many different possibilities."
When have you ever known chaos and random disorder to create anything, or result in organized, intricate structure? The whole idea is absurd.
"Now see, this just shows you know absolutely nothing about true evolution."
I think we've addressed this before. The only thing that our exchange has shown is that most evolutionists, including you, know less about the theory than I do. In the case of Crovax, it was by his own admission. By the way, I've never heard of "true" evolution. I thought there was only one kind.
"Evolution is not immediate and drastic like that."
And yet, in order for it to work, it would have to be immediate and drastic. Please, describe a plausable scenario in which a fish evolves into a land animal. There is none.
"Anyway, your remaining arguments simply show the same lack of understanding. You don't know the subject, and you have been deceived by pseudoscience. You want your logical arguments? You want proof and evidence? You want to be humbled and possibly make a real step towards realizing you don't know as much as you think you know? Visit the web board and start learning."
In answer to this statement, I recall an earlier statement of your own.
"I have studied very little of the in depth subject of Evolution"
And, as to your constant appeals to visit the web board...
I don't even proport to be able to battle a learned evolutionist. That's out of my league. I have no way to know if what they're saying (in the way of scientific study and "evidence" is even true. I'll let the creationist scientists deal with them. Right now I am arguing average guy to average guy, and it is clear that the average evolutionist guy is no contest for the average creationist guy. In fact, the average evolutionist doesn't even seem to know anything about evolution other than that "most scientists adhere to it". I dont' even know why I'm bothering to argue with people over a subject which they clearly know next to nothing about.
Just a question... but what exactly makes scientists so special that they can somehow magically understand the mystery of evolution, but we lay people cannot? What information do they have access to that I do not? The only thing they have that I don't is indoctrination.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Build a man a fire, he'll be warm for an evening.
Light a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
“You are calculating the personal gain of killing someone against the potential consequences”
I should have elaborated more because apparently, you think I am without morals.
I said that I like to weigh actions versus outcomes. This means that if someone broke into my house and was obviously hostile, I would shoot him or bash him on the head with a heavy object. Obviously, if someone does not deserve an ill-happening, I would leave him alone. What is the purpose of harming someone who is not doing anything harmful to you?
I think that you get the impression that if I needed money, I would steal from someone
(with a low risk of being caught).
As I mentioned before, family values play a large role in moral standards. Apparently, you missed that.
What I did not mention was that I also see others through myself. This means that I do not steal from others because I do not want others to steal from me – the golden rule, if you will. I can place myself in the situations of others. I know that if someone stole something from me, I would be infuriated and/or depressed. This is where the pang of guilt would arise from: knowing that you carried out an action with adverse consequences on someone else, an action that you know would adversely affect you and cause untold sorrow (if you were that person). This is part of weighing action versus outcome and apparently, you missed that also.
I have reached my morals mainly through reasoning and tradition (family plays a large role early on)
I question you about where you get your morals. I believe that the only source of your morals is the bible.
You obey the teachings of a book without thought as to why they should be followed. You believe that since “god” decreed it, it must be correct. That is thoroughly depressing.
Wait, I am mistaken. You do know why they must be followed. You believe that if you follow the rules set forth in the bible, you will be accepted by god and granted admission into heaven. If you do not follow the rules, you will be sent to hell. Now that is not morality. You do it for personal gain – to get into heaven. You cannot even question the rules set forth by the bible since you believe that men are without morality (which is why they need the bible).
“The crusaders were no more Christians than the muslims were. They didn't know how to read the Bible. Where would they have gotten the impression? The answer is that they went on the crusade because the Pope told them to, and no matter what anybody says, the Pope isn't and never has been a Christian.”
All right, wrong group but same concept. The bible has given people the impression to persecute non-believers. I do not see why you cannot understand this.
I already provided imperialism (yes, I meant the British one in Africa). If those people who wished to convert people were such good people, why didn’t they stop the violent people who had guns and swords? I don’t care if imperialism resulted in the modernization and improvement of some aspects of Africa (actually, I agree that it was helpful). The point is, the bible convinced some people that they needed to go to Africa to spread Christianity and those people did not go against the atrocities of the ill-intentioned people (this means that they agreed with violence – their silence said everything).
“Secondly, earlier you claimed God was unmerciful because he let millions of people die without hearing about the gospel. British imperialists brought the gospel with them to the places they colonized, and now that's somehow cruel and violent?”
Hmm, does cutting off hands, raping woman, cutting off heads, et cetera sound violent to you (please say yes)? Because these violent people accompanied the good-intentioned people (which were probably extremely rare) of course Africans would be opposed to white people in general. Can you blame them? Let’s see, a few people of a different color are trying to convert you. Also, there are many people of the same color committing horrible and brutal acts upon your people. Can you trust these people in general?
“I admit nothing of the kind. The Bible is not inconsistent with science. Genesis 1:1 says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." It doesn't say when this happened, and it doesn't say how much time passed between verses 1 and 2. Where is the problem?”
Here is an excerpt from the King James’ bible:
“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”
“And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made”
If you did not see this, I seriously question the validity of your being a Christian. Are you even versed in the bible or did you get your information solely from creationist websites? Have you read the bible? Apparently, you missed something important.
I think the phrase “And the evening and the morning were the sixth day” means And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Don’t even say that “it’s figurative language” because it is obvious that it is not.
“But what is the purpose of reproduction? Reproduction is a pretty lousy reason to live. We are surviving for the sake of surviving?”
Animals do survive for the sake of living, I do not deny this.
However, we as humans are special because of our evolved brains. We have consciousness and free will (yes, evolution can favor this). We can create our own reasons for living, and through our deliberate actions, we can be more than the other animals.
“Um, no. Despite the fact that some of them didn't even have access to previoiusly written scripture, the Bible remains perfectly consistent.”
How did you know those individuals did not have access to previously written scripture? You were not present during that time (notice that I am using the same strategy you used). Lies, I tell you. Those indiciduals did have the scriptures, and they did not tell you.
“Why would they want to make people believe it was the Word of God?”
I thought that I addressed this already. I agreed that the bible does have some good teachings. People want order in society. What better way to get people to behave than to say “if you don’t do this, you will be sent to hell!”? That is employing scare tactics because people (like you), for some reason, believed that everyone needed moral guidance. Apparently they were ignorant of people who had moral guidance without the aid of the bible (think Conficious).
“"If the could not do it by themselves" is a key statement. That's the whole point, we can't do it by ourselves.”
Of course it is a key statement; people can be moral without reading the bible. To say otherwise is absurd.
“Look at our culture. America has been steadily rejecting God in one way or another. Isn't it interesting that the Bible condemns homosexuality and says that they will receive recompense for their sin, and now AIDs is indeed ravaging the homosexual community”
Oh yes, and people are living longer because more people are rejecting the bible (and with the aid of modern medicine, which did not need the bible). And people can have hope that they may recieve a new organ thanks to stem cell research. Isn’t that funny?
“There are several major problems with that explanation of evolution.”
I think Kpartington deals with the aspects of evolution better than I do, so I will leave the honors to him.
“I'm getting tired of refuting the same point over and over again. Face the music, friend. Evolution is toast.”
I beg to differ (in that it’s over for evolution).
You failed to validate the bible. All you have given me are fuzzy “predictions,” the claim that the bible does not contradict itself, and god is merciful therefore the bible must be his word – because the bible says so.
You attacked evolution in hopes of proving that the bible is real. However, even if you did prove that evolution is impossible (which you have not done), that will not prove that the bible is god’s words. You have not provided any compelling evidence (which you demand from supporters of evolution and refuse to give).
However, I know that it will not be over for religion because many people cannot create their own meanings for living. They also fear death (who doesn’t?) and will cling desperately to the idea that there is a reward in the afterlife. After all, religious thoughts can provide solace from such frightening concepts.
“That text book explanation is the worst example I can think of to prove anything. See? I can do it too.”
Monkey see, monkey do? Congratulations!
1. there was nothing
2. then god created everything
3. he decided to rest a little while for some reason even though he is omnipotent.
4. he made adam and eve and kicked them out of paradise and onto the earth so they could “build character”
5. humans multiplied on earth and the people were too naughty
6. god said oops! and told Noah to gather up animals and build a giant ark.
7. instead of being kind and erasing the naughty people from earth, he decided to punish them, along with all the innocent animals of the earth (the ones that Noah did not save), by creating a powerful and earth consuming flood
8. for some reason, people from other continents witnessed this flood even though the flood supposedly wiped out life on earth
9. Therefore JFK killed Cinderella (you got that wrong too) and Chuck Norris attempted to save JFK.
10. Chuck Norris successfully deflected all of Lee Harvey Oswald’s bullets, but JFK’s head blew up out of sheer amazement.
“Face the music, friend.”
I hear the lady singing and her song is not for me.
“Don't take this as "I've won the argument and I'm done talking to you."”
I will not. You did not even need to say that. However, I agree that there is no point in going on.
--Let us sit down and debate this matter like civilized individuals. Now where is my hammer!?--
People are allowed to be appalled at others beliefs, or lack thereof.
Liberals tend to have no moral values and an "anything goes" sort of attitude