Evolution vs. Creation

[gwprod12]

In the united states especially, there's good reason not to teach the creation story. Why? because everyone has a different creation story. You cant teach the Judeo-Christian creation story without teaching the Hindu creation story.

 

Intelligent design totally conflicts with evolution. And it isnt a theory. It's a hypothesis that states "Since the universe is too complex to be random, a higher power must have created it". It's the same argument as "Because my door slammed, it must have been a Ghost". It's rediculous.

 

Occam's Razor nixes it right out of scientific debate.

 

Posit: "The universe is too complex to be random. Something must have created it"

Argument: "Prove that something created it."

 

You cant prove that something created it, the statement cannot be proven logically. It is therefore not a valid theory. By default, a creator is seperate from it's creation. In order to prove a creator of the universe, one would need to leave the universe. Would that really be a solution?

[james2mart]

Ok, I'll start my argument by giving you a precursor of my beliefs:

 

1. God > Science

2. The bible (excluding minor prophets in the Catholic bible) is the INFALLIBLE word of God. That means that I believe that everything the Bible says is true. There are parts that are to be taken literally (creation), and parts to be taken in symbolism (eucharist, parables, etc).

 

Here are my arguments:

 

1. Science and history have never been able to disprove the bible. Try to give me some examples of this, but hark - you will likely fail.

 

2. Who can say that God did not create all of the dinosaur bones in the Earth? Not to mention the bible DOES reference "large beasts" here and there. God created Adam as a MAN. not an infant. He can create things AGED. That means while all the carbon-dating lists the Earth at so many billions of years old, it hasnt necessarily been around for billions of years.

 

3. God is greater than science of any kind. God created matter, but science says that matter cannot be created or destroyed.

 

4. No one has disproved the evidence of Christ's life on the Earth. The bible refers to large numbers of earthquakes (few years ago), one-world currency (euro?), and rebuilding of the temple (establishment of Israel in 1948), plus many other prophecies that have come true. You could say that these things do not line up, but you could be wrong :-).

 

5. People have a problem believing the numerical ages of people in Genesis, like Methuselah at 969 years old. But people that have problems with this do not apparently know much about the state of the Earth after creation. The earth was enveloped in a shroud/shield of water separating the ground from the sun. Read the creation story CAREFULLY to understand this. When the flood happened, the continents separated. That envelope of water around the Earth was punctured. Read the story of the flood CAREFULLY to understand this. The age of humans dropped SIGNIFICANTLY after this occurance! within a hundred years, people were only living to be 150 years old as opposed to 600-900 years.

 

6. A few decades ago, Historians tried to trace documented historical timelines day by day back to before creation to try and disprove it. They failed. They could not find a small 12-hour segment around 4000-5000 B.C. In the Bible, God was displeased with what the people were doing, and kept the sun from rising one day. After the issue was resolved, the sun was put back where it belonged. Interesting, no?

DISCLAIMER: I am not 100% positive about this one (#6). This is something I heard from a preacher awhile back.

 

I'm game for any arguments.

 

Any takers?

[gwprod12]

Yeah. Those arent arguments at all ;-p

 

You must have read a website like "GodOwnsScience.com" or "GodHatesFags.com"

 

Nothing you just said is even remotely connected to reality, except that Science hasnt proven the bible false... and how could it? The only possible way to prove the bible isnt the word of god (and this wouldnt even work) is to travel back in time and hide in a bush while Moses writes the tablets. And that still wouldnt prove anything. As for stuff in the bible being disproven. Well. How does someone disprove that God created the world in 6 days? Evidence suggests that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. That doesnt prove God didnt create it in 6 days though. How would science go about proving that the great flood didnt happen? It cant prove it didnt. That's not possible. It could prove that it did though. But it hasnt. So, we can safely say that there is no legitimate evidence for the flood myth.

 

The real reasons why God is better than Science.

 

Belief allows people to live in a den of ignorance without ever having to come to a conclusion that works.

 

Could God have put dinosaur bones in the earth to make it look like the earth was really old (when it's not?). sure God could have. But only people with defective brains would find that to be a reasonable answer.

 

I'm something of an amateur bible scholar, and I've never heard anything EVER about an envelope of water covering the earth.

 

The 'reasoning' behind the '120 year limit' was because of the creation of the race of Giants, who had extremely long lives and were unruly.

 

Genesis 6

 

1And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

 

2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

 

3And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

 

4There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

 

5And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

 

EDIT: Your 6th Argument is completely nonsensical. There has never been a tracing of historical evidence that goes back 4000 years and has a resolution capable of picking 12 hours out. And even if there had been, it would have made scientific news. This is just B S, sorry.

 

In your Fourth argument, you claim that prophecies are being fulfilled. People have been claiming that it is the end times for 1700 years. At this instant, less prophecies are currently in fulfillment than say... 1940.

Josephus records that someone named Joshua was crucified by pontius pilate in Jerusalem in 31CE. Aside from the New Testament, there's no real evidence for or against Jesus.

 

In your third argument, you claim that since God created matter, God is better than science because science says matter cannot be created or destroyed. That's your belief, that's not evidence or argument.

[killbot1000]

Ok, I'll start my argument by giving you a precursor of my beliefs:

 

1. God > Science

2. The bible (excluding minor prophets in the Catholic bible) is the INFALLIBLE word of God. That means that I believe that everything the Bible says is true. There are parts that are to be taken literally (creation), and parts to be taken in symbolism (eucharist, parables, etc).

 

Here are my arguments:

 

1. Science and history have never been able to disprove the bible. Try to give me some examples of this, but hark - you will likely fail.

 

2. Who can say that God did not create all of the dinosaur bones in the Earth? Not to mention the bible DOES reference "large beasts" here and there. God created Adam as a MAN. not an infant. He can create things AGED. That means while all the carbon-dating lists the Earth at so many billions of years old, it hasnt necessarily been around for billions of years.

 

3. God is greater than science of any kind. God created matter, but science says that matter cannot be created or destroyed.

 

4. No one has disproved the evidence of Christ's life on the Earth. The bible refers to large numbers of earthquakes (few years ago), one-world currency (euro?), and rebuilding of the temple (establishment of Israel in 1948), plus many other prophecies that have come true. You could say that these things do not line up, but you could be wrong :-).

 

5. People have a problem believing the numerical ages of people in Genesis, like Methuselah at 969 years old. But people that have problems with this do not apparently know much about the state of the Earth after creation. The earth was enveloped in a shroud/shield of water separating the ground from the sun. Read the creation story CAREFULLY to understand this. When the flood happened, the continents separated. That envelope of water around the Earth was punctured. Read the story of the flood CAREFULLY to understand this. The age of humans dropped SIGNIFICANTLY after this occurance! within a hundred years, people were only living to be 150 years old as opposed to 600-900 years.

 

6. A few decades ago, Historians tried to trace documented historical timelines day by day back to before creation to try and disprove it. They failed. They could not find a small 12-hour segment around 4000-5000 B.C. In the Bible, God was displeased with what the people were doing, and kept the sun from rising one day. After the issue was resolved, the sun was put back where it belonged. Interesting, no?

DISCLAIMER: I am not 100% positive about this one (#6). This is something I heard from a preacher awhile back.

 

I'm game for any arguments.

 

Any takers?

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Question 1:

 

---Science and history have never been able to disprove the bible. Try to give me some examples of this, but hark - you will likely fail.---

 

Lets see, well, lets start off with the fact that youre not looking at the whole bible, what about the gnostic gospels? Did they used to be the word of god, and then conveniently got thrown out of the bible? Oh yeah, thats right, constantine (the emperor of rome at the time) decided that one of the hundreds of sects of christianity was the correct one, and did away with the rest, this was in the 3rd century CE so obviously it was 300 years after the death of jesus, so that must have tainted the true word of god a little bit.

 

Oh, how about the split between catholocism and the eastern orthodox church, the pope is the true leader of the people, or the patriarch? Oh wait, they both think they are the true religious leaders so they excommunitcate eachother and form two separate christian churches with completely different customs.

 

Science has proved the bible wrong plenty of times. Take a look at fossils. The bible claims the earth is only a few thousand years old or so, but most of these fossils date back millions of years, and weve even discovered rocks that date back 3.5 billion years, so how can you say that the bible cant be proven wrong, evolution is another thing for example, if you dont believe in evolution, youre wrong, you can see it in your own lifetime. When pennacillin doesnt work anymore on bacteria, and they have to go to stronger antibiotic because the bacteria are now resistant to the origninal antibiotic, thats evolution. I just find it funny how people are disgusted by the thought of being related to apes, but they have no problem being related to dirt.

 

oh oh, ive got another one, what about the times before the old testament was written by the jews, did the word of god exist hiddenly, or did it just not exist, because nobody had thought it up yet, I will go for the latter, despite what you might think, Judaism in its early days was polytheistic, "thout shall have no other gods before me, for I am a jealous god" acknowledges that other gods exist, but that THIS god is the most powerful, and the one that SHOULD be worshipped, that view overtime morphed into the idea of one god.

 

Ive got many more, but id rather not drag question 1 out for eternity.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Question 2:

 

---Who can say that God did not create all of the dinosaur bones in the Earth? Not to mention the bible DOES reference "large beasts" here and there. God created Adam as a MAN. not an infant. He can create things AGED. That means while all the carbon-dating lists the Earth at so many billions of years old, it hasnt necessarily been around for billions of years.---

 

Who can say that god did do that? Theres no evidence to support what you're saying other than a bible which actually makes no reference to carbon dating at all, since the idiot who wrote the bible wasnt aware of such things. The evidence however does support science, the burden of proof is on you, not science. Science has gotten this view through experimentation and research, youve obtained your view through assumption, not research, not experimentation, just simply pulling it out of your ass, or a book I should say, just because something is written in a book, doesnt make it so. I can read lord of the rings, but that doesnt mean those characters are real people (frodo....vs....say....adam).

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Question 3:

 

---God is greater than science of any kind. God created matter, but science says that matter cannot be created or destroyed.---

 

well...this isnt really much of a question, its again, another assumption, Im not saying matter was created, I dont know how the universe got here, but science is making headway everyday in discovering that ultimate answer, trying to figure out what exactly is the real answer, not making an assumption of the entire universe/matter and then expecting science to form itself around it. All I have to say...is that youre just wrong. You simply dont comprehend and intelligent thought. Instead of asking "why?" youre just following the leader (christianity).

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Question 4:

 

---No one has disproved the evidence of Christ's life on the Earth. The bible refers to large numbers of earthquakes (few years ago), one-world currency (euro?), and rebuilding of the temple (establishment of Israel in 1948), plus many other prophecies that have come true. You could say that these things do not line up, but you could be wrong :-). ---

 

They dont line up, the Euro is Europes currency, Americans still use dollars, japanese still use yen, chinese use Yuan, russians use rubles (well....they use dollars too, under the table of course, hahah). The earthquakes have increased in frequency, thats true, but it may have nothing to do with the bible, whatsoever, this again, is another assumption. Israel was a country when it had its second temple (the kingdom of judea), and then the romans destroyed it. Israel today does not mean theres a 3rd temple, it just means that Israel is there, heheh. also, lets argue this from a logical standpoint. If one makes dozens of predictions, a few of them are going to turn out to be true, just by pure coincidence. Revelation was mostly a critique of rome, and their decadent lifestyle, it has no bearing on the world today.

 

Also, if a huge group of people really really really believe the world is going to end, they will bring it upon themselves and MAKE it happen. We have influence over our own actions, we can choose to believe a fantasy, or we can live in the real world, working to solve real world problems.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Question 5:

 

---People have a problem believing the numerical ages of people in Genesis, like Methuselah at 969 years old. But people that have problems with this do not apparently know much about the state of the Earth after creation. The earth was enveloped in a shroud/shield of water separating the ground from the sun. Read the creation story CAREFULLY to understand this. When the flood happened, the continents separated. That envelope of water around the Earth was punctured. Read the story of the flood CAREFULLY to understand this. The age of humans dropped SIGNIFICANTLY after this occurance! within a hundred years, people were only living to be 150 years old as opposed to 600-900 years.---

 

Again with you, No proof whatsoever, you say this as if its fact, and even if it was, an envelope of water would not prevent us from aging, theres no logical reason to support this, also, there's no evidence in the earth's crust to support the idea that the entire planet was flooded over, this simply IS NOT POSSIBLE. Also, lets puncture through your noahs ark story for a little bit. Obviously you understand very little about biology. If the flood story was true, there would be no animals (including humans) alive today, reason being, you need atleast 200 of a species to have enough genetic diversity to continue the species indefinately. Experiments of this nature have been done with flies, if one takes 2 flies, and breeds them, and then breeds their offspring together, and again and again, after 4 generations or so, the flies can no longer fly, and after about 8, they can no longer reproduce, and the whole lot of them dies, simply because there is not enough genetic diversity, this can be seen with humans too, if one has a child with somebody unrelated to them there's a 3% chance of birth defects. If one has a child with a cousin, that jumps to 7%, still a little risky, but not that much more, now lets have a kid with our brother/sister, boom! 50% chance, same with a mother or father, this only gets worse as the genetic line continues, so all of the species of the world would have died out only a few decades after noah landed his ship on the planet (from space jk).

 

Secondly, people only live to be 70 or so today, even 150 is a huge stretch, and again, youre making assumptions, and the wrong ones I might add.

 

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Question 6:

 

---A few decades ago, Historians tried to trace documented historical timelines day by day back to before creation to try and disprove it. They failed. They could not find a small 12-hour segment around 4000-5000 B.C. In the Bible, God was displeased with what the people were doing, and kept the sun from rising one day. After the issue was resolved, the sun was put back where it belonged. Interesting, no?

DISCLAIMER: I am not 100% positive about this one (#6). This is something I heard from a preacher awhile back.---

 

simple in 5000 bc, before mesopotamia, there were no documented historical timelines day by day, therefore of course they couldnt find the missing time because it wasnt written down to begin with.

 

Also who were these historians, what were their names, what universities did they attend, where did they emphazise their studies? Again, assumption that your preacher is right, and not actually looking into it

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Alright, now for everybody who is a logical human being, I have just blown through every one of this guys arguments, he will either not reply at all, or he will state the same exact thing again in another way, because he will have completely ignored what I said, just thought id show a prime example of a fundamentalist here...

 

 

Love, Killbot1000

[gwprod12]

Dude, you took the words out of my mouth. (see above)

[killbot1000]

Dude, you took the words out of my mouth. (see above)

 

hehehe, yeah, i just get angry when ignorant people spew their beliefs when theres no real reasoning behind it other than indoctrination heheh, but it is funny how we had the same kind of idea.

[james2mart]

Here I go, trying not to restate anything or ignore what you said. And I may be spewing my beliefs, but apparently your ignorance has forgotten that thats what this entire subforum is about - stating why you believe what you believe. Don't try and be hypocritical and say that you aren't spewing your belief that evolution happened.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Question 1:

 

Lets see, well, lets start off with the fact that youre not looking at the whole bible, what about the gnostic gospels? Did they used to be the word of god, and then conveniently got thrown out of the bible? Oh yeah, thats right, constantine (the emperor of rome at the time) decided that one of the hundreds of sects of christianity was the correct one, and did away with the rest, this was in the 3rd century CE so obviously it was 300 years after the death of jesus, so that must have tainted the true word of god a little bit.

 

Well I guess because I am a christian, I look at the christian bible as it is today, which bears extreme resemblence to the Dead Sea Scrolls and to the original text. Of course, there is no way to prove that it resembles the original text, but copies of it were available at the time of early transcriptions. The christian bible (not Catholic) excludes the minor prophets that are currently in the catholic bible because they are not believed to be completely inspired by God.

 

Oh, how about the split between catholocism and the eastern orthodox church, the pope is the true leader of the people, or the patriarch? Oh wait, they both think they are the true religious leaders so they excommunitcate eachother and form two separate christian churches with completely different customs.

 

The Catholic church is perverse. No offense, but there is nothing in the bible that mentions anything about a Pope or patriarch. Nothing about praying to Mary, or confessing your sins to a priest. No holy water, no hail marys:

 

Romans 14:

10 You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat.

 

11 It is written: "'As surely as I live,' says the Lord, 'every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God.'"

12 So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.

 

I think the whole "every tongue will confess to God" bit is self-explanatory.

 

Science has proved the bible wrong plenty of times. Take a look at fossils. The bible claims the earth is only a few thousand years old or so, but most of these fossils date back millions of years, and weve even discovered rocks that date back 3.5 billion years, so how can you say that the bible cant be proven wrong, evolution is another thing for example, if you dont believe in evolution, youre wrong, you can see it in your own lifetime. When pennacillin doesnt work anymore on bacteria, and they have to go to stronger antibiotic because the bacteria are now resistant to the origninal antibiotic, thats evolution. I just find it funny how people are disgusted by the thought of being related to apes, but they have no problem being related to dirt.

 

Apparently you did not get what I meant when I said that God can (and did) create things old. Just because evolution (as you call it) exists now, it is most commonly referred to as adaptation. As for your billion-year-old rocks, dating methods are extremely inaccurate and most evolutionists know this:

 

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/06dat5.htm

 

Thats a biased link, but the facts are facts.

 

oh oh, ive got another one, what about the times before the old testament was written by the jews, did the word of god exist hiddenly, or did it just not exist, because nobody had thought it up yet, I will go for the latter, despite what you might think, Judaism in its early days was polytheistic, "thout shall have no other gods before me, for I am a jealous god" acknowledges that other gods exist, but that THIS god is the most powerful, and the one that SHOULD be worshipped, that view overtime morphed into the idea of one god.

 

In a biblical sense, times before the old testament did not exist. Genesis 1:1: In the beginning, God created heavens and the earth. The bible traces every line of genaeology from Adam down to Jesus Christ. Don't refer to one verse about God being a jealous God. You cannot pick and choose what parts of scripture are believeable. Either it is or it isn't.

 

Isaiah 44:6:This is what the Lord says-- Israel's King and Redeemer, the Lord Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God.

 

Show me a PRECISE documented example that DIRECTLY contradicts scripture. Not something that simply says "you suck and the whole bible is a lie."

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Question 2:

 

Who can say that god did do that? Theres no evidence to support what you're saying other than a bible which actually makes no reference to carbon dating at all, since the idiot who wrote the bible wasnt aware of such things. The evidence however does support science, the burden of proof is on you, not science. Science has gotten this view through experimentation and research, youve obtained your view through assumption, not research, not experimentation, just simply pulling it out of your ass, or a book I should say, just because something is written in a book, doesnt make it so. I can read lord of the rings, but that doesnt mean those characters are real people (frodo....vs....say....adam).

 

The bible is a collaboration of the earliest available documents. When people first had the idea to record something, don't you think it would have been something worthwhile? Fiction writing was not accustom until significantly after these first documents.

 

Read the Dead Sea Scrolls section of the site below just for kicks :

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/bib-docu.html

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Question 3:

 

 

well...this isnt really much of a question, its again, another assumption, Im not saying matter was created, I dont know how the universe got here, but science is making headway everyday in discovering that ultimate answer, trying to figure out what exactly is the real answer, not making an assumption of the entire universe/matter and then expecting science to form itself around it. All I have to say...is that youre just wrong. You simply dont comprehend and intelligent thought. Instead of asking "why?" youre just following the leader (christianity).

 

Your grammar is atrocious. Sentence structure is essential to intelligent thought. jp ;-) . You are correct, it isn't much of a question, but in my eyes its not an assumption, its fact based on faith. You can't really argue with faith. So what if I'm wrong? I'll just die and turn to dust. But what if you're wrong? Thats certainly possible isn't it? Because if the bible is right, and you're wrong, then you're screwed.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Question 4:

 

 

They dont line up, the Euro is Europes currency, Americans still use dollars, japanese still use yen, chinese use Yuan, russians use rubles (well....they use dollars too, under the table of course, hahah). The earthquakes have increased in frequency, thats true, but it may have nothing to do with the bible, whatsoever, this again, is another assumption. Israel was a country when it had its second temple (the kingdom of judea), and then the romans destroyed it. Israel today does not mean theres a 3rd temple, it just means that Israel is there, heheh. also, lets argue this from a logical standpoint. If one makes dozens of predictions, a few of them are going to turn out to be true, just by pure coincidence. Revelation was mostly a critique of rome, and their decadent lifestyle, it has no bearing on the world today.

 

http://www.wake-up.org/Charts/DandR_v3.pdf

http://www.lightministries.com/id9.htm

 

These are just a couple lists of prophecies and some list fulfillments, but scripturally, we will never know when Christ will return, so in that sense, you are right in saying that the prophecies could not line up. But the fact remains that they could line up.

 

Also, if a huge group of people really really really believe the world is going to end, they will bring it upon themselves and MAKE it happen. We have influence over our own actions, we can choose to believe a fantasy, or we can live in the real world, working to solve real world problems.

 

No human being can make hundreds of thousands or millions of people disappear out of their clothes.

 

You can't call it a fantasy unless you know for A FACT that it did not happen. You weren't there. Of course I don't know for a fact that it DID happen, but theres that Faith again.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Question 5:

 

Again with you, No proof whatsoever, you say this as if its fact, and even if it was, an envelope of water would not prevent us from aging, theres no logical reason to support this, also, there's no evidence in the earth's crust to support the idea that the entire planet was flooded over, this simply IS NOT POSSIBLE. Also, lets puncture through your noahs ark story for a little bit. Obviously you understand very little about biology. If the flood story was true, there would be no animals (including humans) alive today, reason being, you need atleast 200 of a species to have enough genetic diversity to continue the species indefinately. Experiments of this nature have been done with flies, if one takes 2 flies, and breeds them, and then breeds their offspring together, and again and again, after 4 generations or so, the flies can no longer fly, and after about 8, they can no longer reproduce, and the whole lot of them dies, simply because there is not enough genetic diversity, this can be seen with humans too, if one has a child with somebody unrelated to them there's a 3% chance of birth defects. If one has a child with a cousin, that jumps to 7%, still a little risky, but not that much more, now lets have a kid with our brother/sister, boom! 50% chance, same with a mother or father, this only gets worse as the genetic line continues, so all of the species of the world would have died out only a few decades after noah landed his ship on the planet (from space jk).

 

Number one, if you are going to say "even if there was a flood" then you cannot take the flood out of context. If you are going to hypothetically say there was a flood, then you have to hypothetically say that God made it happen, and if God can flood the earth, he can work with two animals to populate the earth, despite any scientific laws of today. He's a hypothetical GOD, remember? And if you are to hypothetically say that the flood happened, know that Noah took his whole family as well. And it wasn't just two of every single animal:

 

GENESIS 7

Genesis 7:1 The Lord then said to Noah, "Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation.

2 Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate,

3 and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.

4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made."

 

5 And Noah did all that the Lord commanded him.

6 Noah was six hundred years old when the floodwaters came on the earth.

7 And Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons' wives entered the ark to escape the waters of the flood.

8 Pairs of clean and unclean animals, of birds and of all creatures that move along the ground,

9 male and female, came to Noah and entered the ark, as God had commanded Noah.

10 And after the seven days the floodwaters came on the earth.

 

Now I'm no genius, but I think that insects fall under "creatures that move along the ground."

 

And about the creation story and the envelope of water. Don't you think that people would last a bit longer if harmful UV rays weren't beating down directly onto us? There's no way of knowing. Just speculation. I'll step you through this to show that the bible supports this:

 

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

-> you have heaven and earth (shapeless as of now). self explanatory.

2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

-> this is just water and a mass of shapeless area as of now.

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

-> woo, we have shiny water and shiny formlessness.

4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.

-> night and day, sun and moon, whatever you want to call it.

5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day.

-> following here?

6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water."

-> Here's the key. "Separate WATER from WATER."

7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so.

-> So here we have water on the bottom and water on the top. big open expanse in between. Starting to make sense?

8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning--the second day.

-> Now the expanse is called "sky". There is WATER above the SKY.

9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so.

-> This establishes what science knows as "Pangea." Notice how only the water UNDER the sky is gathered to one place.

10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.

-> I think you get the picture.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Question 6:

 

simple in 5000 bc, before mesopotamia, there were no documented historical timelines day by day, therefore of course they couldnt find the missing time because it wasnt written down to begin with.

 

Also who were these historians, what were their names, what universities did they attend, where did they emphazise their studies? Again, assumption that your preacher is right, and not actually looking into it

 

I said i wasn't sure about that ahead of time so don't call me out on that one.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

If you don't want to accept the biblical passages as my arguments, then don't. But thats what I personally believe and its my right.

 

This debate is very intense. Fun, too.

[killbot1000]

Here I go, trying not to restate anything or ignore what you said. And I may be spewing my beliefs, but apparently your ignorance has forgotten that thats what this entire subforum is about - stating why you believe what you believe. Don't try and be hypocritical and say that you aren't spewing your belief that evolution happened.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Question 1:

Well I guess because I am a christian, I look at the christian bible as it is today, which bears extreme resemblence to the Dead Sea Scrolls and to the original text. Of course, there is no way to prove that it resembles the original text, but copies of it were available at the time of early transcriptions. The christian bible (not Catholic) excludes the minor prophets that are currently in the catholic bible because they are not believed to be completely inspired by God.

The Catholic church is perverse. No offense, but there is nothing in the bible that mentions anything about a Pope or patriarch. Nothing about praying to Mary, or confessing your sins to a priest. No holy water, no hail marys:

 

Romans 14:

10 You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat.

 

11 It is written: "'As surely as I live,' says the Lord, 'every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God.'"

12 So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.

 

I think the whole "every tongue will confess to God" bit is self-explanatory.

Apparently you did not get what I meant when I said that God can (and did) create things old. Just because evolution (as you call it) exists now, it is most commonly referred to as adaptation. As for your billion-year-old rocks, dating methods are extremely inaccurate and most evolutionists know this:

 

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/06dat5.htm

 

Thats a biased link, but the facts are facts.

In a biblical sense, times before the old testament did not exist. Genesis 1:1: In the beginning, God created heavens and the earth. The bible traces every line of genaeology from Adam down to Jesus Christ. Don't refer to one verse about God being a jealous God. You cannot pick and choose what parts of scripture are believeable. Either it is or it isn't.

 

Isaiah 44:6:This is what the Lord says-- Israel's King and Redeemer, the Lord Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God.

 

Show me a PRECISE documented example that DIRECTLY contradicts scripture. Not something that simply says "you suck and the whole bible is a lie."

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Question 2:

The bible is a collaboration of the earliest available documents. When people first had the idea to record something, don't you think it would have been something worthwhile? Fiction writing was not accustom until significantly after these first documents.

 

Read the Dead Sea Scrolls section of the site below just for kicks :

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/bib-docu.html

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Question 3:

Your grammar is atrocious. Sentence structure is essential to intelligent thought. jp ;-) . You are correct, it isn't much of a question, but in my eyes its not an assumption, its fact based on faith. You can't really argue with faith. So what if I'm wrong? I'll just die and turn to dust. But what if you're wrong? Thats certainly possible isn't it? Because if the bible is right, and you're wrong, then you're screwed.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Question 4:

http://www.wake-up.org/Charts/DandR_v3.pdf

http://www.lightministries.com/id9.htm

 

These are just a couple lists of prophecies and some list fulfillments, but scripturally, we will never know when Christ will return, so in that sense, you are right in saying that the prophecies could not line up. But the fact remains that they could line up.

No human being can make hundreds of thousands or millions of people disappear out of their clothes.

 

You can't call it a fantasy unless you know for A FACT that it did not happen. You weren't there. Of course I don't know for a fact that it DID happen, but theres that Faith again.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Question 5:

Number one, if you are going to say "even if there was a flood" then you cannot take the flood out of context. If you are going to hypothetically say there was a flood, then you have to hypothetically say that God made it happen, and if God can flood the earth, he can work with two animals to populate the earth, despite any scientific laws of today. He's a hypothetical GOD, remember? And if you are to hypothetically say that the flood happened, know that Noah took his whole family as well. And it wasn't just two of every single animal:

 

GENESIS 7

Genesis 7:1 The Lord then said to Noah, "Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation.

2 Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate,

3 and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.

4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made."

 

5 And Noah did all that the Lord commanded him.

6 Noah was six hundred years old when the floodwaters came on the earth.

7 And Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons' wives entered the ark to escape the waters of the flood.

8 Pairs of clean and unclean animals, of birds and of all creatures that move along the ground,

9 male and female, came to Noah and entered the ark, as God had commanded Noah.

10 And after the seven days the floodwaters came on the earth.

 

Now I'm no genius, but I think that insects fall under "creatures that move along the ground."

 

And about the creation story and the envelope of water. Don't you think that people would last a bit longer if harmful UV rays weren't beating down directly onto us? There's no way of knowing. Just speculation. I'll step you through this to show that the bible supports this:

 

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

-> you have heaven and earth (shapeless as of now). self explanatory.

2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

-> this is just water and a mass of shapeless area as of now.

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

-> woo, we have shiny water and shiny formlessness.

4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.

-> night and day, sun and moon, whatever you want to call it.

5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day.

-> following here?

6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water."

-> Here's the key. "Separate WATER from WATER."

7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so.

-> So here we have water on the bottom and water on the top. big open expanse in between. Starting to make sense?

8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning--the second day.

-> Now the expanse is called "sky". There is WATER above the SKY.

9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so.

-> This establishes what science knows as "Pangea." Notice how only the water UNDER the sky is gathered to one place.

10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.

-> I think you get the picture.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Question 6:

I said i wasn't sure about that ahead of time so don't call me out on that one.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

If you don't want to accept the biblical passages as my arguments, then don't. But thats what I personally believe and its my right.

 

This debate is very intense. Fun, too.

 

 

This is a forum first of all, im not really worried about my grammar, if im writing a formal essay, ill make my grammar better, but this is a quick 20 minute reply, so grammar doesnt come into play. Im not going to bother counterpointing the argument again, you have made no reference to proof other than the bible, which isnt proof at all. Actually the earliest written documents were used for trade and tax collection, then societies decided to write their oral traditions down. I wish not to go too much into it now, but christianity isnt anything new, neither is judaism, the both have their roots in zorroastrianism, a religion of the middle east. Good and evil, heaven and hell is a common mythological theme in that area of the world, its not new at all, lets just say the same story has been told in a different way, over and over again.

 

Also, if a god would send me to hell simply because I didnt believe in him, simply because i didnt have faith, even if I was a good person, even if I helped people, even if I didnt raise my hand in malice toward another human being (something christians have done all throughout history), then f*** god. He doesnt deserve to have somebody with some decency in his presence, If I had to worship a god like that, I'd rather join satan to overthrow him, he deserves to be overthrown with an attitude like that. God doesnt deserve my love and devotion.

 

Science has offered proof for how the world works, christianity has not, for you to put the burden of proof on me is absolutely ridiculous. Its your job to prove the bible right, not my job to prove it wrong, I dont play the game of religious chess, im uninvolved altogether. Use your brain, and actually figure out how something really works instead of using the false band-aid of religion to make you feel better about your uncertain, insignificant existance, be my guest, people who have these views, are beyond help. Again, your argument isnt very logical, many christians ask "well if god didnt create us, who did, if god didnt create the universe, who did" all I have to say is that "I dont know". It may be god, it may not, but SO FAR, the evidence I have seen would seem to indicate that a god (especially not the christian god) had any part in the creation of people and the world. Also, if human beings all come from the same place and the word of god is absolute, then why hadnt africans, asians, native americans, russians, gauls, europeans had the same stories as the jews had since the beginning of recorded history? Because they had never heard it before in their life. Simply saying that god put fossils in the earth and that god put old things in the earth is absolutely obserd, theres no proof to support that, despite what you might think, faith isnt truth, its just blind belief.

 

 

Forgive me for being harsh, ive had this conversation with far too many people, and every one reacts just like you, you wont hear an alternative, you wont think about it. My "beliefs" as you call them are not beliefs at all, I dont believe anything until I see proof to support it. The views I have are backed up by scientific evidence, that has been tested and retested, your views are based on one book, one piece of writing that dates back thousands of years, written by people who had no understanding of how the world really worked, a book that has NO evidence to support it. it just makes me sick to think that those people, are the majority...

[james2mart]

Ha.

 

I gave links to resources that pointed to evidence besides the bible. Apparently you did not click them.

 

I do not feel insignificant.

 

Most of the people that I know and have heard of that try and disprove the bible end up becoming christians. Kinda funny, right?

 

Your idea of how the world really works is based on scientific discoveries, so you would have absolutely no reason to believe that the bible is truth.

 

Heres the funny thing:

 

I used to be just like you. I tried to disprove the bible, but failed. Yes, there are inconsistencies with the full text of the bible, but there are too many more inconsistencies in the theory of evolution. The bible is likely full of errors of man misinterpreting God, but evolution is full of errors of man misinterpreting nature. Where is documented evidence of one species becoming an entirely different species? Where is historical documented evidence of a species of one Kingdom becoming a member of another? There simply isnt.

 

That's the beauty of the argument of evolution. None of it happened while humans could understand or witness it and live to tell about it.

 

The bible is one of the few literary historical documents that ceases to directly contradict itself. The historical accuracy of the lineage and dates is remarkable compared to any other document of its time. Man cannot simply create something that perfect. There has to be something more powerful than man to help him.

 

I don't feel that I'm worthless.

 

If your views on the age of the earth are backed up by radiocarbon dating, then you're sadly mistaken. There are more inconsistencies in the accuracy of carbon dating than any other dating methods. Carbon dating is extremely unreliable.

 

And a bible thousands of years old with written accounts of people that actually existed (PROVEN) is alot more reliable than the idea of evolution created by some guy named Darwin less than 500 years ago.

[killbot1000]

Ha.

 

I gave links to resources that pointed to evidence besides the bible. Apparently you did not click them.

 

I do not feel insignificant.

 

Most of the people that I know and have heard of that try and disprove the bible end up becoming christians. Kinda funny, right?

 

Your idea of how the world really works is based on scientific discoveries, so you would have absolutely no reason to believe that the bible is truth.

 

Heres the funny thing:

 

I used to be just like you. I tried to disprove the bible, but failed. Yes, there are inconsistencies with the full text of the bible, but there are too many more inconsistencies in the theory of evolution. The bible is likely full of errors of man misinterpreting God, but evolution is full of errors of man misinterpreting nature. Where is documented evidence of one species becoming an entirely different species? Where is historical documented evidence of a species of one Kingdom becoming a member of another? There simply isnt.

 

That's the beauty of the argument of evolution. None of it happened while humans could understand or witness it and live to tell about it.

 

The bible is one of the few literary historical documents that ceases to directly contradict itself. The historical accuracy of the lineage and dates is remarkable compared to any other document of its time. Man cannot simply create something that perfect. There has to be something more powerful than man to help him.

 

I don't feel that I'm worthless.

 

If your views on the age of the earth are backed up by radiocarbon dating, then you're sadly mistaken. There are more inconsistencies in the accuracy of carbon dating than any other dating methods. Carbon dating is extremely unreliable.

 

And a bible thousands of years old with written accounts of people that actually existed (PROVEN) is alot more reliable than the idea of evolution created by some guy named Darwin less than 500 years ago.

 

seriously, its accurate enough (the dating), I dont see the bible as brilliant, its actually quite dry reading, and dont compare yourself to me, im not trying to disprove the bible, it has lessons that some people need, but taking it literally is just irrational. Evolution couldnt be documented in history because the amount of time it takes is so long that humans wouldnt be able to observe it, the entire realm of civilization is a drop in the bucket of how long the earth has been around, its quite egocentric to think that were special, or different in any way from the other animals of this planet, besides the fact that we have opposable thumbs and bigger brains. I just dont see how saying "god made everything, even the evidence you use to refute god" is a real argument at all, according to faith, somebody with real proof just cant win, its unfair, and stupid, im done playing this game, every time I come up with a counter argument to something you say, you just say "you cant disprove the bible" as if that solves anything, but im done, I dont know if ive made a point to anybody else here, but i sure as hell hope so...

[james2mart]

All you say is "its accurate enough." prove that. I gave documentation of the inaccuracy of it, so give me documentation of the reliable accuracy of it.

 

If its so easy for you to believe alternate documentation from 2000 years ago, why is it so hard for you to believe the 4 separate accounts (Matthew, Mark, Luke & John) of Christs life? none of which contradict each other, by the way.

 

I'm real curious as to how much of the bible you have read. Don't judge a book by its cover. I know alot about evolution. I know enough about it to make my decision that I dont think it ever happened.

 

You're DARN right. Evolution could NOT be documented. but events in the Bible WERE documented, and thats why they're still here. You haven't even provided me with one single link to look at while I have provided you with many. You are not making points without backing them up with evidence.

 

Eat your words. Don't tell me to back my stuff up if you can't back up yours. It's a double edged sword. I gave you documentation, now you give me documentation.

[gwprod12]

It's really hard to argue with someone who's arguments are based entirely off of what a pastor tells them.

 

The bible is contradictory throughout. The dead sea scrolls conflict to a great degree with the current bible. The four gospels disagree on many points. In one, Judas falls and dies, the other, he hangs himself for instance.

 

The thing is, aside from some historical information, most of the stuff in the bible doesnt have any outside evidence. There's no actual evidence that there was a flood. There's no actual evidence that Noah's Ark existed. There's no actual evidence of Soddom and Gomorrah. There's no actual evidence of a tower of babel. There's no actual evidence that the earth is five thousand years old. There's a lot of pretend evidence. My old roommate is convinced that planks from Noah's ark can be seen in the Louvre, for instance. But he also believes those emails from Nigeria about sending someone $10,000 to pay the wire fees for the $10,000,000 payout. It's gullibility. While I'm not saying you're gullible, I will say that I think you can believe whatever you want. But please dont put it in a fact/proof scenario.

 

You can think someone stole something from you, or is lying to you. But you cant say they definitely stole from you or lied to you unless you have actual evidence. Do you see what I'm saying? The bible isnt evidence. If researchers dug up a man who was a genetic ancestor of all men, I wouldnt have trouble believing he was the first man. You can call him Adam, if you want. That doesnt mean his name was Adam.

 

I think it's safe to say that just like a reporter, dont print it unless you have three sources. At the very least, the Bible is one source. Find another reputable source for what you're saying, and I'll give it some thought.

[james2mart]

You are correct in finding this discrepancy about the death of Judas. However, this does not mean that the bible is directly contradicting itself. Acts (by the way, is not one of the Gospels) says that Judas dies by falling in the field that he purchased with the reward for betraying Jesus. Matthew states that Judas hanged himself. While extremely improbable, it is possible that Judas hanged himself overlooking the land? Yes, it is possible. And it is possible that the rope snapped after he hanged himself, and fell, possibly a long distance if the field were near a ledge or cliff, and suffered massive body trauma? I KNOW that this is improbable and unlikely, but it is certainly within the realm of possibility, which is enough to say that this one event cannot discredit the entirety of the bible.

 

And the Dead Sea Scrolls do not appear different from the bible. I linked to a resource that cited that earlier.

 

You make a whole lot more sense than that other guy that I was arguing with....

[gwprod12]

Here, let me lay it all out. I dont claim the bible is false. I cant. It could very well be "true". But it isnt enough on its own to declare what is in it as factual.

 

The idea behind science is skepticism. Now, I know a lot of science believers arent skeptical, but they should be. The scientific method is a great tool, because it allows someone to really make a clearcut decision when dealing with something that can be adjudicated as true or false. An example is easy to show. If I say to you, when you put baking soda in vinegar, it has an explosive reaction, you can believe me, or not believe me. But if you want to, you can go try it yourself. The bible can be similar. If you say "Leviticus says 'when man lays with another man, it is abomination'", I can go pick up one of my bibles, thumb to Leviticus 16:10 (IIRC) and look. You're right, it does say that. That's a fact. The bible also says that god flooded the earth and Noah built an ark. I go look in my trusted bible. Why, yes it does say that. It's a fact that the bible says it. It ISNT a fact that it happened.

 

See what I'm saying? Only science can refute or support science, and only belief can refute or support belief. Science cant prove the bible is false, and it cant prove that it's true. And no amount of belief can make evidence disappear, or make evidence appear.

 

If tomorrow a plank was found that could be scientifically proven to have been from Noah's ark, would that really strengthen your faith? If so, your faith must be pretty weak. Faith doesnt require proof. Faith just is. You have faith in the Bible and Jesus, and I have faith that Jesus was just a dude, and that the Bible is nothing more than a somewhat interesting story. Science falls somewhere in the middle. Neither of us can prove what we believe, and neither of us can disprove what we believe (or what the other believes).

 

So, let's leave beliefs and faith in the realm of religion, and evidence and facts in the realm of science.

 

EDIT: I read your link on the dead sea scrolls. A funny thing occured to me when I was reading the passage. They say quite clearly that the good thing about the dead sea scrolls is that the ones that are capable of being compared are very nearly the same as the Mesoretic text (SP?). What they fail to mention is that the scrolls they deem to be "incapable of comparison" are actually the ones that are very much different.

I dont know if this link is biased, so assume it is, and take with a grain of salt. Religioustolerance.org however ISNT biased at all, so I will try them for a reference.

http://www.bibleandscience.com/bible/sourc...dseascrolls.htm

 

EDIT: I cant find a religioustolerance.org reference, sorry.

[james2mart]

You make very good points that I cannot help but agree with. But personally, my faith and belief is my science and thats just the way I am.

 

Finding a plank from the ark would not strengthen my actual faith, but would excite me. It would excite me because it would bridge the gap between historical evidence and belief. It would not increase my faith.

 

How bout you?

[gwprod12]

It wouldnt decrease my faith that the bible is hokum. I'd just think "wow, well, I guess we did have a flood" or whatever.

 

Most evidence indicates that there wasnt a worldwide flood of the earth. A lot of religions indicate there was though. It's a discrepancy.

 

Here's a logical puzzle for you. If you use the bible, for instance. In the bible, the only interaction between the hebrews and Egypt was during the enslavement and the exodus, right? Historical evidence shows however, that Egypt actually ruled most of Canaan for centuries. How would you reconcile these two things? Would you say for instance: "The Bible is right, evidence is lies, sticking fingers in ears and yelling the national anthem", would you say: "The bible must be wrong, the evidence is obvious..." or "Maybe the Bible isnt wrong, maybe it just needs to be interpreted differently?"

 

A good example is this: In the land of Goshen (there's no historical evidence OF a land called Goshen, but pretend there is), you have a group of canaanites (The Hyksos) who came in and conquered. They built a few cities (which are referenced in the bible as part of Goshen). After a hundred years of occupying the delta area, the Egyptians expelled them (Egyptian records) back into Canaan. Does this story sound like it might be the opposite point of view to Exodus? If so, would you allow a discrepancy (Bible chronology says Exodus in the late 1290s BCE, Egyptian chronology says expulsion of the Hyksos in 1500ish BCE) stop you from drawing parallels?

[killbot1000]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

 

basically its accurate as long as you have the right equipment and crew working on it, and i fail to acknowledge that every single radiometric test that has been done has been inaccurate.

 

Also, I love how none of your sources are cited, they are just pro-christian websites, dont believe everything you see on the internet, I read your links, I just didnt find them very appealing (well i found the dead scrolls one appealing, but again GWPROD12 ripped through that one).

 

Im on the same page though, I dont know, the bible MAY be true, theres no way any of us can know for sure, all im saying is that the evidence ive seen so far would indicate that its not true, its just too farfetched for me to believe. It doesnt mesh logically with the world.

 

And again, ive never gotten the whole "you go to hell for not believing" thing when you were a good person in every other way, thats just mean in my opinion.

 

Also, how does the concept of hell work, you dont have a physical existance after you die, but you have an eternity of physical pain and hellfire? how is that possible? If somebody was no longer physical, how would fire hurt them, and physical torture hurt them? Its funny because in the Torah, hell is not really mentioned much, most of the idea we have from hell didnt even come from early christianity, it came from the book dante's inferno. Before then hell was talked about, especially in the middle ages, but before that, in roman times, it was a minor footnote, so I really just dont get how people can believe this stuff so literally...I just dont

[james2mart]

While I believe that the bible is the infallible word of God, that doesn't change the fact that it has been translated and interpreted by man. This leaves an exponential amount of room for error. 210 years is a long time, but 210 years is a lot less than 210 million or billion years. I feel alot better when people try and relate dates that aren't that far off instead of dates that are millions of years old.

 

With the bible, I will probably not stop drawing parallels. Maybe its just me, but any step in the right direction that would lead people to a better understanding of the existence of God is a good thing. Christians are supposed to pursue God. That's why no matter how much scientific or historical evidence you throw at us, we will either draw parallels with the bible, or ignore it completely. Thats just the way that its going to have to be, and its not going to stop. It's what were told to do, and blind faith is better than none at all. I mean come on, STATISTICALLY people who practice religion of any kind (atheism and satanism excluded) live longer. Thats a fact.

 

But what if your dates are wrong? you say the bible says late 1290s. Thats alot more precise than "1500ish". The times that these things happened may be documented differently in scriptural versus historical contexts, but they both happened. If science were to prove that Jesus was born in 10 BC and murdered in 23 AD, That would only reinforce the fact that Jesus did exist, and he lived for 33 years. While dates of things have room for error, the fact that the bible documents their occurance is fine enough for me.

[amdprophet]

I've read through most of these posts and there only seems to be good points coming from one side. The evolution side that is. The bible was made ages ago by a bunch of people who had no knowledge of the world and had to make things up to get rid of their fears. One thought I have is that most people back in the day were on a hallucination drug without knowing it. Rye bread used to be very popular back then. When it gets moldy it becomes LSD which can make you hallucinate obviously. The same is believed by some scientists to be the reason that people thought witches could fly and cast spells. Please don't tell me that moldy rye bread can't make you hallucinate because it's a proven fact. This is the only post I'm making because reading that people still believe the religion part of Christianity angers me to a point where I can't control myself.

[james2mart]

right....

 

Of course if you dont believe in a God, you would believe that the bible was made by a bunch of people...

 

try and explain to me why the bible references methods of execution thousands of years before their introduction? The dead sea scrolls were direct copies of the masoretic text with very VERY few flaws. Crucifixion was referenced in Isaiah, and these texts were written before crucifixion was used for execution.

 

Why is that?

[gwprod12]

No, the dead sea scrolls arent direct copies of the mesoretic text. The mesoretic text dates from the 9th century CE. the dead sea scrolls date from the 1st to 2nd century CE and are based on an earlier work.

 

Which is a good example of evolution. Humans (the current bible) are descendants of an earlier offshoot of homonids (the mesoretic text), while the fossils we found of neanderthal (the dead sea scrolls), though not having the mesoretic texts as an ancestor, nevertheless have a common ancestor WITH the mesoretic texts.

 

The romans had been using Crucifixion for as long as they had a republic (for hundreds of years)

 

I dont understand the "Please explain why the bible describes crucifixion thousands of years before it's introduction". Does the bible do that?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion#H..._of_crucifixion

[james2mart]

Off the top of my head, I know that Isaiah 52-53 contains a small reference to crucifixion, but I know there are other occurances, I just don't have time now to look them up.

 

As much as I like to argue religion and science, I can tell that I'm outnumbered here, and frankly outwitted. I'm no genius, but that just goes to show that I stand firm in what I believe in.

 

As I said before, many people that have tried to disprove the bible only proved their ignorance. just keep that in mind.

 

I'm done with this debate though. It's distracting me from writing my sigmatel driver.....

 

later, and good fight, even if i didnt put up much of one.

[kday]

Don't cut down on the people with Faith in their God. They just have the god gene (VMAT2). http://washingtontimes.com/world/20041114-111404-8087r.htm

 

Not having the 'god gene' doesn't necessarily mean you can't have Faith. The gene just helps you have MORE faith. We have both social and genetical influences.

 

Let me try to explain this better. For example, there is also gene strongly linked with alcoholism (GABRG3). Having this gene doesn't necessarily mean you will be an alcoholic. You are just more likely to become one.

 

There is not much research between the gene link of VMAT2 and Faith at the moment. There are theories, and I am not claiming any of these theories to be absolutely correct. It may very well not be true. However, there is scientific proof that certain genes strongly relate severe depression, bipolar, alcoholism etc. It's pretty amazing stuff.

 

I, myself, have no interest in formal religion. I went to a Catholic school when I was young, went to church, but it really never did anything for me. I have my own set of self derived morals, values, and beliefs, and I do not need a religion to set them for me. I realize that faith and religion is very important to some, and is a big part of their lives. I respect that. We are all different, and we all have different needs. Religion is just not my thing, and I am sure you can respect that too. I really have no interest, and quite frankly, don't really care whether or not there is a higher being. It's not important to me.

 

Back onto the subject about evolution. I don't know if we evolved or if we were created by a higher being, or just magically appeared. I will not claim to know so. I believe that it is a subject far beyond human understanding.

[Pantalaimon]

if god created the earth, who created other planets?

 

if the work of god is perfect, why are they evolutionating? (is that the verb? xD)

 

when jesus walked in the water, besides his disciples, who witnessed it??

 

how can we know if jesus was the son of god, and not a fraud that met 12 guys and made a conspiracy? O.o

 

how can we know that if the earthquake after jesus death is a coincidence? (coincidences exist, that's what the word is for)

 

the bible has gospels selected, not all of them. How to know wich one is tru or false?

[gwprod12]

James2Mart: being outnumbered isnt a valid reason for giving up an argument. Dont wuss out.

 

It is true that trying to disprove the bible is foolhardy, though significant evidence does conflict with the bible story.

 

EDIT: I read Isaiah 52-53 (the Crucifixion prophecy), but it doesnt make any mention of nailing someone to a wooden cross.