Adam & Eve

[cipherdecoy]

Do correct me if I am wrong:

If Adam and Eve only produced two sons, Abel and Cain, and no daughters, where did the other women/people come from? Are we then products of incest?

[Sarasvati21]

Yep, no matter how you figure it, there was incest somewhere. Actually, quite a lot of it for quite a while.
Unless there was some other person God created and didn't deem worthy of documentation...unlikely.

[cipherdecoy]

Just another thought, did mankind exist at the same time dinosaurs did? Or is that something no one knows?

[jgweed]

The original question seems to assume that the Biblical account is to be taken as a description of actual events. If one reads the text as poetry or mythology, then these anomalies become unimportant and secondary to the symbolic meaning.

[NickAdams]

Do you think Cain's wife, who he finds in Nod, was a child of Adam and Eve?

[dzebra]

In Genesis 5, the Bible says that Adam had other sons and daughters.

In Genesis 6, it is said that "sons of God" married the daughters of men. In these cases, there was not incest.

People didn't have children when they were 20 during that time. They started having them somewhere between 50 and 150, and I'm sure they continued having children for many years. In many cases, people may not have marred siblings, but children of cousins and stuff like that.

The Jewish historian Josephus wrote, “The number of Adam’s children, as says the old tradition, was thirty-three sons and twenty-three daughters.”

Cain's wife was not from Nod. That is not in the Bible at all.

[Wintermute]

Hi Dzebra,



In Genesis 6, it is said that "sons of God" married the daughters of men. In these cases, there was not incest.

That's the same chapter that says:

"And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them."

Seems to me an omnipotent entity wouldn't screw things up like this but....



People didn't have children when they were 20 during that time. They started having them somewhere between 50 and 150, and I'm sure they continued having children for many years.

Do you have some evidence of this--anything at all outside of the bible? Any anthropological evidence? Any genetic or biological evidence at all? If you do, please share.

Thanks,
Doug (Agnostic)

[JBI]

Depends whose bible you kids are reading. None of those lines are actually written like that in the original Hebrew. According to my text, which is the general version of the Hebrew Tanakh, the only other descendant of Adam mentioned is Shet. The number you created is commentary, it is not in my physical text, and I am reading the original. It merely says that he had more children, nothing is specified.
Josephus wrote his commentary far after the text was written.

If you believe in Creation, than you can come up with your own conclusions. As it is, the Jewish Kabalistic tradition believes in a first wife of Adam named Lilith. Maybe Shet ran off after her and had some demon children.

[Wintermute]

The original question seems to assume that the Biblical account is to be taken as a description of actual events. If one reads the text as poetry or mythology, then these anomalies become unimportant and secondary to the symbolic meaning.

Hi Jg,

That makes a LOT more sense than taking the words literally. However some of the specifics in the text leave room for discussion. Particularly the information about how long folks lived. For example:

"And Seth lived after he begat Enos eight hundred and seven years...."

"And Methuselah lived an hundred eighty and seven years, and begat Lamech:"

And on and on. How do we read these specifics as mythology? It seems like a poet would simply say something like, "and he lived a long time". Or something to that effect. Why the precision?

Peace,
Doug

[NickAdams]

Cain's wife was not from Nod. That is not in the Bible at all.

Cain is sent to Nod (there is no mention of company) and has a child, Enoch, with his Wife.

God marks Cain, I assume so those who are strangers to Cain will not cause harm to him.


Depends whose bible you kids are reading. None of those lines are actually written like that in the original Hebrew. According to my text, which is the general version of the Hebrew Tanakh, the only other descendant of Adam mentioned is Shet. The number you created is commentary, it is not in my physical text, and I am reading the original. It merely says that he had more children, nothing is specified.
Josephus wrote his commentary far after the text was written.

If you believe in Creation, than you can come up with your own conclusions. As it is, the Jewish Kabalistic tradition believes in a first wife of Adam named Lilith. Maybe Shet ran off after her and had some demon children.

I always thought the truly devote should read their Holy Text in its original language, but that has nothing to do with the thread.

[Big Al]

Just another thought, did mankind exist at the same time dinosaurs did? Or is that something no one knows?

No, human beings came into existence hundreds of millions of years after the dinosaurs died out -- the earliest mammals didn't come into existence until the very end of the reign of the dinosaurs. Scientists use the fossil record to determine at what time species came into being or died out.

[dzebra]

Seems to me an omnipotent entity wouldn't screw things up like this but....


I believe it was the humans who screwed things up, God gave them everything they needed to succeed, but they used those things in the wrong way.



Do you have some evidence of this--anything at all outside of the bible? Any anthropological evidence? Any genetic or biological evidence at all? If you do, please share.

There is some evidence that humans used to live for a long time. I have not found any (outside of the Bible) that suggests when they gave birth, but I have found no reason to doubt the Bible.

The human skull continues to grow throughout the lifetime of a human. Some parts of the skull grow more rapidly than others. A human living for several hundred years would develop a skull with a thick forehead and large jaw and a more oblong shaped skull in general. Skulls like this have been found.

[cipherdecoy]

Do you think Cain's wife, who he finds in Nod, was a child of Adam and Eve?

Where did Cain's wife come from? Was she created the way Eve was created?

[cipherdecoy]

No, human beings came into existence hundreds of millions of years after the dinosaurs died out -- the earliest mammals didn't come into existence until the very end of the reign of the dinosaurs. Scientists use the fossil record to determine at what time species came into being or died out.

According to Genesis, God created the world (Adam and Eve, animals, etc ) in six days. If that were the case, there wouldn't have been an interval of hundreds of millions of years between the existence of dinosaurs and the existence of human beings. Unless even the definition of "days" shouldn't be taken literally either. Riight? :)

[Livia]

the creation story wasn't written by God, it was written a long time after, a theory of the time, so i don't truly think it should be taken literally.

Adam and Eve didnt only have 2 sons they had atleast a third 'seth'

A possibility is that other humans were created after Adam and Eve and not documented. Who else was going to harm Cain when he went away to Nod?

It is possible that Adam and Eve had many many more children and their was incest, its not that uncommon in the bible, eg the story of Lot (the nephew of Abraham) impregnating his two daughters after they got him drunk.

The age thing could be that at the time of writing years were calculated differently till now. It's really not that unlikely. Far more likely then human's de-evolving in a sense to living for less time. All evidence points to that as we become more advanced our life expectancy lengthens.

The bible is full of contradictions and thus should not be taken literally. It wasn't written by one person but was formed of various writings merged which led to the contradiction. It's a historical artefact of the beliefs of the people who wrote it.

[Wintermute]

The human skull continues to grow throughout the lifetime of a human. Some parts of the skull grow more rapidly than others. A human living for several hundred years would develop a skull with a thick forehead and large jaw and a more oblong shaped skull in general. Skulls like this have been found.

Hiya Dzebra,

Could you please post your references for this theory. Any peer reviewed journal or scientific evidence would be good. I'm very interested and would love to learn more.

Thanks,
Doug

[Wintermute]

I believe it was the humans who screwed things up, God gave them everything they needed to succeed, but they used those things in the wrong way.

Hi Dzebra,

Hehe, yeah, but he/she/it knew humans were gonna screw up! Why not just do it right in the first place?

This is the same old, tired argument about fate, free will, etc. There is no answer. Those that need a heaven to be happy will continue to argue that we have 'free will' because it was given to us by a god that wants us to choose to love him/her/it. Those that don't worry about what happens after death say this is nonsense. We agnostics sit on our fence with a dazed look on our faces.:confused: :confused:

Stay happy,
Doug

[jgweed]

Are we not actually discussing the best way to interpret the Biblical Canon? And are there not two---for discussion's sake ignoring the many variations--- general ways of approaching an understanding of what it "really" means? One either grounds one's interpretation upon religious dogma that gives the text a special status, or upon a neutral view of the text as a human document written in a particular situation, subjecting it to the same rules of interpretation as any other ancient text.
Cheers,
John

[NickAdams]

Are we not actually discussing the best way to interpret the Biblical Canon? And are there not two---for discussion's sake ignoring the many variations--- general ways of approaching an understanding of what it "really" means? One either grounds one's interpretation upon religious dogma that gives the text a special status, or upon a neutral view of the text as a human document written in a particular situation, subjecting it to the same rules of interpretation as any other ancient text.
Cheers,
John

Agreed. Gilgamesh+Book of the Dead+Odyssey+Illiad+Aeneid+Bible+Qu'ran+Book of Morman= Mythology

[B-Mental]

I like to think of it as follows. Adam was the first King. Eve was the first Queen. It is because of this that they were written about. They had two sons, and one killed the other to be King. That point ruined the kingdom, and conflict has been with us for the rest of our days. Think of King Arthur, of Camelot, on a global scale.

[dzebra]

Where did Cain's wife come from? Was she created the way Eve was created?

She was a descendant of Adam and Eve. They were married before they went to Nod.

"Then the LORD said to him, 'Not so! If anyone kills Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold.' And the LORD put a mark on Cain, lest any who found him should attack him. Then Cain went away from the presence of the LORD and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden. Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch."

This is where the Bible talks about it. All it specifies here is that Cain and his wife had sex in Nod. In other places, where it talks about Eve being the mother of all mankind, we can put together that there were no other original people having babies.

The people who would want to kill Cain would be people who were mad at him for killing Abel. Who would want to avenge Abel? His family, I bet. He was afraid of his and his brother's relatives killing him. No one else would care so much.

[Big Al]

According to Genesis, God created the world (Adam and Eve, animals, etc ) in six days. If that were the case, there wouldn't have been an interval of hundreds of millions of years between the existence of dinosaurs and the existence of human beings. Unless even the definition of "days" shouldn't be taken literally either. Riight? :)

He didn't ask "Did mankind exist alongside dinosaurs according to the bible." He seemed to simply be asking for the facts -- when he asks for explanations built on fairytales, then I'll turn to the bible.

[NickAdams]

... we can put together that there were no other original people having babies.

When the Catholic church put something together Mary became the woman whom Jesus saved from stoning. The author neglected to mention it, so we can only speculate. It's impossible to know what the "truth" is or what the author assumed we would understand. Lets say she is the daughter of Eve; only those on the ark survive the flood (if it was a world-wide flood), so I think the lineage can be better traced from there.

[dzebra]

Hiya Dzebra,

Could you please post your references for this theory. Any peer reviewed journal or scientific evidence would be good. I'm very interested and would love to learn more.

Thanks,
Doug

Jack Cuozzo wrote a book about this (and other things). It's called Buried Alive. On his website, jackcuozzo dot com, there a radio spot with an interview of him. It's pretty long (42 minutes), and you'll have to excuse the style of some of the DJ's, but it talks about this topic.

[cipherdecoy]

She was a descendant of Adam and Eve. They were married before they went to Nod.

"Then the LORD said to him, 'Not so! If anyone kills Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold.' And the LORD put a mark on Cain, lest any who found him should attack him. Then Cain went away from the presence of the LORD and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden. Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch."

This is where the Bible talks about it. All it specifies here is that Cain and his wife had sex in Nod. In other places, where it talks about Eve being the mother of all mankind, we can put together that there were no other original people having babies.

The people who would want to kill Cain would be people who were mad at him for killing Abel. Who would want to avenge Abel? His family, I bet. He was afraid of his and his brother's relatives killing him. No one else would care so much.

So it is incest after all, isn't it?

[Wintermute]

Jack Cuozzo wrote a book about this (and other things). It's called Buried Alive. On his website, jackcuozzo dot com, there a radio spot with an interview of him. It's pretty long (42 minutes), and you'll have to excuse the style of some of the DJ's, but it talks about this topic.

Hi Dzebra,

Unfortunately, Dr. Cuozzo has never published in a peer reviewed journal. However I did find some quotes from some of his peers:

"This view is contradictory to the mainstream view on Neanderthal in Palaeontology, no major science journal has published articles on that topic by Cuozzo. Genome mapping of the DNA and mDNA shows differences between the Genome of modern man and Neanderthal that are commonly interpreted as contradicting theories that Neanderthal and modern man interbred, let alone were the same species." [1]

"Groves first points out that "the entire first section of the book, fifteen chapters long, is a paean of paranoia". Groves goes on to claim that several of uozzo's claims are inconsistent or easily refuted. As examples, Groves points out that the Neanderthal fossils do not show signs of high age (such as worn off teeth) or that fossils of child Neanderthals already show the cranial differences. Groves attributes "obvious competence as a forensic anthropologist" to Cuozzo. [2]

1. "Review: Buried Alive", Reports of the National Center for Science Education, Jan/Feb 1999.
2. "Book review: Buried alive: the startling truth about Neanderthal man.", ncseweb.org, January, 1999.

However, because I think the willingness of humans to believe in myth is rooted in hope--which is completely understandable--I have just ordered Dr. Cuozzo's book from Amazon. Doubt and hope do not exclude one another.

Thanks,
Doug

[AARONDISNEY]

as far as the literal or non literal question. It has to be literal or all the rest of the Bible is non-literal, because it is all connected to it. There are genealogies beginning with Adam and going right on through to Abraham (not all that many generations mind you) and from Abraham to David and from David to Jesus.

By the way, Jesus, when speaking of the beginning didn't seem to consider the story mythological. He said "in the beginning He (God) created them male and female".

Interesting also, he said that this happened "in the beginning". If mankind is a product of evolution and there was millions and billions of years prior to the beginning of man. How could Jesus say that God "created" them in the "Beginning".

Do you realize the whole so called fossil record is based on circular reasoning? The scientists date the fossils by the rocks they are in and the rocks by the fossils they are in. There's no real good way to test the age of any of this stuff.

How about the "Limestone Cowboy" as far as Carbon dating goes? http://www.bible.ca/tracks/rapid-fossils-rapid-petrifaction.htm

In Carbon Dating, when they date anything of known age it comes out waaaaaaaaaaay wrong. When they date anything of unknown age and it turns out to be millions of years old, they assume it's right.....doesn't sound like science to me, sounds like a bunch of desperate quazi-scientists trying to cover up the flaws in their religion.

[NickAdams]

Interesting also, he said that this happened "in the beginning". If mankind is a product of evolution and there was millions and billions of years prior to the beginning of man. How could Jesus say that God "created" them in the "Beginning".


Man also thought that the sun revolved around the earth. This statement seems to be nothing more than man-centered and self-important. We know in the beginning there was darkness, but before that there was God. God created the world before Adam and Eve. I guess this goes to the tree-falling-in-the-forest riddle. There was no beginning until the conscious was able to percieve it. To use the bible to support an argument the opposition would have to see it as more than myth to give it validity. Why should we believe YHWH and not Ra?

[jgweed]

A literal interpretation of the Bible, if it is held to be true, naturally contradicts not only logic, but science as well. The rejection of science, though, only extends to certain parts of science that contradict the theological dogma of some sects. One does not hear of Biblical scholars having qualms about the periodic table of elements.

Yet science is not just the individual theories it has created, but a seemingly sure application of accepted methods and procedures. Rejecting a part of science then is also a rejection of science itself.

At some point in time (perhaps rather soon given the advances of molecular biology and genetic research which seems never to contradict the general theories of evolution or the relative age of the earth and human existence), the rejection of science will become impossible without a complete ignor-ance of commonly accepted knowledge.
When this happens, unfortunately, the spiritual truths contained in the Bible, will no doubt be also rejected as much as the mythological stories so furiously claimed to be actual truths. One wonders consequently---if the death of God perceived by Nietzsche is a real possibility---precisely who the murderers are?
Are they scientists or literalists?

[Wintermute]

Interesting also, he said that this happened "in the beginning". If mankind is a product of evolution and there was millions and billions of years prior to the beginning of man. How could Jesus say that God "created" them in the "Beginning".


Hi Aaron,

So by the 'beginning', you are referring to the beginning of the universe? The beginning of humans on planet earth? Or the beginning of God? It's one of the primary questions that maintains my agnostisism. The concepts of being eternal and beyond time, etc. just don't work for me. If God was around for infinity--which is a terribly long time, why did it suddenly (about 12 billion years ago) decide to create a universe? What was it doing for the gazillions and gazillion years prior? I know, I know, God is beyond time. Unfortunately, I just can't buy it.


Do you realize the whole so called fossil record is based on circular reasoning? The scientists date the fossils by the rocks they are in and the rocks by the fossils they are in. There's no real good way to test the age of any of this stuff.

How about the "Limestone Cowboy" as far as Carbon dating goes? http://www.bible.ca/tracks/rapid-fossils-rapid-petrifaction.htm

In Carbon Dating, when they date anything of known age it comes out waaaaaaaaaaay wrong. When they date anything of unknown age and it turns out to be millions of years old, they assume it's right.....doesn't sound like science to me, sounds like a bunch of desperate quazi-scientists trying to cover up the flaws in their religion.

Just out of curiosity, are you a scientist? If not it would seem awfully arrogant to dismiss--based on some religious web site that happens to support your personal hopes--the massive study and work compiled by hundreds of thousands of real scientist who've dedicated themselves to helping find out what is really going on in the universe.

It is equally arrogant of non-believers to dismiss the work of hundreds of thousands of philosophers who understand that by common logic, there should be nothing, zip, an empty vacuum. Yet here we are discussing our universe and what may be going on in it.

It's the 100% certainty of religious zealots that really frightens me. They (you?) are the dangerous ones.

Peace,
Doug

[jgweed]

"If mankind is a product of evolution and there was millions and billions of years prior to the beginning of man. How could Jesus say that God "created" them in the "Beginning"."

How, indeed.
Cheers,
John

Did Jesus actually say that?

[Big Al]

Do you realize the whole so called fossil record is based on circular reasoning? The scientists date the fossils by the rocks they are in and the rocks by the fossils they are in. There's no real good way to test the age of any of this stuff.

How about the "Limestone Cowboy" as far as Carbon dating goes? http://www.bible.ca/tracks/rapid-fossils-rapid-petrifaction.htm

In Carbon Dating, when they date anything of known age it comes out waaaaaaaaaaay wrong. When they date anything of unknown age and it turns out to be millions of years old, they assume it's right.....doesn't sound like science to me, sounds like a bunch of desperate quazi-scientists trying to cover up the flaws in their religion.

You should try using scientific sources to research scientific concepts, not religious sources. Otherwise, your head will be filled with ridiculous misinformation, and then the rest of us will have to read your inane attempts at appearing educated on the matter.

[dzebra]

You should try using scientific sources to research scientific concepts, not religious sources.

I think many scientists are just as biased as religious people. They will look for evidence that supports their ideas and suppress evidence that contradicts their views. Everyone does this. Scientists are human, they are just as determined to support their egos as anyone.

I argue that science as we know it now is not pure science. It is science corrupted by people's agendas and biases. In the same way, Christianity as we know it is not true Christianity, it is corrupted by people. The same goes for Islam. Same for the education system. Same for everything.

[Big Al]

I think many scientists are just as biased as religious people. They will look for evidence that supports their ideas and suppress evidence that contradicts their views. Everyone does this. Scientists are human, they are just as determined to support their egos as anyone.

I argue that science as we know it now is not pure science. It is science corrupted by people's agendas and biases. In the same way, Christianity as we know it is not true Christianity, it is corrupted by people. The same goes for Islam. Same for the education system. Same for everything.

That's complete bull****. Religious types may think that scientists are all out to get them, but all scientists are interested in is uncovering the mysteries of the natural world, not to mention using technology to improve quality of life and standard of living for nearly all of humanity. But I'd be happy to hear about it if you could provide me with any of the evidence that scientists are supposedly "suppressing."

[NickAdams]

I think many scientists are just as biased as religious people. They will look for evidence that supports their ideas and suppress evidence that contradicts their views. Everyone does this. Scientists are human, they are just as determined to support their egos as anyone.

I argue that science as we know it now is not pure science. It is science corrupted by people's agendas and biases. In the same way, Christianity as we know it is not true Christianity, it is corrupted by people. The same goes for Islam. Same for the education system. Same for everything.

What?:confused: Scientist have more to gain by disproving a given theory. A scientific discovery, the more controversial the better, is money in the bank.

[Wintermute]

I think many scientists are just as biased as religious people. They will look for evidence that supports their ideas and suppress evidence that contradicts their views. Everyone does this. Scientists are human, they are just as determined to support their egos as anyone.

Hi Dzebra,

I can only speak for a couple of scientists, my sister (http://www.biol.sc.edu/faculty/smith.html), is one. She is a professor of neurobiology at the University of South Carolina. After 25 years of very hard work-we're talking 15 hour days for most of it-she finally attained her tenure. I am so damn proud of her! And let me tell you something, she would never suppress evidence that contradicts her views! My Dad is a mechanical engineer, suppressing evidence that contradicts his views wouldn't even occur to him. Do you think the folks at NASA landed the Mars rovers by suppressing evidence? I'm an agnostic Dzebra, but I'm as certain as I can be that the average scientist does not suppress any data. Some have, yes--there are greedy people in all walks. But I'm willing to bet that a very large majority have never suppressed important information.

Be happy,
Doug

[AARONDISNEY]

Look, sorry I offended some of you with my remarks. I wasn't intending to. I just think that for many scientists (not all) the theory is more important than the facts - and the evidence is judged by the theory when the theory should stand in judgment of the evidence.

Evidently some EVOLUTIONISTS agree with me. Argue this out with them, not me. I'm not the one saying I can prove that God exists. But I think it's ultimately more plausible to say that God did all this than to say it all just happened, and I believe the God of the Bible is the originator and creator of it all. Anyhow, here's the quotes I just promised...

note: some of these quotes are from confessed evolutionists.
The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." - Charles Darwin 1902 edition.

“…I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science….It is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaw[s] & holes as sound parts.” Charles Darwin to Asa Gray, cited by Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin, (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1991) pp. 456, 475.

“Nowhere was Darwin able to point to one bona fide case of natural selection having actually generated evolutionary change in nature….Ultimately, the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century.” Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crises (Bethesda, Maryland: Adler & Adler, 1986) pp. 62, 358.

“I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science.” Søren Løvtrup, Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (New York: Croom Helm, 1987), p. 422.

“Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact.” Dr. T. N. Tahmisian Evolution and the Emperor's New Clothes by N.J. Mitchell (United Kingdom: Roydon Publications, 1983), title page.

"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination." Albert Fleischmann. Witnesses Against Evolution by John Fred Meldau (Denver: Christian Victory Publishing, 1968), p. 13.

“[T]he theory suffers from grave defects, which are becoming more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge, nor does it suffice for our theoretical grasp of the facts…No one can demonstrate that the limits of a species have ever been passed. These are the Rubicons which evolutionists cannot cross…Darwin ransacked other spheres of practical research work for ideas…But his whole resulting scheme remains, to this day, foreign to scientifically established zoology, since actual changes of species by such means are still unknown.” Albert Fleischmann, "The Doctrine of Organic Evolution in the Light of Modern Research," Journal of the Transactions of the Victoria Institute 65 (1933): pp. 194-95, 205-6, 208-9.

“Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.” Louis Bounoure. The Advocate, 8 March 1984, p. 17.

“And the salient fact is this: if by evolution we mean macroevolution (as we henceforth shall), then it can be said with the utmost rigor that the doctrine is totally bereft of scientific sanction. Now, to be sure, given the multitude of extravagant claims about evolution promulgated by evolutionists with an air of scientific infallibility, this may indeed sound strange. And yet the fact remains that there exists to this day not a shred of bona fide scientific evidence in support of the thesis that macroevolutionary transformations have ever occurred.” Wolfgang Smith, Teilhardism and the New Religion (Rockford., Ill.: Tan Books, 1988), pp. 5-6. Dr. Smith, taught at MIT and UCLA.

"With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the inevitable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort could not prove to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past." Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey (1957), p. 199.

"If complex organisms ever did evolve from simpler ones, the process took place contrary to the laws of nature, and must have involved what may rightly be termed the miraculous." R.E.D. Clark, Victoria Institute (1943), p.

" `Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence, and that it made its appearance in six days (or instantaneously, if that is preferred), in consequence of the volition of some preexisting Being. Then, as now, the so-called a priori arguments against Theism and, given a Deity, against the possibility of creative acts, appeared to me to be devoid of reasonable foundation." Thomas H. Huxley, quoted in *L. Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. I (1903), p. 241 (1903). 63.

"Our theory of evolution has become . . one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it . . No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas wither without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training." L.C. Birch and *P. Ehrlich, Nature, April 22, 1967.

"What is at stake is not the validity of the Darwinian theory itself, but of the approach to science that it has come to represent. The peculiar form of consensus the theory wields has produced a premature closure of inquiry in several branches of biology, and even if this is to be expected in `normal science,' such a dogmatic approach does not appear healthy." R. Brady, "Dogma and Doubt," Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 17:79, 96 (1982)

this is the link
http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionquotes.html

I'm not here to argue this. I am just here to tell you that you shouldn't make this a cut and dry thing...or even think it's a matter of science vs. religion. It isn't: it's religion vs. religion.

If evolution were a matter of science it could be observed, tested and falsified. You can do none of these things with macro-evolution. If it's micro-evolution (changes within species) I have no problem with that. I firmly believe in that but if it's macro-evolution (changes that produce different species) that's a matter of belief, since it cannot be proven and so it is consigned to the realm of religion. EVOLUTION IS A RELIGION.

[Chester]

Excellent post, sir.

[dzebra]

all scientists are interested in is uncovering the mysteries of the natural world, not to mention using technology to improve quality of life and standard of living for nearly all of humanity.

Sure, all they care about is other people. Scientists are totally selfless and work for the benefit of humanity and the love of truth and knowledge...
Ideally, perhaps, but if you know any human that possesses those traits, then you have found a rare human indeed.


Scientist have more to gain by disproving a given theory. A scientific discovery, the more controversial the better, is money in the bank.

Yes. Money sounds like a much more likely reason, and I agree with that part. Think of this, though: if a scientist made a discovery that disproved a lot of popular and powerful scientists, then all the more powerful scientists with their big egos perhaps would team up against him rather than let him ruin all they've worked for. The guy with the new discovery would not be published in scientific circles because he wouldn't have the support of his peers.


And let me tell you something, she would never suppress evidence that contradicts her views!

I believe you. Let me run this by you, though. Suppose she found one piece of evidence that contradicts tons of scientists who have been studying longer than she has. She would be tempted to figure out how that evidence could fit into what other people have said rather than trying to denounce everything that has come before her. Now imagine that happened to several people with lots of evidence. When all that evidence is looked at together at the same time, it would show a different picture than what has been painted. When all that evidence is looked at once piece at a time, it can be forced to fit the mold of what already exists.

[Logos]

General Mod Note to All:

Please remember the Religious Texts discussion forum has rules, linked below:

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15410

--

[Big Al]

Sure, all they care about is other people. Scientists are totally selfless and work for the benefit of humanity and the love of truth and knowledge...
Ideally, perhaps, but if you know any human that possesses those traits, then you have found a rare human indeed.

When a scientist makes a major discover, he publishes it in a peer-reviewed, scientific journal for other scientists to scrutinize and test his results for themselves. He presents his findings to people working in the same field as he works, and often participates in debates. In science, before an idea becomes widely accepted, it undergoes rigorous testing and consideration by numerous experts. So unless there is a grand, elaborate conspiracy by every member of the scientific world to dupe all of the "non-scientific folk," your assumptions on the subject don't hold any water.

[Big Al]

There are several problems with your post, so I'd like to point a few things out:


Evidently some EVOLUTIONISTS agree with me. Argue this out with them, not me. I'm not the one saying I can prove that God exists. But I think it's ultimately more plausible to say that God did all this than to say it all just happened, and I believe the God of the Bible is the originator and creator of it all. Anyhow, here's the quotes I just promised...

Which "evolutionists?" And why do you believe that it is more plausible?


note: some of these quotes are from confessed evolutionists.

Which ones? The only ones I recognize as coming from a proponent of evolution are the quotes from Charles Darwin, and scientists have made over a century's worth of discoveries in the field since his death -- he postulated the theory, but scientists today know a great deal more than he did.

All of the other quotes are from confirmed creationists, and some are from the '60s, the '40s, even earlier. Science has made incredible strides since then, discovering new geological evidence, as well as conducting DNA and genetics research. What do quotes by creationists show? What do they prove? That creationists want to discredit evolution because they believe it bolsters their views?


I'm not here to argue this. I am just here to tell you that you shouldn't make this a cut and dry thing...or even think it's a matter of science vs. religion. It isn't: it's religion vs. religion.

If evolution were a matter of science it could be observed, tested and falsified. You can do none of these things with macro-evolution. If it's micro-evolution (changes within species) I have no problem with that. I firmly believe in that but if it's macro-evolution (changes that produce different species) that's a matter of belief, since it cannot be proven and so it is consigned to the realm of religion. EVOLUTION IS A RELIGION.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html#falsifying

[Wintermute]

Oh my goodness, here we go on another evolution/creation discussion. Or a particular god exists/is myth discussion. As an agnostic, the only thing I'm certain of is that certainty is folly. We're not really trying to convince others in these discussions, we're trying to convince ourselves--because be honest: there is no way you can be 100%, absolutely certain that we have discovered the truth. The universe is so amazing and beautiful. To say with certain that some particular god of cloudy origin decided to create an immense universe with our little planet (and us) at the center of its creation for purposes that are unclear is quite difficult for me to fathom. Equally unlikely is that this incredible universe just formed naturally from absolute emptiness (the same can be said of any god). Admit it folks, none of us has a clue. We all hope, but there is no certainty.

My understanding of Christ is that love was at the core of his teachings. Not paranormal, mystical silliness. I wonder if he was trying to tell us that heaven is attained through true happiness which can only be found through love. That by treating others with respect and love we can, as we pass from this life, experience true happiness in death--which as far as we know is eternal.

Cheers,
Doug

[jgweed]

One must question the argument that places both scientific theory and religious dogmas on the same footing as "opinion" "belief" or "religion," because it relies on a definition so wide as to be meaningless outside of the term's connotations. One could, given this broad definition, argue that anything was a belief or a religion.

[Wintermute]

One must question the argument that places both scientific theory and religious dogmas on the same footing as "opinion" "belief" or "religion," because it relies on a definition so wide as to be meaningless outside of the term's connotations. One could, given this broad definition, argue that anything was a belief or a religion.

Hi Jg,

Yeah, I agree. For me personally, science has much more influence than does simple belief. Evidence is difficult to deny. But it shouldn't quell our hope nor diminish our happiness; if anything it augments these.

Peace,
Doug.

[jgweed]

It is one thing to question religious beliefs, and another entirely to criticize the arguments and evidences presented as a foundation for them. The concerns, criticisms and challenges I express from a philosophical viewpoint, hopefully, are aimed at the latter. That, at least, is certainly my intention.
Cheers,
John

[blazeofglory]

"If mankind is a product of evolution and there was millions and billions of years prior to the beginning of man. How could Jesus say that God "created" them in the "Beginning"."

How, indeed.
Cheers,
John

Did Jesus actually say that?

The existence of Jesus is half historical and half mythological.

[HerGuardian]

It seems that you people confused. According to our references as Muslims, Adam and Eve got married after being descended to Earth. Eve got pregnant 20 times- the highest number of times mentioned. Each time she got pregnant with a twin, a boy and a girl. So, to avoid incest at that time, each boys will get married to girls who are not their twins. This was the possible solution for such a situation. This why Abel killed Cain. He wanted to marry his own twin cause she was far prettier than Cain's twin. It's the explanations mentioned in both the Qur'an and Hadiths – prophet Muhammad's sayings peace be upon him.

[jgweed]

Assuming Eve was inseminated by Adam, would not the later intercourse between any brother and any sister, whether they were born at the same time as twins or not, be considered incest, which is commonly defined as sexual relations between members of the immediate family?
Regards,
John

[AARONDISNEY]

Yes of course there was incest. I don't know about the whole 'twins' thing. That isn't in the Bible, but yeah, brothers married sisters. Cousins married cousins. There were not problems in genetic blending because this was before the fall of mankind into animosity with God. It was prior to Genesis Chapter 3.

You may think that since Cain, Abel and all the rest were not mentioned until after this that they were not around when this happened with the fruit, but evidently not so. In Genesis chapter 3 verse 16 God tells the woman (after she sinned) that he would "greatly multiply her sorrow and....in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children." - it could not be multiplied if it had never occurred until afterwards.

There may have been 70 - 100 years (just a guess) between the creation and the fall. But the fall created many problems. One of which is that there is a gap between man and God, and there is a yearning in many people to have a relationship with God. God initiated the reconciliation of God to man when He sent Jesus to suffer our punishment on the cross for us.

[AARONDISNEY]

You should try using scientific sources to research scientific concepts, not religious sources. Otherwise, your head will be filled with ridiculous misinformation, and then the rest of us will have to read your inane attempts at appearing educated on the matter.

This was concerning the "limestone cowboy" link I put up several posts back. The ironic thing about Big Al's comment is that this is scientific. There was a leg and foot with a boot still on it, found petrified and carbon dated waaaaay out of the realm of possibility. That was proven, that was observed, that's what science is. When a scientist says that a couple of bones found in a rock are 10 million years old, that is not science, that is a guess based on a system that is only a belief held by some people.

I do respect science but not when it has to be backed up with ridiculous unsubstantiated claims.

They've carbon dated living penguins as being 25,000 years old.
They've carbon dated a fossil of animals giving birth and the animal being born. One was thousands of years older than the other.....now that is a slooooooow birth.

I don't have any problem with someone who wants to believe in evolution, but it would be wonderful if they would not call it science because it simply isn't scientific.

If anyone out there is open minded about this and has a decent amount of time on your hands - here's a debate between a creationist and evolutionist. This way you can see who has the better arguments....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cffk0zQ33k&feature=related

[AARONDISNEY]

There are several problems with your post, so I'd like to point a few things out:



Which "evolutionists?" And why do you believe that it is more plausible?



Which ones? The only ones I recognize as coming from a proponent of evolution are the quotes from Charles Darwin, and scientists have made over a century's worth of discoveries in the field since his death -- he postulated the theory, but scientists today know a great deal more than he did.

All of the other quotes are from confirmed creationists, and some are from the '60s, the '40s, even earlier. Science has made incredible strides since then, discovering new geological evidence, as well as conducting DNA and genetics research. What do quotes by creationists show? What do they prove? That creationists want to discredit evolution because they believe it bolsters their views?



http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html#falsifying

Eisley, Darwin, and Huxley were evolutionists.....
I did not say they were all evolutionists, but they are all very intelligent people and they all admit the weakness of the evolutionary theory.

You say that since the death of Darwin his theory has been studied and much has been accomplished in proving his speculations. Oh really? I would think, and so would Charles Darwin, that if his theory were correct there would be tons and tons of examples of intermediary fossils in the ground. There aren't. There aren't any of them. Those that they claim are are simply not. Archaeoptryx (I probably spelled that wrong) is not a lizard evolving into a bird. It's a bird. A weird bird, but a bird. How could a cold blooded animal become warm blooded over time. That's incomprehensible. How could old crusty skin material (scales) evolve into complex feathers over time. Doesn't make sense. Even if it did make sense, it isn't provable and therefore is NOT science.

Even Darwin himself admitted as much - "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."
Charles Darwin,
In a letter to Asa Gray, a Harvard professor of biology.

Please tell me what incredible proofs that science has since made (from the time of the latest quote I offered) to make it's theory more plausible. I know of nothing. They've had 150 years to get their facts together and have come up with nothing.....and it's taught as though it were fact.

Scientists (or I suppose I should say "some" scientists) have changed their story so often my head spins. They used to believe (correctly in my opinion) that the earth was a few thousand years old, then they believed it to be 75,000 years old. Then they believed it to be around 130,000,000 years old about 200 years ago (I wish I could remember the man's name that offered up that theory) - now somehow it's about 4.5 billion years old.

The earth is aging at around 10,000 years a year the way I got it figured. I just think we need to stop calling evolution science and creation religion. They are both beliefs that cannot be proven and neither of them are scientific at all.

[AARONDISNEY]

"If mankind is a product of evolution and there was millions and billions of years prior to the beginning of man. How could Jesus say that God "created" them in the "Beginning"."

How, indeed.
Cheers,
John

Did Jesus actually say that?

Sorry. I just get on every now and then and am trying to get to everything addressed to me. Yes, John, Jesus did say that - it's found in Mark 10:6
# But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. - the beginning of the creation seems to me to say right at the get-go. I find it incredibly difficult to squeeze millions or billions of years in between the creation and the first man. But I am a Christian and believe the Bible to be infallible.

I understand this is not solid evidence for someone that doesn't believe the Bible. It's those that do believe the Bible and try to compromise the teaching of scripture and the opinions and beliefs of some scientists (to accommodate for the time necessary for evolution) that I have a problem with.

[AARONDISNEY]

The existence of Jesus is half historical and half mythological.

That's an awfully confusing quote.... How can someone's existence be half historical and half mythological? Either he was really here or he wasn't. I certainly believe he was here - virgin born, He was and is eternal and He suffered and died for my sins and for yours. He's the best news this world has ever had!

[jgweed]

Perhaps the poster meant something like: our knowledge of Jesus is half historical and half mythological. One could also opine that our knowledge of Jesus is composed of accounts from various contemporary observers, and to the extent that we can through external and internal textual criticism determine their accuracy, it is historical; but to the extent that the accounts are perspectival or archetypal, the are "mythological."

One can think here of an analogous knowledge of a near contemporary, Sokrates. Neither of these figures, to our knowledge, actually wrote anything, and we are left with eye-witness accounts of each's life, activities, and teachings. We seem to have a clearer picture of Sokrates where Plato the philosopher and Xenophon the general agree, and understand the vagueness of the picture where they seem to differ because of their own individuality.

[AARONDISNEY]

Perhaps the poster meant something like: our knowledge of Jesus is half historical and half mythological. One could also opine that our knowledge of Jesus is composed of accounts from various contemporary observers, and to the extent that we can through external and internal textual criticism determine their accuracy, it is historical; but to the extent that the accounts are perspectival or archetypal, the are "mythological."


Okay - I see what you mean. I don't consider it all that extremely true. I suppose from this kind of thinking we would have to consider Christopher Columbus partially mythical, but I can at least see where he may have been coming from now. Thanks jgweed.

[Big Al]

This is like arguing with a cartoon character -- a very poorly educated cartoon character.



I did not say they were all evolutionists, but they are all very intelligent people and they all admit the weakness of the evolutionary theory.

I admit that my father is Darth Vader, but it doesn't make it true (although how cool would that be?)


You say that since the death of Darwin his theory has been studied and much has been accomplished in proving his speculations. Oh really? I would think, and so would Charles Darwin, that if his theory were correct there would be tons and tons of examples of intermediary fossils in the ground. There aren't. There aren't any of them. Those that they claim are are simply not. Archaeoptryx (I probably spelled that wrong) is not a lizard evolving into a bird. It's a bird. A weird bird, but a bird. How could a cold blooded animal become warm blooded over time. That's incomprehensible. How could old crusty skin material (scales) evolve into complex feathers over time. Doesn't make sense. Even if it did make sense, it isn't provable and therefore is NOT science.

As for your first statement about intermediary fossils, now that I'm thinking about it, that's probably a flawed term in the first place. Species, races, geni etc. are all concepts defined by humans. Biology presents us with a continuum of ever changing creatures and we just pick certain points on the line of evolution of a "species" and give those different names. To define an animal as a "transition species," one would first have to accept another as the "proper species" or the "pure species," when in fact all species are in a constant state of evolution, and thus can all be labelled as "transition species."

Having gotten that out of the way, there are plenty of "transition species." For example, Tulerpeton, Elpistostege, Densignathus and Tiktaalik roseae are examples of species of fish which developed legs over an extended period of time.

Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Archaeopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis and Ichthyornis are all examples of land-dwelling species developing the ability of flight.

And some others that I find interesting are Pakicetus inachus, Ambulocetus natans, Indocetus ramani, Dorudon and Basilosaurus.

But judging by the second part of the last paragraph, I sincerely doubt any of this will reach you, as you essentially reject evolution as "impossible" because you don't understand how something can happen. You also don't seem to understand how science works, because "proof" doesn't play any part in it. In science, you provide evidence to support hypotheses, and there is a veritable mountain of it supporting evolution -- but you continue time and time again to demonstrate that you are (probably purposefully) unaware of it.


Even Darwin himself admitted as much - "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."
Charles Darwin,
In a letter to Asa Gray, a Harvard professor of biology.

I realize that creationists like to pull out Darwin quotes as though that supports anything, but it really doesn't.


Please tell me what incredible proofs that science has since made (from the time of the latest quote I offered) to make it's theory more plausible. I know of nothing. They've had 150 years to get their facts together and have come up with nothing.....and it's taught as though it were fact.

These "transition fossils," the ones I mentioned and hundreds of others; genetics; protein functional redundancy; DNA functional redundancy; transposons; redundant pseudogenes; endogenous retroviruses; modern evolutionary synthesis, which showed the natural selection and gradual evolution are consistent with Mendelian genetics...Do some very basic research instead of repeating cliched creationist rhetoric.


Scientists (or I suppose I should say "some" scientists) have changed their story so often my head spins. They used to believe (correctly in my opinion) that the earth was a few thousand years old, then they believed it to be 75,000 years old. Then they believed it to be around 130,000,000 years old about 200 years ago (I wish I could remember the man's name that offered up that theory) - now somehow it's about 4.5 billion years old.

The idea that the earth is a few thousand years old is a religious invention, and scientists who theorized otherwise were punished by religious leaders. As for the age of the earth being several billion years, the ages of Earth and Moon rocks and of meteorites are measured by the decay of long-lived radioactive isotopes of elements that occur naturally in rocks and minerals and that decay with half lives of 700 million to more than 100 billion years to stable isotopes of other elements. These dating techniques, which are firmly grounded in physics and are known collectively as radiometric dating, are used to measure the last time that the rock being dated was either melted or disturbed sufficiently to rehomogenize its radioactive elements. Ancient rocks exceeding 3.5 billion years in age are found on all of Earth's continents. The oldest rocks on Earth found so far are the Acasta Gneisses in northwestern Canada near Great Slave Lake (4.03 Ga) and the Isua Supracrustal rocks in West Greenland (3.7 to 3.8 Ga), but well-studied rocks nearly as old are also found in the Minnesota River Valley and northern Michigan (3.5-3.7 billion years), in Swaziland (3.4-3.5 billion years), and in Western Australia (3.4-3.6 billion years).


The earth is aging at around 10,000 years a year the way I got it figured. I just think we need to stop calling evolution science and creation religion. They are both beliefs that cannot be proven and neither of them are scientific at all.

The reason you think evolution is not science is, quite simply, that you are an idiot who refuses to research the subject.

[Chester]

The reason you think evolution is not science is, quite simply, that you are an idiot who refuses to research the subject
From my impartial viewpoint, he seems to be much more the gentleman, however.

[Pendragon]

This is like arguing with a cartoon character -- a very poorly educated cartoon character.




The reason you think evolution is not science is, quite simply, that you are an idiot who refuses to research the subject.
Tell me, what does it furthur your arguments by insulting the other person? Doesn't this seem to make you look bad, since you must resort to name-calling as argument? There is no room in arguments for insult. He who insults is usually he who has been "fetched a lifter" as Mark Twain says. This means that the person has been presented with something he cannot argue with and so resorts to name-calling or other insults. Bad form, Sah!

Can we get back to a personal God and off evolution? This isn't an evolution thread! :smash:

[AARONDISNEY]

Big Al,
I really didn't think this was supposed to be such a childish discussion. I am not interested in continuing it. I understand you have animosity against my views. I do not have animosity against yours. Like I've said repeatedly, I just don't believe it's a scientific viewpoint. I believe there is a lot of evidence supporting your view and a lot opposing it and supporting mine.

Admittedly I haven't researched alot of the so called intermediary species that you describe. But I would think that if there were anything impressive about them they would have abandoned the flawed peppered moth and archeaoptryx (again, probably spelled wrong:confused: ) arguments they continue to use in textbooks. By the way you have archaeoptryx in your list, how is it that that thing is half way between cold blooded animal and warm blooded bird, that's the astounding claim I can't understand. It would have to be one or the other, or at least a fully cold blooded animal would have to reproduce and make a warm blooded something or other.

They would also have tossed out the admittedly faked embryonic drawings, but they still use them.

Like I say - go ahead and believe what you wish. You have your religion and I have my Bible. But please watch a debate or two between the two ideas and you'll see that the guys arguing your point are using imagination and calling it fact......that's the big problem.

One last thing....how many fossilized bones of each of the 'fossils' that you've mentioned were found? I know that with the fossil they claim to be half way between whale like creature and a cow was constructed using a piece of a skull and a tooth. There's a whole lot of imagination and dreaming involved in these 'scientific' findings from what I understand.

Again, just look up on youtube or hit the link I provided to see both sides present the best evidence they can. I think you'll at least agree that it's not that one side is delusional and the other is critically thinking. It's just two very different views of origins.

BYt the way, Pendragon, I agree and I'm sorry I've been part of moving this discussion away from the original topic. I'll cease from my creation/evolution comments from here on out, even if I am called an 'uneducated cartoon character' :cool:

[Pendragon]

No problem, Aaron! I just recall that the last evolution/creation thread ran forever, it seemed, with no real solution. The evolutionists claimed victory, but in reality no one actually made the other back down! :wave:

[NickAdams]

If we are going to throw out science and go with religion, why are we basing truth on the hebrew and christian text (there was one mention, that I read, of the Qu'ran)? Let's go to the Mesopotamian and Egyptian text, since the the bible borrowed heavily from them.

[El Viejo]

In this forum, when we leave off discussing religious texts, or even the belief systems they engender, and begin trying to convert one another, we've entered the Twilight Zone. Or, perhaps, a Monty Python film.

Sticking to the text:

--Geneis doesn't say where the other people came from. It specifically names only Cain, Abel, and Seth as offspring of Adam and Eve, leaving the rest and their origins in obscurity. However far we read, the Bible does not explain where Cain's wife, or Seth's, or anyone else's in that first generation after the fall, came from.

--for these reasons we can't answer the question of whether we're products of incest or not.

[NickAdams]

In this forum, when we leave off discussing religious texts, or even the belief systems they engender, and begin trying to convert one another, we've entered the Twilight Zone. Or, perhaps, a Monty Python film.

Is the latter, Monty Python, really that bad.


Sticking to the text:

--Geneis doesn't say where the other people came from. It specifically names only Cain, Abel, and Seth as offspring of Adam and Eve, leaving the rest and their origins in obscurity. However far we read, the Bible does not explain where Cain's wife, or Seth's, or anyone else's in that first generation after the fall, came from.

--for these reasons we can't answer the question of whether we're products of incest or not.

TRUE!


--for these reasons we can't answer the question of whether we're products of incest or not.

Adam, Eve and their children appear in more than one work, whose followers comprise more than one religion. "We're" supposes that this text is in fact the correct one and that "we're" their descendents. What we can say is that we do not know if all the people in the Bible ar descendents of Adam and Eve.

[Big Al]

Tell me, what does it furthur your arguments by insulting the other person?

It adds emphasis to my incredible frustration and disbelief at what I'm actually seeing somebody else type with apparent sincerity.


Big Al,
I really didn't think this was supposed to be such a childish discussion. I am not interested in continuing it. I understand you have animosity against my views. I do not have animosity against yours. Like I've said repeatedly, I just don't believe it's a scientific viewpoint. I believe there is a lot of evidence supporting your view and a lot opposing it and supporting mine.

I have animosity toward your completely ridiculous, unsupported and condescending remarks about evolution, written with an obvious -- and as I said before, most likely purposeful -- lack of knowledge about the subject.


By the way you have archaeoptryx in your list, how is it that that thing is half way between cold blooded animal and warm blooded bird, that's the astounding claim I can't understand. It would have to be one or the other, or at least a fully cold blooded animal would have to reproduce and make a warm blooded something or other.

The term "warm-blooded" implies that a species is endothermic, or that the species has the ability to generate internal heat in order to regulate body temperature. "Cold-blooded" implies that a species is exothermic, or that it relies on the environment and behavioral adaptations to regulate their body temperature. So when you said "warm-blooded and cold-blooded at the same time," you were right on the money -- once a trait begins to develop in a species, it doesn't immediately lose another trait until the new trait has developed. Your question implies a complete lack of understanding of how natural selection actually works. Have you ever actually read anything on the subject?


They would also have tossed out the admittedly faked embryonic drawings, but they still use them.

I'm unfamiliar with these "faked embryonic drawings." Enlighten me.


One last thing....how many fossilized bones of each of the 'fossils' that you've mentioned were found? I know that with the fossil they claim to be half way between whale like creature and a cow was constructed using a piece of a skull and a tooth. There's a whole lot of imagination and dreaming involved in these 'scientific' findings from what I understand.

You're doing it again -- just like with your comment about carbon dating, you make completely erroneous and outrageous claims about how you think scientists do things. I'd like to see a source for this.


Again, just look up on youtube or hit the link I provided to see both sides present the best evidence they can. I think you'll at least agree that it's not that one side is delusional and the other is critically thinking. It's just two very different views of origins.

I'll tell you what -- as soon as creationists publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals, then I'll pay attention to them. Until then, I'm sure I can think of better things to do with my time.

[Redzeppelin]

I'll tell you what -- as soon as creationists publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals, then I'll pay attention to them. Until then, I'm sure I can think of better things to do with my time.

Sorry to interupt: is this the measure of validity? You mean you can't judge the material for yourself? You come across as seemingly knowledgable (knowledgable enough to criticize someone else's knowledge on evolution) - why must the findings be "peer reviewed"? They have to be "legitimized" to be intellectually considered by you?

As well, would that really make any difference to you, seriously? I don't think the issue is so much the legitimacy of creationist research as it is the fact that all scientists - regardless of world-view - begin from a foundational premise about the nature of reality. To oversimplify: scientists begin from the premise that God is or is not real. From there, they proceed accordingly. As such, if one begins from the premise that the universe is only composed of that which can be seen, observed, measured and quantified by human beings, then there is no sufficient argument that will change that scientist's mind. The same is pretty much true for the creationist. That's why these discussions have no traction. Evolutionists think the "facts" are on their side and that they have a "wider" perspective than the "narrow" Christian view - but the reality is that by omitting God as an option, naturalist scientists have limited their possiblities as well. And, "facts" do not always speak for themselves; they generally require an interpretation, and all interpretations require a certain amount of subjectivity - and guess what? That subjectivity is highly influenced by the foundational premise the scientist holds. It's a no-win situation for either side. Evolution appears to be more scientific - but there's multiple ways to interpret some of these facts.

Just some thoughts - thanks for letting me intervene.

[dzebra]

Red, I agree with that statement completely. Two people can look at the exact same thing and one will see it as evidence for evolution, while the other will see it as evidence supporting creation (or any two opposing ideas, not just creation vs evolution).

[AARONDISNEY]

First off. Sorry, Pendragon. I have to answer some of the things that Big Al wrote and then I'll honestly try my best to just stop posting, but he's trying to ag me on and is doing an excellent job of it. anyhow......




I have animosity toward your completely ridiculous, unsupported and condescending remarks about evolution, written with an obvious -- and as I said before, most likely purposeful -- lack of knowledge about the subject.
Why is it ridiculous to call evolution a belief and not a science? No one has ever seen it happen. It's all supposed to be taken on faith since so many scientists believe it 'could have' happened that way. That sounds like a belief system to me. It's the kind of belief system that people adopt that want to shut out any possibility of a Creator that they have to answer to.

How is it unsupported to remark that you cannot observe evolution? Do you claim that I'm wrong? That would be a ridiculous statement. There is really just no way for you to win this one, you either believe the scientists or the Bible. I believe the Bible, you believe the (most but not all) scientists.




The term "warm-blooded" implies that a species is endothermic, or that the species has the ability to generate internal heat in order to regulate body temperature. "Cold-blooded" implies that a species is exothermic, or that it relies on the environment and behavioral adaptations to regulate their body temperature. So when you said "warm-blooded and cold-blooded at the same time," you were right on the money -- once a trait begins to develop in a species, it doesn't immediately lose another trait until the new trait has developed. Your question implies a complete lack of understanding of how natural selection actually works. Have you ever actually read anything on the subject?

True enough that I have not read much on the subject, but I know of no animal that is a mixture of the two. I could be wrong, but your point is still not proven even if you can give an example of a cold/warm blooded current animal. It only makes it more plausible. Scales becoming feathers is pretty silly sounding in my mind though.



I'm unfamiliar with these "faked embryonic drawings." Enlighten me.
With pleasure. Ernst Haeckel drew several illustrations of human fetuses, claiming they went through the stages of fish, amphibian, reptile, mammal as they grew in the womb. They were considered to be proof (evolution's proof is some drawings I guess) of the fetus reliving it's former existences in gestation.
Here's his quote about what really happened from Haeckel himself...
"a small portion of my embryo-pictures (possibly 6 or 8 in a hundred) are really (in Dr Brass’s sense of the word) 'falsified' — all those, namely, in which the disclosed material for inspection is so incomplete or insufficient that one is compelled in a restoration of a connected development series to fill up the gaps through hypotheses, and to reconstruct the missing members through comparative syntheses. What difficulties this task encounters, and how easily the draughts- man may blunder in it, the embryologist alone can judge."



You're doing it again -- just like with your comment about carbon dating, you make completely erroneous and outrageous claims about how you think scientists do things. I'd like to see a source for this.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i4/almostwhale.asp

I understand you may not put much faith in the link I provided, but if not then you are not truly hearing both sides of the issue as you claim I should do. If there is really nothing in the creation side of the argument that gives you any problems please explain why they actually did what I've said (which by the way is not erroneous and just because you call it erroneous obviously doesn't make it so). Why did they create an entire skeletal system of an imaginary animal when all they found was a tooth and part of a skull?



I'll tell you what -- as soon as creationists publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals, then I'll pay attention to them. Until then, I'm sure I can think of better things to do with my time.
Now that's really brilliant! Of course all the evolutionists are gonna pat the other evolutionists on the back and backhand anything else across the face.

[NickAdams]

It's the kind of belief system that people adopt that want to shut out any possibility of a Creator that they have to answer to.

Is this to mean that all religions, that possess a Creator, feel the creator is someone the will have to answer to? Not all relgions have a day judgement. Why not argue for the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, if we are to go by faith.

What's wrong with Christianity as a philosophy? Would it lose its value if it wasn't fact?

What's your thought on cosmic background radiation ?

[Pendragon]

As we cannot seem to get off this subject, Big Al, tell me: Lucy the famous human-ape link, how much of her skeleton was actually found? Not a great deal. What did it prove? That one such creature existed, not a race. This creature could easily be a mistake of nature. For example, if people were to discover fossils of Andre the Giant they could easily say that there was a race of giant dwarves with 48 teeth. Would this be true? No, but there was at least one specimen. One specimen doesn't mean a race...

God Bless

PS: Regardless of your aggravation, insults do not add to your argument and should be avoided! :smash:

[NickAdams]

As we cannot seem to get off this subject, Big Al, tell me: Lucy the famous human-ape link, how much of her skeleton was actually found? Not a great deal. What did it prove? That one such creature existed, not a race. This creature could easily be a mistake of nature. For example, if people were to discover fossils of Andre the Giant they could easily say that there was a race of giant dwarves with 48 teeth.

:lol: That would be great satire. If you decide to use it as a humrous poem let me know.

[jgweed]

The “Everyman his own scientist fallacy”
Scientific theories are not like modern-day “opinions” that are held by every man on the street and changed with every novel and entertaining idea, but are supported not only by detailed inquiry into the specific data for the conclusion, but are not DISQUALIFIED by independent research in both parallel and closely-related work. What peer review does is to allow scientists in working in both to compare the findings with their own. Considering the massive and very specialised amounts of data--- especially in the new fields of micro-biology, genetic research, and medicine--- and the time it takes to analyse and obtain the data (consider the genome, for example), independent peer review is essential. Non-scientists often think that articles in scientific journals somehow resemble those in the New Republic or the Sunday section of the NYT where scientists trade general opinions. This is far from the case in areas of extremely specialised research. The layman may certainly be able to judge the arguments and facts presented in the New Republic, but is completely ignorant of the vast amount of data and research currently going on in the scientific fields. Even in the humanistic field of history, for example, could a layman really adequately validate an argument about how the Poor Laws in England effected public health without relying on very detailed and comprehensive investigations by trained historians into the relevant statistics and documents?


The “Everyman his own interpretor fallacy.”

To argue that every fact is so because of interpretation by a human subject (with perhaps the exception of the infallible facts in the Bible) may be, from a philosophical point of view, a commonplace. But it is completely incorrect to then argue that therefore all interpretations are somehow on an equal footing, and that there cannot be an agreement or even a procedure to ascertaining what we commonly call “facts.” What science attempts, both by its rigourous proceedures designed to avoid human subjectivity, as well *** the open and public nature permitting duplication by others of its experiments, is to avoid the pitfalls of interpretation.


And to argue that all scientists begin with a certain conception of reality (as if the common man on the street does not), and confine their investigations to the quantifiable physical universe thus “limiting their possibilities,” seems hardly fair since it seems to be saying that science should be something other than science.
Again, one must seriously doubt that one can point to many scientists over the world who begin their investigations with a decision that God either exists or does not; it is simply NOT RELAVANT to their projects and methods outside of the Moody Bible Institute.

We read, “To oversimplify: scientists begin from the premise that God is or is not real.”

To say that one presents a view which is an oversimplification is to avoid considering whether it is really true or not. Scientists will arrive at the same conclusions about what is the case whether they go to church on Sunday or not, and their disagreements are based on either the data used or the procedural methods followed, not whether God is or is not real. The last time I looked, both supposed scientific groups used the same periodic table of elements.

We then read another oversimplification, “As such, if one begins from the premise that the universe is only composed of that which can be seen, observed, measured and quantified by human beings, then there is no sufficient argument that will change that scientist's mind.” This is not completely fair to the scientist, either. To confine, for the best of reasons, their study to the natural world BECAUSE there is the possibility of general agreement and knowledge about how it works, is not to say that THAT world is the ONLY “world” or from a human point of view, the only kind of world that counts in life.

It is very easy to present a picture, even a caricature, of science and scientists, then to additionally equivocate about such words as “subjectivity,” to make what counterfeits as an argument.

[Pendragon]

Wheather or not I agree with you, Weed, I must say you placed your arguments with a gentleman's tact. Bravo!

But the old argument "You just don't understand having not researched the facts." Has been used by both sides of the equation. And it is a weak argument. Because one disagrees with something is no sign that they don't understand it. I reject some of their finding, not all of their finding.

I think the world is older than most religious people will accept. I think that the story of Genesis is incomplete, that everything that had to hnappen was not recorded. The important thing was the creation of man. This left out details on the other part of creation, and even man's decendants were not all recorded. The story is of the creation and the fall.

God Bless

Pen

[El Viejo]

Is the latter, Monty Python, really that bad?

Certainly not. I just don't want my entire life to be such.


Adam, Eve and their children appear in more than one work, whose followers comprise more than one religion. "We're" supposes that this text is in fact the correct one and that "we're" their descendents. What we can say is that we do not know if all the people in the Bible ar descendents of Adam and Eve.

True. I assumed the opening question referred to the biblical characters and biblical version of the story.

The Bible is a blending of older stories, but whatever the lineage of some people in Genesis, the flood wiped out everyone except Noah and his family, who are direct descendants of Adam and Eve.

By that time, 969 years after Methuselah's birth, which occurred a long time after Adam's creation, there should have been enough people around for Noah and sons to have someone other than their sisters for spouses.

So we're all ok. After The Flood, no documented incest, except for Lot & daughters.

[Redzeppelin]

The “Everyman his own interpretor fallacy.”

To argue that every fact is so because of interpretation by a human subject (with perhaps the exception of the infallible facts in the Bible) may be, from a philosophical point of view, a commonplace. But it is completely incorrect to then argue that therefore all interpretations are somehow on an equal footing, and that there cannot be an agreement or even a procedure to ascertaining what we commonly call “facts.” What science attempts, both by its rigourous proceedures designed to avoid human subjectivity, as well *** the open and public nature permitting duplication by others of its experiments, is to avoid the pitfalls of interpretation.

I never indicated that "every fact is so because of interpretation": I said that not all facts "speak for themselves" and as such, require an interpretation - and I do not believe that there is a fully "objective" interpretive "tool" out there. All interpretations presuppose a world-view - and that world-view automatically - by its very nature - must exclude some frames of reference. God cannot be measured - but that doesn't mean He doesn't exist: it means we can't measure Him. Naturalistic science concludes that He doesn't exist because we can't find and "measure" Him - but that conclusion stems from the philosophic standpoint that reality is composed of that which we can measure, test, observe. You can be as "rigorous" as you like - the presupposition you begin from will dictate the nature of your interpretation of the results.


And to argue that all scientists begin with a certain conception of reality (as if the common man on the street does not), and confine their investigations to the quantifiable physical universe thus “limiting their possibilities,” seems hardly fair since it seems to be saying that science should be something other than science.

No - it suggests that science begins from a certain standpoint that deliberately excludes a possibility based on the Naturalist idea that reality is material in nature ONLY.



Again, one must seriously doubt that one can point to many scientists over the world who begin their investigations with a decision that God either exists or does not; it is simply NOT RELAVANT to their projects and methods outside of the Moody Bible Institute.

We read, “To oversimplify: scientists begin from the premise that God is or is not real.”

To say that one presents a view which is an oversimplification is to avoid considering whether it is really true or not. Scientists will arrive at the same conclusions about what is the case whether they go to church on Sunday or not, and their disagreements are based on either the data used or the procedural methods followed, not whether God is or is not real. The last time I looked, both supposed scientific groups used the same periodic table of elements.

We then read another oversimplification, “As such, if one begins from the premise that the universe is only composed of that which can be seen, observed, measured and quantified by human beings, then there is no sufficient argument that will change that scientist's mind.” This is not completely fair to the scientist, either. To confine, for the best of reasons, their study to the natural world BECAUSE there is the possibility of general agreement and knowledge about how it works, is not to say that THAT world is the ONLY “world” or from a human point of view, the only kind of world that counts in life.

It is very easy to present a picture, even a caricature, of science and scientists, then to additionally equivocate about such words as “subjectivity,” to make what counterfeits as an argument.

God's existence is relevant because at some point, we must go backward and find a beginning - and at that point, it becomes extremely important because we must somehow account for the universe and the current existence of it - why is it here, in this particular configuration, and how did it come to be?

Both groups do use the same periodic table - but the periodic table does not require an interpretive device to understand it - it is one particular device we use to interpret the world - one of the more objective ones.

[AARONDISNEY]

Is this to mean that all religions, that possess a Creator, feel the creator is someone the will have to answer to? Not all relgions have a day judgement. Why not argue for the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, if we are to go by faith.

What's wrong with Christianity as a philosophy? Would it lose its value if it wasn't fact?

What's your thought on cosmic background radiation ?

The religions that say there is a creator and no judgment are not nearly so persecuted as is Christianity.

Christianity as a philosophy is not Christianity. CHrist's teachings are important but his reason for being here was his sacrificial death and his resurrection. Here's what Paul said..
1 Cor 15:13-19
# But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
# And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
# Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
# For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
# And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
# Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
# If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

COSMIC BACKGROUND RADIATION....my thoughts.......:confused:
I don't even know what you're talking about.

[Big Al]

I have to go to work in a few minutes, so I won't be able to reply to all the posts addressed to me right now.


Sorry to interupt: is this the measure of validity? You mean you can't judge the material for yourself? You come across as seemingly knowledgable (knowledgable enough to criticize someone else's knowledge on evolution) - why must the findings be "peer reviewed"? They have to be "legitimized" to be intellectually considered by you?

There has to be "evidence" for it to be considered by me -- empirical evidence. And there is none; creationism works under the assumption that a supreme deity (no evidence) created all creatures at one time (directly contradicts science and logic), and that because of this, the earth is a few thousand years old (also directly contradicts science and logic). If somebody could provide empirical evidence supporting creationism, then they would be publishing them in scientific journals, so that the concept would become accepted and studied in the scientific community. The fact that nobody has done show demonstrates what I already know -- there is no evidence. There is only one side finding evidence to support evolution, and another side criticizing evolution without providing evidence for its own theory.


As well, would that really make any difference to you, seriously? I don't think the issue is so much the legitimacy of creationist research as it is the fact that all scientists - regardless of world-view - begin from a foundational premise about the nature of reality. To oversimplify: scientists begin from the premise that God is or is not real.

I'd say that this statement is pretty asinine. You presuppose that the issue of God is on every scientist's mind when he or she makes discoveries, when I've questioned many scientists who have told me that they never think about it. Everybody else feels the need to inject religious controversies into science.


As such, if one begins from the premise that the universe is only composed of that which can be seen, observed, measured and quantified by human beings, then there is no sufficient argument that will change that scientist's mind. The same is pretty much true for the creationist. That's why these discussions have no traction. Evolutionists think the "facts" are on their side and that they have a "wider" perspective than the "narrow" Christian view - but the reality is that by omitting God as an option, naturalist scientists have limited their possiblities as well.

Much in the same way that people who omit dragons and invisible pink elephants have limited their possibilities. And I realize that this conversation isn't going anywhere -- I will freely and openly admit right now that I am continuing this futile discussion because I absolutely refuse to give somebody whose views I perceive to be inane the last word. Childish? Probably, but then it takes two to keep a conversation going.


And, "facts" do not always speak for themselves; they generally require an interpretation, and all interpretations require a certain amount of subjectivity - and guess what? That subjectivity is highly influenced by the foundational premise the scientist holds. It's a no-win situation for either side. Evolution appears to be more scientific - but there's multiple ways to interpret some of these facts.

And we come back to peer-reviewed scientific journals: scientists publish their findings so that other scientists with different perspectives may critically examine the evidence. There is plenty of debate in the scientific field, although none of it is about whether or not evolution exists, I can tell you that much.

[Big Al]

Why is it ridiculous to call evolution a belief and not a science? No one has ever seen it happen. It's all supposed to be taken on faith since so many scientists believe it 'could have' happened that way. That sounds like a belief system to me. It's the kind of belief system that people adopt that want to shut out any possibility of a Creator that they have to answer to.

See? You're doing it again -- you assert that people who accept evolution are simply doing it because they are afraid of your God. That's condescending, presumptuous and asinine.


How is it unsupported to remark that you cannot observe evolution? Do you claim that I'm wrong? That would be a ridiculous statement. There is really just no way for you to win this one, you either believe the scientists or the Bible. I believe the Bible, you believe the (most but not all) scientists.

Well, for one because scientists have observed evolution. One example is viruses -- when subjected to an antibiotic, viruses and bacteria adapt to it and develop a stronger immunity. That's natural selection in action.

My problem is less with the fact that you don't accept evolution, or that you think it is flawed or whatever; my problem is that you're arguing with me on the subject despite the fact that you make claims about evolution and scientific processes which are outrageous and false, as well as the fact that you seem to have done no research on evolution whatsoever, which makes me question how you can possibly think you know anything about it.



True enough that I have not read much on the subject, but I know of no animal that is a mixture of the two. I could be wrong, but your point is still not proven even if you can give an example of a cold/warm blooded current animal. It only makes it more plausible. Scales becoming feathers is pretty silly sounding in my mind though.

Animals evolve to adapt to changing environments -- it takes hundred and hundreds of millions of years. Looking at organisms in stable environmental conditions and saying, "Hey, they're not doing anything, evolution must be silly" is...Well, silly.


With pleasure. Ernst Haeckel drew several illustrations of human fetuses, claiming they went through the stages of fish, amphibian, reptile, mammal as they grew in the womb. They were considered to be proof (evolution's proof is some drawings I guess) of the fetus reliving it's former existences in gestation.

Okay, now I know what you're talking about -- I hadn't heard this argument in awhile. I realize some creationists believe that Darwin used the fraudulent drawings when postulating the evolutionary theory, but Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, and The Descent of Man in 1871, whereas Haeckel's famous embryo drawings did not appear until 1874. He didn't use the fake drawings -- nobody, actually, uses the fake drawings, so I'm not sure why you brought it up.



http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i4/almostwhale.asp

I understand you may not put much faith in the link I provided, but if not then you are not truly hearing both sides of the issue as you claim I should do. If there is really nothing in the creation side of the argument that gives you any problems please explain why they actually did what I've said (which by the way is not erroneous and just because you call it erroneous obviously doesn't make it so). Why did they create an entire skeletal system of an imaginary animal when all they found was a tooth and part of a skull?

Do you remember earlier when I said to use scientific sources instead of religious ones? Well I've read nearly every article on Answers in Genesis, and trust me -- not only is that NOT science, it's one of the biggest sources of misinformation on the Web. If that's where you're getting your information, no wonder you think what you do.


Now that's really brilliant! Of course all the evolutionists are gonna pat the other evolutionists on the back and backhand anything else across the face.

Well this really speaks for itself -- paranoia and a persecution complex are keeping creationism out of science. :rolleyes:

I'm going to work. Later.

[Redzeppelin]

I have to go to work in a few minutes, so I won't be able to reply to all the posts addressed to me right now.



There has to be "evidence" for it to be considered by me -- empirical evidence. And there is none; creationism works under the assumption that a supreme deity (no evidence) created all creatures at one time (directly contradicts science and logic), and that because of this, the earth is a few thousand years old (also directly contradicts science and logic). If somebody could provide empirical evidence supporting creationism, then they would be publishing them in scientific journals, so that the concept would become accepted and studied in the scientific community. The fact that nobody has done show demonstrates what I already know -- there is no evidence. There is only one side finding evidence to support evolution, and another side criticizing evolution without providing evidence for its own theory.

OK - from your philosophic standpoint (Naturalism) the basis of validity is "evidence" - which is defined in Naturalism as that which can be quantified, measured, observed, etc. You would be hard-pressed to provide "evidence" for much of what we take for granted as "real." I'm not finding fault with your position - I'm simply identifying it. Besides, even if I provided you with "evidence" for creation, it wouldn't convince you anyway - because there's always a creative way to explain away "miracles." Naturalism, by its very nature, omits the possibility of miracles because there is no spiritual component to reality - so a Naturalist would have to come up with some explanation for a miracle. Come on, let's be realistic - our worldview will not allow either of us to accept the other's "evidence." You think yours is more "solid" or "authoritative" because you can see it and measure it; OK - but that just means you can define the parameters of the cage - so?




I'd say that this statement is pretty asinine. You presuppose that the issue of God is on every scientist's mind when he or she makes discoveries, when I've questioned many scientists who have told me that they never think about it. Everybody else feels the need to inject religious controversies into science.

I'd say, judging by the low number of posts under your name, that you're still figuring out how etiquette works here on Lit Net. Generally, most of us who discuss things here are able to argue our points without insults or condescension - at least if we're confident in our position. Try and figure that out so that we can maintain a dignified discussion.

I merely suggested that one begins with a worldview and then interprets the world accordingly. People generally pick the worldview first and then find "evidence" to support it. I never suggested that it was a conscious evaluation of God. One either chooses to limit their view to what is materially observable, or to a reality created by a supreme being. You chose your way, I chose mine (except I'm not being hostile about the choice and your opinions supporting your choice).




Much in the same way that people who omit dragons and invisible pink elephants have limited their possibilities. And I realize that this conversation isn't going anywhere -- I will freely and openly admit right now that I am continuing this futile discussion because I absolutely refuse to give somebody whose views I perceive to be inane the last word. Childish? Probably, but then it takes two to keep a conversation going.

You've dragged out one of the oldest and tiredest of cliches - the imaginary creature bit. So, so tired. You can do better, I'm certain. Dragons and such are very different from God. Dragons do not inspire coherent books like the Bible which contain a moral code that few people argue with; dragons don't become the foundation of a religion that has profoundly influenced the world and history; dragons cannot account for the universe's existence, the reality of evil and its solution. To make such a comparison is to show considerable ignorance of that which you criticize.

And why is it that so many atheists/evolutionists are so quick with the ad hominem attacks? My statements are "asinine," my views "inane" and you condescending to continue talking to poor, ignorant me. Why are you (and many others like you) so quick to call a discussion a "waste" of your time and then run away? Why are you so defensive and insulting when I simply thought I'd interject a comment? Can't you address my concerns like a gentleman/gentlewoman - or is rudeness part of being a skeptic?



And we come back to peer-reviewed scientific journals: scientists publish their findings so that other scientists with different perspectives may critically examine the evidence. There is plenty of debate in the scientific field, although none of it is about whether or not evolution exists, I can tell you that much.

Really? I know that theories of evolution exist - but evolution itself? I find there to be plenty of debate - between the evolutionists and the intelligent designers. I can tell you that much.

[AARONDISNEY]

Well, for one because scientists have observed evolution. One example is viruses -- when subjected to an antibiotic, viruses and bacteria adapt to it and develop a stronger immunity. That's natural selection in action.

great case of microevolution. They don't become something else, they simply adapt. No creationist in the world objects to that. Pretty poor example of observable science.


My problem is less with the fact that you don't accept evolution, or that you think it is flawed or whatever; my problem is that you're arguing with me on the subject despite the fact that you make claims about evolution and scientific processes which are outrageous and false, as well as the fact that you seem to have done no research on evolution whatsoever, which makes me question how you can possibly think you know anything about it.

Have you researched the Bible. Probably not. Yet you outrightly claim it is false information.



Animals evolve to adapt to changing environments -- it takes hundred and hundreds of millions of years. Looking at organisms in stable environmental conditions and saying, "Hey, they're not doing anything, evolution must be silly" is...Well, silly.

Again, you can't see it - you imagine it and call it fact. That's silly. If a princess kisses a frog and it immediately becomes a prince that is a fairy tale. If it takes billions and billions of years to become a prince that's science. Gimme a break!


Okay, now I know what you're talking about -- I hadn't heard this argument in awhile. I realize some creationists believe that Darwin used the fraudulent drawings when postulating the evolutionary theory, but Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, and The Descent of Man in 1871, whereas Haeckel's famous embryo drawings did not appear until 1874. He didn't use the fake drawings -- nobody, actually, uses the fake drawings, so I'm not sure why you brought it up.

They still use this admittedly falsified evidence in textbooks.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=23532
That demonstrates the lengths they go to to support a weak theory.



Do you remember earlier when I said to use scientific sources instead of religious ones? Well I've read nearly every article on Answers in Genesis, and trust me -- not only is that NOT science, it's one of the biggest sources of misinformation on the Web. If that's where you're getting your information, no wonder you think what you do.


WOw you really cleared that up. You don't believe it so it isn't true. Excellent argument. Now why not tell me what bones they actually found of this creature. Tell me what I've been misinformed about in AIG?

[Pendragon]

You realize that the Apatosaurus in the Smithsonian had the wrong bones in its legs for over 90 years with the full knowledge of the scientific community, (they were duck-bill bones), and that the bones there now are reconstructions based on best guess, not from reality? So what else are they hiding under cover of “We say this is how it is.” ? If it isn’t empirical evidence you say to throw it out. Well, they don’t always have that evidence, and they seem to be good at faking it!

[Wintermute]

Well, they don’t always have that evidence, and they seem to be good at faking it!

Hi Dale,

Lol, sounds like some evangelical healers I've read about. Seriously though, you can find examples of folks bending the truth to fit their views in every field--science and non. But I think most of them don't and most aren't evil. I know my sister is just trying to add to the base of scientific knowledge, and although she is an absolute believer in evolution, she holds no animosity to those that think differently. Remember, these are the same folks that have taken us to Mars, extended our life expectancy, and made it possible for us to have these wonderful discussions online.

Someone, I think Walt Whitman, said something like: We all circle around and suppose, while the truth stands in the center and knows.

I wish everyone were able to admit that they don't know, with any degree of certainty, what is going on in the universe. I honestly think this would allow all of us a more gentle, happy life.

Peace,
Doug

[Pendragon]

Hi Dale,

Lol, sounds like some evangelical healers I've read about. Seriously though, you can find examples of folks bending the truth to fit their views in every field--science and non. But I think most of them don't and most aren't evil. I know my sister is just trying to add to the base of scientific knowledge, and although she is an absolute believer in evolution, she holds no animosity to those that think differently. Remember, these are the same folks that have taken us to Mars, extended our life expectancy, and made it possible for us to have these wonderful discussions online.

Someone, I think Walt Whitman, said something like: We all circle around and suppose, while the truth stands in the center and knows.

I wish everyone were able to admit that they don't know, with any degree of certainty, what is going on in the universe. I honestly think this would allow all of us a more gentle, happy life.

Peace,
DougTrue! No, I don't believe that all science is faked, that is certain. But, as you say, we must remember that fakery isn't limited to one group of people. I trust that I don't give the impression that I know all of the answers. No one has them all.

God Bless

Dale

[cipherdecoy]

Whoa, I would never have thought the thread would've led to a debate like this.

[El Viejo]

Whoa, I would never have thought the thread would've led to a debate like this.

Right. What have you decided re: your original question?

[jaywalker]

You realize that the Apatosaurus in the Smithsonian had the wrong bones in its legs for over 90 years with the full knowledge of the scientific community, (they were duck-bill bones), and that the bones there now are reconstructions based on best guess, not from reality? So what else are they hiding under cover of “We say this is how it is.” ? If it isn’t empirical evidence you say to throw it out. Well, they don’t always have that evidence, and they seem to be good at faking it!

Well I'm convinced -there is a god.

[Pendragon]

Well I'm convinced -there is a god.
I would that you were, but I worry that you are just being sarcastic... If I could convince the world, I would, but each must find God for themselves. The words to a song come to mind:

"If you gave me half a reason, I would tell you what is true
But no matter how you listen, there's nothing I can do
To make you see with more than just your mind--
Until the day, you step across the line

No explaintion, can tell you what I've seen
There's no way to paint a picture, that would show you what I mean
When I say I left the man I was behind
Found another world across the line

An invitation is the best that I can do
To change your future for forever, the rest is up to you
You can take His hand or keep on going blind
He waits for you across the line"

By Don Francisco

God Bless

Pen

[blazeofglory]

Do correct me if I am wrong:

If Adam and Eve only produced two sons, Abel and Cain, and no daughters, where did the other women/people come from? Are we then products of incest?

This is a fantastic question and I too mull over this deeply and profoundly. In fact we can questions so many things narrated in the Bible and so called defenders try to back up all these things through their unconvincing and illogical propositions but I cannot subscribe to their ideas at all.

[Sam?]

The original question seems to assume that the Biblical account is to be taken as a description of actual events. If one reads the text as poetry or mythology, then these anomalies become unimportant and secondary to the symbolic meaning.

If we take it as symbolic poetry, then there was no original sin, and Jesus' death served no purpose.

[blazeofglory]

We can not and in fact should not subscribe to a particular set of theories to bolster our ideas and cultivate a particular set of opinions and we must have a mix of both, scientific and theological notions of the world to arrive of course at a balance view or else it leads to a set of confusion and we can not visualize things as they are, in fact scientists have not explored all things and theologians too can not explain things.

[Redzeppelin]

This is a fantastic question and I too mull over this deeply and profoundly. In fact we can questions so many things narrated in the Bible and so called defenders try to back up all these things through their unconvincing and illogical propositions but I cannot subscribe to their ideas at all.

An important reality about the Bible is that it - like all written works - was creatd through a selection of pieces of information; it does not claim to be a record of all things that happened to everybody to whom/with whom God interacted. Examples provided about different individuals and their lives were included in order to guide, instruct, and inform us of various truths regarding both human nature and the nature of God. The logical assumption is that Adam and Eve had other children - daughters among them - and that incest was not an issue due to the "purity" of the gene pool (which, this early on, had probably not gotten compromised to the point to where we would see the currently expected consequences of such unions). The Bible is a finite work and must be selective in what it presents. That we aren't told about Adam and Eve's other children does not deny their existence; logic says they must.

[cipherdecoy]

In this forum, when we leave off discussing religious texts, or even the belief systems they engender, and begin trying to convert one another, we've entered the Twilight Zone. Or, perhaps, a Monty Python film.

Sticking to the text:

--Geneis doesn't say where the other people came from. It specifically names only Cain, Abel, and Seth as offspring of Adam and Eve, leaving the rest and their origins in obscurity. However far we read, the Bible does not explain where Cain's wife, or Seth's, or anyone else's in that first generation after the fall, came from.

--for these reasons we can't answer the question of whether we're products of incest or not.


If only Adam and Eve were created by God, then we are products of incest. If there were other people who were also created in the same way by God, then there will be no such thing as original sin.

[dzebra]

If only Adam and Eve were created by God, then we are products of incest. If there were other people who were also created in the same way by God, then there will be no such thing as original sin.

?

Original sin would still exist because Adam would have still committed the first sin.

But I believe anyway that Cain's wife is someone descended from Adam and Eve.

[cipherdecoy]

But then the sin wouldn't run in our blood if we're not his descendants. Or perhaps I have misconstrued the notion?

[dzebra]

But then the sin wouldn't run in our blood if we're not his descendants. Or perhaps I have misconstrued the notion?

In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were told specifically by God to not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They did, so they broke a very specific command of God. That was the first sin.

Before Adam had sinned, there was no sin in the world, so after Adam sinned, sin was now in the world.

After Adam sinned, God cursed him (he also cursed Eve and the serpent). He said to Adam
"By the sweat of your face
you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground,
for out of it you were taken;
for you are dust,
and to dust you shall return."
(Genesis 3:19)
That part about returning to the ground and to dust is where Adam was doomed to die.

Another way we know sin leads to death is in James 1:15
"Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death."

So sin makes people die.

And back in Genesis 8:21, we can see that from near the beginning, "...the intentions of man's heart is evil from youth." That evil intention births evil desire, which births sin, which births death.

A summary of that is found in Romans 5:12.
"Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned."

To break that apart, it says that Adam sinned, and then sin existed in the world. Death existed in the world because sin existed in the world. Everyone dies now. Why? Because everyone sins.

Several Jews were under the impression that punishment was inherited, but that is against what Jesus taught when he was around, and against what even the Old testament says. The first few verses of John chapter 9 tell of a man who was born blind. Jesus' disciples ask "Who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" Jesus replied, "Neither..."

Deuteronomy 24:16 "Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each must die for his own sin."
Ezekiel 18:20 "The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of his son."

[Pendragon]

Logically, even in strict evolution there has to be a beginning , so for the human race there was an Adam and Eve of some kind from which we descend, all of us! Remember how excited they were about "Lucy"? I think the title of the article I read was "Is She the True Eve?"

God Bless

Pen

[Sam?]

Logically, even in strict evolution there has to be a beginning , so for the human race there was an Adam and Eve of some kind from which we descend, all of us! Remember how excited they were about "Lucy"? I think the title of the article I read was "Is She the True Eve?"

God Bless

Pen

I think the 'real' Adam and Eve were a lot slimier. In fact, they were just slime. More or less. And from them, everything that has ever lived evolved. Of course by them, it's quite likely I mean it, since the division of many species into two different sexes for breeding purposes is a part of evolution as well.

[AARONDISNEY]

A FEW ADMISSIONS FROM EVOLUTIONISTS

"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology; and we shall certainly not advance matters by jumping up and down shrilling, ‘Darwin is god and I, So-and-so, am his prophet.’ "—*Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London, 177:8 (1966).

"The part of geology that deals with the tracing of the geologic record of the past is called historic geology. Historic geology relies chiefly on paleontology, the study of fossil evolution, as preserved in the fossil record, to identify and correlate the lithic records of ancient time."—*O.D. von Engeln and *K.E. Caster, Geology (1952), p. 423.

"Although the comparative study of living animals and plants may give very convincing circumstantial evidence, fossils provide the only historical documentary evidence that life has evolved from simpler to more complex forms."—*Carl O. Dunbar, Historical Geology (1949), p. 52.

"Fortunately there is a science which is able to observe the progress of evolution through the history of our earth. Geology traces the rocky strata of our earth, deposited one upon another in the past geological epochs through hundreds of millions of years, and finds out their order and timing and reveals organisms which lived in all these periods. Paleontology, which studies the fossil remains, is thus enabled to present organic evolution as a visible fact."—*Richard B. Goldschmidt, "An Introduction to a Popularized Symposium on Evolution," in Scientific Monthly, Vol. 77, October 1953, p. 184.

"No biologist has actually seen the origin by evolution of a major group of organisms."—*G. Ledyard Stebbins, Process of Organic Evolution, p. 1. [Stebbins is a geneticist.]

"It remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of families, appear in the [fossil] record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences."—*George G. Simpson, The Major Features of Evolution, p. 360.

"The adequacy of the fossil record for conclusive evidence is supported by the observation that 79.1 percent of the living families of terrestrial vertebrates have been found as fossils (87.7 percent if birds are included)."—R.H. Brown, "The Great Twentieth-Century Myth," in Origins, January 1986, p. 40.

"Geology and paleontology held great expectations for Charles Darwin, although in 1859 [when he published his book, Origin of the Species] he admitted that they [already] presented the strongest single evidence against his theory. Fossils were a perplexing puzzlement to him because they did not reveal any evidence of a gradual and continuous evolution of life from a common ancestor, proof which he needed to support his theory. Although fossils were an enigma to Darwin, he ignored the problem and found comfort in the faith that future explorations would reverse the situation and ultimately prove his theory correct

."He stated in his book, The Origin of the Species, ‘The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find intermediate varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views, on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory’ [quoting from the sixth (1901) edition of Darwin’s book, pages 341-342].

"Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been discovered containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums now are filled with over 100 million fossils of 250,000 different species. The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track."—Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (1988), p. 9 [italics ours].

"There are a hundred million fossils, all catalogued and identified, in museums around the world."—*Porter Kier, quoted in New Scientist, January 15, 1981, p. 129.

"The reason for abrupt appearances and gaps can no longer be attributed to the imperfection of the fossil record as it was by Darwin when paleontology was a young science. With over 200,000,000 catalogued specimens of about 250,000 fossil species, many evolutionary paleontologists such as Stanley argue that the fossil record is sufficient."—W.R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited (1954), p. 48 [italics ours]."In part, the role of paleontology in evolutionary research has been defined narrowly because of a false belief, tracing back to Darwin and his early followers, that the fossil record is woefully incomplete. Actually, the record is of sufficiently high quality to allow us to undertake certain kinds of analysis meaningfully at the level of the species."—*S. Stanley, "Macroevolution," p. 1 (1979).

"Over ten thousand fossil species of insects have been identified, over thirty thousand species of spiders, and similar numbers for many sea-living creatures. Yet so far the evidence for step-by-step changes leading to major evolutionary transitions looks extremely thin. The supposed transition from wingless to winged insects still has to found, as has the transition between the two main types of winged insects, the paleoptera (mayflies, dragonflies) and the neoptera (ordinary flies, beetles, ants, bees)."—*Fred Hoyle, "The Intelligent Universe: A New View of Creation and Evolution," 1983, p. 43.


"From the almost total absence of fossil evidence relative to the origin of the phyla, it follows that any explaination of the mechanism in the creative evolution of the fundamental structure plans is heavily burdened with hypothesis. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution. The lack of direct evidence leads to the forulation of pure conjecture as to the genesis of the phylia; we do not even have a basis to determine the extent to which these opinions are correct." *P.P. Grasse, Evolution of Living Organism (1977), p. 31

Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded...Ironically we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time......by this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information. *David Raup, Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology, Chicago Field Museum Bulletin, January 1979

...I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustrations of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them...Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils...I will lay it on the line - there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. Personal letter from * Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, to L. Sunderland

...the gradual change of fossil species has never been part of the evidence for evolution...Darwin showed that the record was useless for testing between evolution and special creation because it has great gaps in it. The same argument still applies...In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuations, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation. *Mark Ridley, New Scientist, 90:930, 1981.

If we were to expect to find ancestors to, or intermediates between, higher taxa. It would be in the rocks of late Precambrian to Ordovician times, when the bulk of the world’s higher animal taxa evolved. Yet transitional alliances are unknown or unconfirmed for any of the phyla or classes appearing then.* W. Valentine & *D. H. Erwin, "The Fossil Record," in Development as an Evolutionary Process

Below this (Cambrian strata) are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors...would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of life, and the general picture could reasonably be consistent with the idea of special creation...*Alfred S. Romer, Natural History, October 1959

[Redzeppelin]

That's beautiful - simply beautiful.

Thanks for posting that, AARON

[Sam?]

Look at those dates, Aaron, the most recent is twenty years old.

[AARONDISNEY]

Look at those dates, Aaron, the most recent is twenty years old.

Yeah, it's kind of sad that evolutionists gave up on honesty twenty years ago.

Nothing's changed, evolution (if it were true) would have been proven true by the vast number of fossils that have been found. But the best evidences for intermediary species are hoaxes (like piltdown and peking man) or pitifully absurd (Nebraska man was constructed from one single tooth which later turned out to have originated in a rare pig) or stretches of the evolutionists' imagination like Lucy (a large tree climbing monkey) or Homo Erectus (which contained parts of three different beings, including an orangutan).

It is incredibly absurd that anyone would still believe this given the lack of evidence (understatement of the year right there), but as the Bible said some people do not "like to retain God in their knowledge").

[dzebra]

Aaron, you may find this interesting. There once was a man named Werner von Braun. He held honorary doctorate degrees from 19 colleges and universities, more than any man in history. He became a rocket scientist, was arrested by Nazis, worked for the American military, and then for NASA, was one of the guys who got a man on the moon. He may have been among the most knowledgeable, educated, and smart people on the planet. This man was a creationist.

[Sam?]

Yeah, it's kind of sad that evolutionists gave up on honesty twenty years ago.

Nothing's changed, evolution (if it were true) would have been proven true by the vast number of fossils that have been found. But the best evidences for intermediary species are hoaxes (like piltdown and peking man) or pitifully absurd (Nebraska man was constructed from one single tooth which later turned out to have originated in a rare pig) or stretches of the evolutionists' imagination like Lucy (a large tree climbing monkey) or Homo Erectus (which contained parts of three different beings, including an orangutan).

It is incredibly absurd that anyone would still believe this given the lack of evidence (understatement of the year right there), but as the Bible said some people do not "like to retain God in their knowledge").

Your major display of ignorance here is in expecting a perfect fossil record. It displays your lack of understanding of just how unlikely it is for anything to be fossilised at all. Do some reading on fossilisation and you'll realise it's staggering we've got a record as complete as we do.
Second, you're just plain ignoring the evolution we've observed in labs. The fact that you need a new flu shot every year. The fact that we've managed to breed so many different kinds of dogs. There's no argument at all about whether or not evolution is real, the only debate to be had is the micro/macro debate.
And if it's 'incredibly absurd' to believe in something when there's a lack of evidence, how would you describe your own faith?

[Scheherazade]

Inflammatory comments do nothing in the way of moving the discussion forward but they do speed up the process of thread closures.

Off-topic posts will be deleted without any further notice.

[AARONDISNEY]

Your major display of ignorance here is in expecting a perfect fossil record. It displays your lack of understanding of just how unlikely it is for anything to be fossilised at all. Do some reading on fossilisation and you'll realise it's staggering we've got a record as complete as we do.

No, it isn't staggering. For something to fossilize it needs to be be qucikly deeply buried. This would happen in a worldwide flood. We have billions of fossils.

The animals or organisms that are 'simpler' or less able to survive such a thing by finding higher ground are on the bottom layers in many cases (that's consistent with a flood burial).

If things just formed and died without a flood then yes, it would be staggering that we have the amount of fossils that we have.

You see, your point of view doesn't have any answers, they just say "wow! how amazing"......The Biblical point of view makes sense of these things.




Second, you're just plain ignoring the evolution we've observed in labs. The fact that you need a new flu shot every year. The fact that we've managed to breed so many different kinds of dogs. There's no argument at all about whether or not evolution is real, the only debate to be had is the micro/macro debate.

Oh, there are certainly variations within kinds - but you can crossbreed dogs til the end of the world and you'll never get anything but a dog. Dogs have a vast amount of variation, but when you put forward micro-evolution (variations within the kinds) and expect me to believe in macro-evolution, you've just stepped out of the realm of science and into the realm of faith.
It's only your interpretation on a fact.

The only fact we have is animals change within the kinds. I can say that natural selection (which contrary to your view of me, I DO believe happens) is only God's 'quality control' - it doesn't make a new animal, it only makes sure that the animal is the best it can be for it's environment.

All the information to make a Chihuahua was present in the first created dog, but the information to make a human isn't present in it.

Dr. Hovind said it like this "You can get all kinds of words by scramling up the letters in Christmas, but you'll never get XEROX, ZEBRA or QUEEN, the letters just aren't available. And you'll get all kinds of variations within the kinds, but you'll never get a different kind of animal.


And if it's 'incredibly absurd' to believe in something when there's a lack of evidence, how would you describe your own faith
On the contrary, I think there's plenty of evidence that the Bible is the truth.
But even if there wasn't, the point I've all along been trying to get you to admit is that what you believe in is not scientific, but religious. You have to have faith in what you can't see. If you'll just admit that, we'll have no more to discuss.

[Sam?]

No, it isn't staggering. For something to fossilize it needs to be be qucikly deeply buried. This would happen in a worldwide flood. We have billions of fossils.

The animals or organisms that are 'simpler' or less able to survive such a thing by finding higher ground are on the bottom layers in many cases (that's consistent with a flood burial).

If things just formed and died without a flood then yes, it would be staggering that we have the amount of fossils that we have.

You see, your point of view doesn't have any answers, they just say "wow! how amazing"......The Biblical point of view makes sense of these things.





Oh, there are certainly variations within kinds - but you can crossbreed dogs til the end of the world and you'll never get anything but a dog. Dogs have a vast amount of variation, but when you put forward micro-evolution (variations within the kinds) and expect me to believe in macro-evolution, you've just stepped out of the realm of science and into the realm of faith.
It's only your interpretation on a fact.

The only fact we have is animals change within the kinds. I can say that natural selection (which contrary to your view of me, I DO believe happens) is only God's 'quality control' - it doesn't make a new animal, it only makes sure that the animal is the best it can be for it's environment.

All the information to make a Chihuahua was present in the first created dog, but the information to make a human isn't present in it.

Dr. Hovind said it like this "You can get all kinds of words by scramling up the letters in Christmas, but you'll never get XEROX, ZEBRA or QUEEN, the letters just aren't available. And you'll get all kinds of variations within the kinds, but you'll never get a different kind of animal.


On the contrary, I think there's plenty of evidence that the Bible is the truth.
But even if there wasn't, the point I've all along been trying to get you to admit is that what you believe in is not scientific, but religious. You have to have faith in what you can't see. If you'll just admit that, we'll have no more to discuss.

It's not faith, because I admit that it could be wrong. Evolution is simply the most likely explanation given our present knowledge and understanding. That is the difference between your beliefs and mine. If the people over at the Hedron Super Collider suddenly discovered proof that God created the universe, proof, mind, I'd be the first to change my opinion.

As to your flood explanation, if that were the case, there'd be far more fossils, and they wouldn't come from vastly different time periods. We've already been through the impossibility of the flood, and until you can tell me how the only two surviving koalas on Earth managed to survive every kind of predator on the planet, all on mount Ararat, and then find their way to Australia, the only source of their gumleaf diet, without starving or drowning, the flood is impossible. And to say the scientific viewpoint has no answers is just, wow, I don't even know how to reply to that. Wikipedia is always a good starting point, after reading the entry on fossils and fossilisation there, you could maybe move to the masses of books available.

You always come back to 'kinds', could you define your use of the word? Do you mean species?
You know that human babies are occasionally born with tails, through genetic mutation, right? Wouldn't that be impossible if we can only change within the guidelines of our 'kind'? I don't know why it's so hard to believe that with enough time the micro evolutions you accept can pile up into something new.

[AARONDISNEY]

You always come back to 'kinds', could you define your use of the word? Do you mean species?
You know that human babies are occasionally born with tails, through genetic mutation, right? Wouldn't that be impossible if we can only change within the guidelines of our 'kind'? I don't know why it's so hard to believe that with enough time the micro evolutions you accept can pile up into something new.

"Kinds" are defined by the Bible. It says 10 times in Gen 1 "and they brought forth after their kind". If it can "bring forth" - it's a kind of animal. A wolf, a coyote, and a dog are all the same kind, and dogs 'evolved' from a wolf (actually devolved is the better way of saying it) but it's still the same kind of animal. Donkeys, Zebras and horses all had a common ancestor and it probably looked something like a horse, they can all bring forth. I saw a 'ZEDONK' at the circus a few years back.

But a dog and a cow are not the same kind, they cannot bring forth, they are not only different species, they are different 'kinds'. And God only told Noah to bring 2 of each KIND of animal on the ark, so he did not have to bring a zebra, donkey and a horse. He did not have to bring a Rotweiller, poodle and chihuahua (he probably never saw a chihuahua in his life) he brought 2 dogs and 2 horses.

Humans are not born with tails. There is no bone - no muscle - nothing but fatty tissue, they can just cut it off, sew it up and throw it away.

Since you've 'proven' that there can have been no flood, which I disagree with, animals can be easily transported and all animals preflood (according to the Bible) were vegetarian, so it wasn't until some time after the flood that they became carnivores......I suppose I've proven evolution can't happen since not one beneficial mutation has ever ever ever been observed. You have to dream that it happened.

It would seem to me that if evolution were a real occurrence - someone would have seen one beneficial mutation. And when I say 'beneficial mutation" I mean an addition of genetic info, not just a scrambling up of existing genetic info. Bacteria becoming resistent to penicillin is not an example of evolution. The Bacteria loses what the penicillin attaches to and so the penicillin can't kill it off anymore. Saying that is a beneficial mutation is like saying having no arms is beneficial because you can't be handcuffed. It is a loss of information, not a gain.

Seedless oranges is a loss of information, and is only beneficial to us, not the orange.

Beneficial mutations don't exist, micro-evolution (or variations within the kinds) happens, but macro evolution is purely religious, it is a belief system based on zero evidence.


As to your flood explanation, if that were the case, there'd be far more fossils, and they wouldn't come from vastly different time periods.
You say they come from vastly different time periods. Says who? Dinosaurs, trilobites, graptolites, etc.etc.etc. all lived at the same time. There is no evidence that they didn't. You can't use the GEOLOGIC COLUMN because Charles Lyell grabbed the numbers for the geologic layers out of the clear blue sky.

The ages of these layers were stated long before Carbon dating, Potassium Argon Dating, lead 206, etc. And even if you go by radiometric decay dating, there's a lot of ridiculously wrong ages they record. Living Penguins were dated as 26,000 years old by carbon dating.

Plus they date fossils by rock layers and rock layers by index fossils. They use circular reasoning.
Here's Niles Eldredge on circular reasoning in dating fossils and rocks
“Paleontologists cannot operate this way. There is no way simply to look at a fossil and say how old it is unless you know the age of the rocks it comes from and this poses something of a problem. If we date the rocks by their fossils how can we then turn around and talk about patterns of evolutionary change through time in the fossil record.” [Eldrege, N "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria" Simon and Schuster .... p52]

You said we should have more fossils if a flood caused it all, how many fossils should we have if a flood caused it all? Just curious. And how can there be so many fossils all over the entire earth, since something has to be buried quickly and deeply to be fossilized?

[Sam?]

"Kinds" are defined by the Bible. It says 10 times in Gen 1 "and they brought forth after their kind". If it can "bring forth" - it's a kind of animal. A wolf, a coyote, and a dog are all the same kind, and dogs 'evolved' from a wolf (actually devolved is the better way of saying it) but it's still the same kind of animal. Donkeys, Zebras and horses all had a common ancestor and it probably looked something like a horse, they can all bring forth. I saw a 'ZEDONK' at the circus a few years back.

But a dog and a cow are not the same kind, they cannot bring forth, they are not only different species, they are different 'kinds'. And God only told Noah to bring 2 of each KIND of animal on the ark, so he did not have to bring a zebra, donkey and a horse. He did not have to bring a Rotweiller, poodle and chihuahua (he probably never saw a chihuahua in his life) he brought 2 dogs and 2 horses.

Humans are not born with tails. There is no bone - no muscle - nothing but fatty tissue, they can just cut it off, sew it up and throw it away.

Actually, there have been recorded incidences of human tails complete with vertebrae.


Since you've 'proven' that there can have been no flood, which I disagree with, animals can be easily transported and all animals preflood (according to the Bible) were vegetarian, so it wasn't until some time after the flood that they became carnivores......I suppose I've proven evolution can't happen since not one beneficial mutation has ever ever ever been observed. You have to dream that it happened.

How did two koalas make it all the way to Australia before starving to death? The flood would have killed all or most plant life, leaving nothing for even the herbivores who don't need a very specific diet for survival. And where did all the carnivores get their fangs, claws and somachs that can't digest grass?


It would seem to me that if evolution were a real occurrence - someone would have seen one beneficial mutation. And when I say 'beneficial mutation" I mean an addition of genetic info, not just a scrambling up of existing genetic info. Bacteria becoming resistent to penicillin is not an example of evolution. The Bacteria loses what the penicillin attaches to and so the penicillin can't kill it off anymore. Saying that is a beneficial mutation is like saying having no arms is beneficial because you can't be handcuffed. It is a loss of information, not a gain.

Seedless oranges is a loss of information, and is only beneficial to us, not the orange.

Beneficial mutations don't exist, micro-evolution (or variations within the kinds) happens, but macro evolution is purely religious, it is a belief system based on zero evidence.

Why do you feel that for a mutation to be beneficial, it must require an addition of genetic material? You don't seem to understand the point. If a mutation is beneficial to the survival of a creature, that is a beneficial mutation. That's what evolution is; inherited mutations that enhance the individual's chances to survive and breed. It doesn't require additional genetic material. You've simply invented a requirement. That's like me saying 'if God exists, I'd be wearing a hat, I'm not, so he can't exist'.


You say they come from vastly different time periods. Says who? Dinosaurs, trilobites, graptolites, etc.etc.etc. all lived at the same time. There is no evidence that they didn't. You can't use the GEOLOGIC COLUMN because Charles Lyell grabbed the numbers for the geologic layers out of the clear blue sky.

The ages of these layers were stated long before Carbon dating, Potassium Argon Dating, lead 206, etc. And even if you go by radiometric decay dating, there's a lot of ridiculously wrong ages they record. Living Penguins were dated as 26,000 years old by carbon dating.

Plus they date fossils by rock layers and rock layers by index fossils. They use circular reasoning.
Here's Niles Eldredge on circular reasoning in dating fossils and rocks
“Paleontologists cannot operate this way. There is no way simply to look at a fossil and say how old it is unless you know the age of the rocks it comes from and this poses something of a problem. If we date the rocks by their fossils how can we then turn around and talk about patterns of evolutionary change through time in the fossil record.” [Eldrege, N "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria" Simon and Schuster .... p52]

To be honest, I'm quite ignorant of dating methods, so I won't try to argue this point. That doesn't mean that you're right, just that I'm not equipped to fight this particular battle.


You said we should have more fossils if a flood caused it all, how many fossils should we have if a flood caused it all? Just curious. And how can there be so many fossils all over the entire earth, since something has to be buried quickly and deeply to be fossilized?

I would have thought that if all our fossils were caused by the global flood, then it would have fossilised the majority of land based animals alive at the time. But that's only following your belief that floods fossilise things.
It seems to me the water would have decayed them far more than the fossils we have. And why didn't Noah take any dinosaur 'kinds' with him?

[LitNetIsGreat]

I had hoped that the subject was perhaps referring to Milton’s Adam and Eve as I have just finished Paradise Lost and I thought that it would be useful reading through this thread and contributing to it. However, after seeing what it is really about, i.e. creationism, I am afraid for me there are some things worth discussing, and this isn’t one of them.

[blazeofglory]

In fact it is a matter of interpretations and many interpret it according to their likings and dislikings as a matter of fact.

Books of religions have such instances. At times all I feel is there are things of double standards, one for gods and others for humans. Gods can do anything, they can break barriers and cross limits and yet they are not irreligious or immoral and the same laws or liberties do not apply to human beings and they are only for gods.

Laws are not for the powerful, they are for the weak. Greats can transcends all limits and rules and smalls are subject to punishments.

For instance, kings made rules and such rules do not apply to them at all. They subject such rules to their people only.

Gods were also kings, rulers, and they do not obey the rules they make and they are for other beings.

[AARONDISNEY]

Actually, there have been recorded incidences of human tails complete with vertebrae.

I'm not real up on this subject to tell you the truth. Here's all I know, or can comment on.

All true tails have muscle, not even one case of these so called tails contains muscle. A vast majority of them have no bone but are only an extension of some tissue intended to grow in that area, they're kind of like a long tumor.

If there are some cases where there is bone in them, this could be an unintended extension of the coccyx or something - I really don't know.

But one thing that's interesting is that you'll never hear evolutionists say we share a common ancestor with monkeys, it's always the apes, yet apes have no tails and they use this oddity as proof positive that we evolved.

It is interesting, but if this is their proof, they've got a pretty slim case.

Besides isn't evolution's purpose to 'evolve' us. This constitutes a loss of info, not a gain. What happens? Do we keep losing everything until we have it all???



How did two koalas make it all the way to Australia before starving to death?

Pendragon goes along with the Pangaea theory, I don't see much sense in it but maybe it's true. I don't see a huge problem with this. If that plant were needed for them, God could have provided it for them until they reached their destination.

You may think it's foolish to believe in a God I can't see, much more to believe he can supply food for his koalas. But I believe he parted the red sea, resurrected the dead and made the blind to see so this is not a problem for me.

You simply leave God out of the equation (which is fine because you don't believe in Him) but you must understand, if I have God in my equation, and he planned all this, there's really nothing that creates a whole lot of difficulties for my argument.

I'm honestly not trying to side-step your question, but it isn't hard for me to answer your questions with an all powerful God to solve any dilemmas.




The flood would have killed all or most plant life, leaving nothing for even the herbivores who don't need a very specific diet for survival.

The Lord made water from wine for the guests at the wedding in John chapter 2.


And where did all the carnivores get their fangs, claws and somachs that can't digest grass?

Here's the skull of a water deer (vegetarian)
http://www.azdrybones.com/images/Chinese-Water-DeerMale.jpg

Panda bear skull (they eat bamboo)
http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/08cO8ixgCB4fv/610x.jpg

Fruit bat
http://www.boneclones.com/images/bc-007_web-lg.jpg

Vegetarian Monkey
http://www.azdrybones.com/images/Monkey-Mona.jpg

why do all these have fangs if they don't need them?

Are there any stomachs that cannot digest fruits or vegetables? I mean, I bet I'd have some trouble with blades of grass, but I can handle an apple pretty good.



Why do you feel that for a mutation to be beneficial, it must require an addition of genetic material?
Yeah, I was thinking about my post and I didn't word it very well.
Let me clarify my point.

According to evolution, we (humans) used to be a little piece of bacteria type stuff at the bottom of a prehistoric ocean. Now, for me to develop eyes, nose, reproductive organs, a brain, a digestive system, etc. etc. I would need to have an increase in genetic complexity. In other words - additional information would need to be added. This is never observed.

When Richard Dawkins (a fierce evolution apologist) was asked this question, this was his answer......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxG4Kji-u28

He couldn't answer the question for the first 20 seconds, he just got a dazed look in his eye. Then they shut the camera off, then he comes back on and doesn't actually answer the question.



You don't seem to understand the point. If a mutation is beneficial to the survival of a creature, that is a beneficial mutation.
Yes, I understand that. I worded my argument poorly, I'm much more satisfied with my rewording of it.

If a mutation occurs to allow a creature to adapt to it's environment, it is beneficial to the creature of course. But there is not an increase in genetic information, there is just a reshuffling of information, to allow there to be the best possible animal for the situation.

It's God's quality control. Natural selection doesn't 'create' - it selects. Just like the Quality Control department of an automobile manufacturer doesn't create anything, it just makes sure you get a good car. Quality control will never turn an SUV into a jet airliner.



That's what evolution is; inherited mutations that enhance the individual's chances to survive and breed. It doesn't require additional genetic material. You've simply invented a requirement. That's like me saying 'if God exists, I'd be wearing a hat, I'm not, so he can't exist'.

Oh, that's not true. Are you saying that the bacteria we supposedly came from had all the genetic information inherent in it to make eyes, nose, reproductive organs, a brain, a digestive system, hair, heart, liver, taste buds, teeth, etc. on humans.....and also feathers, beaks, wings, etc. on birds.......and gills, scales, tails, fins, etc. on fish.

Are you really going to tell me that for evolution to work, no new information needs to be added????

I don't think most scientists would agree with that. I think they rightly concede that new information needs to be added, and if so, that has never been observed. So it isn't science, it is just as much a matter of faith as my God that turns water into wine. So if you've ridiculed me for believing that (which I most certainly do believe) then you run the risk of getting the ridicule shot right back at you, but you don't have any real creative force to look to except the illusive 'theory of evolution' which is not an intelligent force even according to you, it's just nature. So Nature is your god that did it all.



I would have thought that if all our fossils were caused by the global flood, then it would have fossilised the majority of land based animals alive at the time. But that's only following your belief that floods fossilise things.
Floods don't necessarily fossilize things, but when all that land that was being swashed around settled and dragged some things under with it, I think that's where we get all these fossils from. If they just floated around in water, I think they probably rotted. That's my opinion.


And why didn't Noah take any dinosaur 'kinds' with him?
Why do you suppose he didn't?
I think dinosaurs lived with man a lot more recently than that.
The Ica burial stones from Peru (around 100 B.C.) showed dinosaur drawings on them.
http://creationbuff.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/ica_stone.jpg
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/images/v24/i2/p30_icaStone.jpg
http://www.math.dartmouth.edu/~aquishix/images/Ica/Peru%204%20003.jpg

the pic on the left is from a Mesopotamian cylinder seal from 3000 BC
http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/ancient/graphic/pterosaurth.jpg

I think dinosaurs died off from environmental change and because people hunted them. They didn't call them dinosaurs back then (the word was invented in 1841) they called them DRAGONS. THe Bible mentions Dragons 34 times - The Book of Job talks about Leviathan and behemoth.

No one can be sure what either of these are, but behemoth is said to be the chief of God's creation (the biggest animal he ever made), his tail is said to be "like a cedar tree" - that excludes the elephant and the hippo of course, could be a brachiosaur.

Alexander The Great reported that, when he conquered parts of what is now India in 326. B.C. his soldiers were scared by the great dragons that lived in the caves.

Marco Polo visited China and said the "emperor was raising dragons to pull chariots in the parades" - why would he say that??????

There's lots more evidence for dinos and man living together. I don't think they got as large as they did before the flood (reptiles never stop growing and preflood conditions were suitable for longevity in animals and man....that's another long story) but they were around after the flood and were on the ark.

[Pendragon]

Look at those dates, Aaron, the most recent is twenty years old.
Ah, and that is relevant just how, when you are supposed to be dealing with millions of years? Come on, they still quote Darwin. How long ago was that? Poor argument, there.

Everything progresses, and changes over time. This is the only true evolution. One glob of protoplasm becoming every different animal in the world is sheer nonsense, and they know it. But God they can't accept so they turn to fables.

God Bless

Pen

[Pendragon]

Pendragon goes along with the Pangaea theory, I don't see much sense in it but maybe it's true. I don't see a huge problem with this. If that plant were needed for them, God could have provided it for them until they reached their destination.

Well, if I am correct about the continental break up, and I believe this based on both science and the Bible, then perhaps that was the part of the land where the plant grew best. Besides, how did man get there as primitives, or anywhere for that matter if life originated in Africa, which is unattached to Australia, the Americas, etc.

Good bless

Pen

[JBI]

Look, Bishop Usher's argument on the date of creation is hardly a credible source, and playing with dinosaurs and dragons is silly. The closest star is the sun, but after that they become farther and farther away. Some of them are thousands upon thousands of light years away. In order for the light to have gotten here, it must have traveled through space for that long. Therefore, the light you see, is far older than Bishop Usher's estimation of creation, and the world can perhaps be far older than most creationists admit. The proof is there in the sky, you can't ignore that one, unless you ignore physics all together, or say that god created the light traveling towards us in the sky, which is not mentioned in scripture.

[AARONDISNEY]

Look, Bishop Usher's argument on the date of creation is hardly a credible source, and playing with dinosaurs and dragons is silly. The closest star is the sun, but after that they become farther and farther away. Some of them are thousands upon thousands of light years away. In order for the light to have gotten here, it must have traveled through space for that long. Therefore, the light you see, is far older than Bishop Usher's estimation of creation, and the world can perhaps be far older than most creationists admit. The proof is there in the sky, you can't ignore that one, unless you ignore physics all together, or say that god created the light traveling towards us in the sky, which is not mentioned in scripture.

The Bible tells us in (I believe) 17 different places that God stretched out the heavens.

So I believe that those stars are moving away from us. But this is not a problem. #1 - God can control light speed (which is not a constant anyhow) #2 - If God created a full grown man (as I believe he did and not a baby on the earth) I would assume he could also accelerate the starlight speed to the earth as well. He gave the stars for our benefit according to Genesis chapter 1.


Well, if I am correct about the continental break up, and I believe this based on both science and the Bible, then perhaps that was the part of the land where the plant grew best. Besides, how did man get there as primitives, or anywhere for that matter if life originated in Africa, which is unattached to Australia, the Americas, etc.

Good bless

Pen

What do you mean by primitives? Man (for the most part) was never grunting ignorant stupid ape like creatures. Men could build ships and sail over there. How is this so perplexing to people? If these people could build monstrous mathematically perfect pyramids, how can we question their ability to discover the land beyond the sea.

But I would have to say this additionally. I don't think there was anywhere near the ocean coverage on the early earth as there is today.

The Bible says that the earth was established upon the seas, God stretched out the land over the waters. Then it says that during the flood, "the fountains of the great deep were broken up" - there was water under the earth everywhere and it came bursting onto the surface, creating faultlines, ridges, ocean basins, who knows what all.

I understand where you're coming from with Pangaea, but since the continents are currently connected (with water filling in the low places) I have trouble understanding how they could have drifted holding the same shape. I could be wrong, but I don't get it at all.


Look, Bishop Usher's argument on the date of creation is hardly a credible source, and playing with dinosaurs and dragons is silly.

Why is it silly to provide evidence for man's co-existence with dinosaurs? This is one reason I hate this old earth theory, it takes precedence over evidence. When evidence is put in front of someone that believes dinosaurs died out 70 million years ago, they dismiss it as silly.

Well -it is just like the Bible said about this very subject...2 Peter 3:3-7
# Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
# And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were (UNIFORMITARIANISM) from the beginning of the creation.
# For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:(THE LAND WAS ESTABLISHED ON WATER THAT CAME OUT IN THE FLOOD)
# Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:(PEOPLE ARE WILLINGLY IGNORANT OF THE FLOOD)
# But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

People are willingly ignorant. They don't want to know the truth of the creation - the flood and the coming judgment. And so any evidence that supports it- they call it 'silly'. Well, that very book you mock will be the one by which you are judged, so please, take special caution before dismissing it.

[Pendragon]

What do you mean by primitives? Man (for the most part) was never grunting ignorant stupid ape like creatures. Men could build ships and sail over there. How is this so perplexing to people? If these people could build monstrous mathematically perfect pyramids, how can we question their ability to discover the land beyond the sea.


My own country had natives, which sailed dugout canoes, privative by modern standards just over 200 years ago.

But I want to add to what you say about the Pyramids. Do we seriously think they cut that stone so perfect it needs no mortar with hammer and chisel? Or things like the Colossus of Rhodes without a crane? Or raised Stonehenge and the Easter Island statues by hand? Or have we perhaps forgotten things as years went by and nation destroyed nation? The business in Pol Pot's regime showed how easily they can destroy science in the name of Government. Did this already happen?

God Bless

Pen

[AARONDISNEY]

My own country had natives, which sailed dugout canoes, privative by modern standards just over 200 years ago.

But I want to add to what you say about the Pyramids. Do we seriously think they cut that stone so perfect it needs no mortar with hammer and chisel? Or things like the Colossus of Rhodes without a crane? Or raised Stonehenge and the Easter Island statues by hand? Or have we perhaps forgotten things as years went by and nation destroyed nation? The business in Pol Pot's regime showed how easily they can destroy science in the name of Government. Did this already happen?

God Bless

Pen

I'm sorry Pen, but I really don't understand your question at all. All I'm saying is that I don't believe the people fresh off the ark were dummies. I think Noah's family had to be pretty smart plus - they were led by the wisdom of God. I don't think "primitives trying to reach distant lands" is a problem the Bible believer faces in reading the flood story.

Again, sorry if I'm not catching your meaning, but I was a bit confused by your post.
God bless

[JBI]

Yes, they were led by the wisdom of god, especially Ham great wisdom there, and he sure did give his father his wine-glass.

By the way, which Bible are you reading? All your references and things must be held against the real biblical Canon, if you want any credibility. So please, if you could provide the chapter (or Passuch as it is called in Hebrew), I would like to verify your assumptions against my Hebrew Tanakh. But beyond that, I must also consult with scholarship, as the Bible really cannot be translated as a literal text, and merely as an impression.

As it is however, the Story in Parashat Noah describes the flood as wiping out only living creatures - plants survived, as is proof with the olive branch, therefore it can be assumed, if we are believing in the Bible, that other things perhaps could have survived. Either way though, the Ziggurats of Ur in Mesopotamia show a clear proof of an industry beyond what we imagine for past cultures. IT makes no logical sense to me that nothing occurred before that, as civilization doesn't just pop out of the air.

In addition to this, the 10 generation gap between Noah and Abraham would not have provided enough time for all the so-called places of that era to be filled with peoples, which they clearly were, not just from scientific theory, but from basic fact pertaining to the existence of Native Americans going back over a minimum of 12,000 years ago. How did they get there in so little time, -6000 years ago? Did Japheth hop into his father's still ship, on top of a mountain, and descend the unknown oceans?

Honestly, even if you choose to believe in the Bible, which is legitimate, you cannot bend and twist the bible in the face of facts, and play semantic games where you slightly alter the meanings of passages to suit your rhetoric. As it is, you are using translations of words which for the most part aren't even completely understood by speakers of the original.

[blazeofglory]

The bible is a book, a sheer book and nothing else.

[JBI]

The bible is a book, a sheer book and nothing else.

Yes, but we run into problems when people suppose, based on the book, that certain cultures didn't exist before the dates in the book, and quite flatly, certain histories are all lies, which is not only insulting to some, it is also dangerous to society.

[dzebra]

The bible is a book, a sheer book and nothing else.

The Bible is not merely a book to be counted among other books. It is the story of God and his people, inspired by God. It is a written guide for the people of God.

[Pendragon]

Yes, but we run into problems when people suppose, based on the book, that certain cultures didn't exist before the dates in the book, and quite flatly, certain histories are all lies, which is not only insulting to some, it is also dangerous to society.You must understand that much of the Old Testament is the story of the rise of the Children of Israel, other Nations being considered barbarians and outcasts. There is much History only hinted at in the Bible, but certainly there was History besides the Jews. Egypt is mentioned, but no record of the Pyramids or Sphinx being constructed. The Queen of Sheba came to see Solomon, Moses married essentially an Ethiopian, but these are mere mentions. Paul went to Greece and Asia Minor but these people are barely mentioned in the New Testament. History is missing from the Bible, yet it happened.

God Bless

Pen


I'm sorry Pen, but I really don't understand your question at all. All I'm saying is that I don't believe the people fresh off the ark were dummies. I think Noah's family had to be pretty smart plus - they were led by the wisdom of God. I don't think "primitives trying to reach distant lands" is a problem the Bible believer faces in reading the flood story.

Again, sorry if I'm not catching your meaning, but I was a bit confused by your post.
God blessIf you are taking "privative" to mean "ape-like humans", I don't believe in that type of evolution. I have stated time and again that a single skull or skeleton doesn't make a race but one creature, which could have the Elephant Man's Disease for all we know. I mean as in they didn't live as we do, where distance isn't a problem. That's all.

God Bless

Pen

[Redzeppelin]

The bible is a book, a sheer book and nothing else.

This statement's validity must be qualified against the powerful things the book has done in people's lives for hundreds of years. Thousands of books are published every year; few have the impact over time and across cultures as the Bible does. For your statement to ring true (as a sort of dismissal or reduction of the Bible as a sacred text) we'd need to see it as far less effectual than it has proven to be throughout the centuries as a book of inspiration, guidance, and practical moral advice - but most importantly, as the most comprehensive and cohesive portrait of the character of God.

[Wintermute]

- but most importantly, as the most comprehensive and cohesive portrait of the character of God.

Perhaps of the Jewish/Christian God. Not mine. I still can't get over it drowning all those babies in an attempt to fix something it screwed up. It makes no sense to me.

Being agnostic I claim no insight into the character of God, but I'm pretty sure the bible ain't it.

Blessings,
Doug

[AARONDISNEY]

I still can't get over it drowning all those babies in an attempt to fix something it screwed up. It makes no sense to me.


what does this mean?

[Redzeppelin]

Perhaps of the Jewish/Christian God.

Well, yeah. Which one was I supposed to discuss except the one in which I believe?


Not mine.

That's fine. Who's yours, and what's your source for his/her/its character?



I still can't get over it drowning all those babies in an attempt to fix something it screwed up. It makes no sense to me.

Right. And part of the nonsensical-ness about it is the fact that none of us here on earth are in command of all the factors that God considered in making His choice. We see part of the picture, decide that we see enough to judge, and then find the supreme creator of the universe lacking in the basic attributes of we sinful people. And that's fair? If a human committed the actions of God, we should rightfully protest, because we know that no human being can be separated from his/her sinfulness, selfishness, fallibility. But God - if He is whom the scriptures describe/claim Him to be - must be above our understanding in terms of how He makes decisions; He doesn't make them like us - He knows more, is fully objective, and fully just in His decision-making.


Being agnostic I claim no insight into the character of God, but I'm pretty sure the bible ain't it.

This statement contradicts itself. It's like me saying "I have no knowledge of politics whatsoever, but I'm pretty sure that _______ should be the next president of the US. " Huh?

And, if the Bible isn't an authority on the character of God, then what source is? And if no source is, then how can any of us make any claims as to the character of God that aren't totally subjective (and therefore worthless) in nature?

[JBI]

You must understand that much of the Old Testament is the story of the rise of the Children of Israel, other Nations being considered barbarians and outcasts. There is much History only hinted at in the Bible, but certainly there was History besides the Jews. Egypt is mentioned, but no record of the Pyramids or Sphinx being constructed. The Queen of Sheba came to see Solomon, Moses married essentially an Ethiopian, but these are mere mentions. Paul went to Greece and Asia Minor but these people are barely mentioned in the New Testament. History is missing from the Bible, yet it happened.

God Bless

Pen

If you are taking "privative" to mean "ape-like humans", I don't believe in that type of evolution. I have stated time and again that a single skull or skeleton doesn't make a race but one creature, which could have the Elephant Man's Disease for all we know. I mean as in they didn't live as we do, where distance isn't a problem. That's all.

God Bless

Pen
That is not what I am getting at. The geneologies provided in the tradition allocate 30 generations from Adam to King David. Even if we go by the dates given by the tradition (such as the ages presented in several diagrams) we are still left with a problem of not being able to account for certain things, such as the native Tasmanians, who, historians tell us, had been separated from the mainland, where they came from, for 35,000 years. The traditions do not hold that each person of the 30 generations lived 1000 years, and even if they did, we would still be short quite a few years. The tradition in the writing of the Torah did not take into consideration those nations of which the Hebrews (I use this term, though it is really the tribe of Judah who seem to have completed the "authoritative text") had no knowledge of.

[Wintermute]

Well, yeah. Which one was I supposed to discuss except the one in which I believe?



That's fine. Who's yours, and what's your source for his/her/its character?




Right. And part of the nonsensical-ness about it is the fact that none of us here on earth are in command of all the factors that God considered in making His choice. We see part of the picture, decide that we see enough to judge, and then find the supreme creator of the universe lacking in the basic attributes of we sinful people. And that's fair? If a human committed the actions of God, we should rightfully protest, because we know that no human being can be separated from his/her sinfulness, selfishness, fallibility. But God - if He is whom the scriptures describe/claim Him to be - must be above our understanding in terms of how He makes decisions; He doesn't make them like us - He knows more, is fully objective, and fully just in His decision-making.



This statement contradicts itself. It's like me saying "I have no knowledge of politics whatsoever, but I'm pretty sure that _______ should be the next president of the US. " Huh?

And, if the Bible isn't an authority on the character of God, then what source is? And if no source is, then how can any of us make any claims as to the character of God that aren't totally subjective (and therefore worthless) in nature?

Hi Red,

You always seem so defensive! I just thought that by declaring that the Bible was the definitive book on God, you should have said "my God". Because it certainly is not for the majority of folks on the planet. And I agree about my contradictions, hehe, they are the bane of all agnostics.

I guess I should have said that I hope, if I ever do find a universal creator, that it is not the one you cherish and worship. I don't like it. It scares me, and so do you.

Peace,
Doug


what does this mean?

Hi Aaron,

Well, hehe, I don't know--that's what I mean by saying, "It makes no sense to me."

I'm referring to the great flood in the Bible. If Noah and his crew were the only folks on the entire planet to survive, then there must have been a lot of innocent babies that drowned, no? It just doesn't seem like the way an all loving, omni-everything creator would do things. But then again, I'm agnostic, which means I could very well be wrong.

I do think the world would be a much nicer place if more people could admit they might be wrong.

Blessings to you,
Doug

[Pendragon]

That is not what I am getting at. The geneologies provided in the tradition allocate 30 generations from Adam to King David. Even if we go by the dates given by the tradition (such as the ages presented in several diagrams) we are still left with a problem of not being able to account for certain things, such as the native Tasmanians, who, historians tell us, had been separated from the mainland, where they came from, for 35,000 years. The traditions do not hold that each person of the 30 generations lived 1000 years, and even if they did, we would still be short quite a few years. The tradition in the writing of the Torah did not take into consideration those nations of which the Hebrews (I use this term, though it is really the tribe of Judah who seem to have completed the "authoritative text") had no knowledge of.The point I made was they didn't even write about the people they knew, much less the ones of whom they had no knowledge. The difference you speak of eludes me.

And even Methuselah did not make it to 1000 years, dear friend. I don't know, maybe they counted something besides years, or the translation into the word "years" could be wrong. Or perhaps people did live longer. Possibilities, possibilities...

God Bless

Pen

[JBI]

The point I made was they didn't even write about the people they knew, much less the ones of whom they had no knowledge. The difference you speak of eludes me.

And even Methuselah did not make it to 1000 years, dear friend. I don't know, maybe they counted something besides years, or the translation into the word "years" could be wrong. Or perhaps people did live longer. Possibilities, possibilities...

God Bless

Pen

No, I was pointing out that the line of genealogies must be flawed since people didn't live 1000 years. The genealogies cannot be correct, given the evidence. Therefore we could say that, if there were generations in between, Jesus was not in direct line from King David, and therefore was not actually the Messiah, as the link in his genealogies becomes disputed (which it should be, anyway, since the line is supposed to be, according to tradition, be from the father, and he being the son of god, directly contradicts that requirement). But either way, if that genealogy is off, what else is off? See how the thing unravels.

To analyze the book, you must look at it without the assumption of its truth, otherwise you just make things up to support the book, rather than find things within the book that explain it.

[Redzeppelin]

Hi Red,

You always seem so defensive! I just thought that by declaring that the Bible was the definitive book on God, you should have said "my God". Because it certainly is not for the majority of folks on the planet. And I agree about my contradictions, hehe, they are the bane of all agnostics.

I guess I should have said that I hope, if I ever do find a universal creator, that it is not the one you cherish and worship. I don't like it. It scares me, and so do you.

*sigh*

All fairly said. You're not the first to tell me that I come off defensive very quickly. A number of people very close to me tell me that I come off as "intense" which surprises me - I generally feel like I'm simply being "serious." But, I'll be the first to admit that I may not clearly perceive how I come across. Accept my apology if I came across as spoiling for a fight. Your balanced response humbles me.

[Pendragon]

To analyze the book, you must look at it without the assumption of its truth, otherwise you just make things up to support the book, rather than find things within the book that explain it.
I believe Paul said something about "meaningless genelogies and arguments about the law." Tit.3
[9] But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain." I made nothing up, just pointed out possibilities.

[blazeofglory]

The truth is the Bible in print is not a book of eternity and heavenly one. We have a history printing and it is measurable with respect to time. It is time bound and it suffers limitations and circumstances and it can not go beyond a periphery of human thoughts and imaginations in point of fact.

Thinking that the bible is written by God in heaven or any supreme powers is a wrong idea.

The Bible was written by human beings like us even if they are given labels of saintliness.

[Pendragon]

The truth is the Bible in print is not a book of eternity and heavenly one. We have a history printing and it is measurable with respect to time. It is time bound and it suffers limitations and circumstances and it can not go beyond a periphery of human thoughts and imaginations in point of fact.

Thinking that the bible is written by God in heaven or any supreme powers is a wrong idea.

The Bible was written by human beings like us even if they are given labels of saintliness.
The Bible doesn't deny that, it says "As they were moved upon by the Holy Spirit." Thus, God's word.

[Wintermute]

The Bible doesn't deny that, it says "As they were moved upon by the Holy Spirit." Thus, God's word.

Hi Dale,

I hope you are well!

Where do these words appear in the Bible? I tried to find them in KJV. The closest I could get was:

"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." Gen 1-2

and:

"And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man" Gen 7-2

Am I looking in the wrong version?

Thanks,
Doug

[Pendragon]

Hi Doug:

Behold the folly of quoting something you have heard all your life without research! I found these but I will have to dig further. Sorry!


Rom.16
1. [26] But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

1. [2] (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)

God Bless

Dale