NationStates Jolt Archive

Disagreeing. The existence of a universe does require an explaination but it doesn't require functional design, (or it isn't obvious that it does). The existence of a God does because God is complex, in the technical sense. If a glob of magma forms a normal rock that's to be expected. If you saw a rock the exact shape of the venus di milo that would require a special explaination, like someone carved it. God is more like the statue, the universe is more like the rock.

I would argue that the universe is rather more complesx than that but I see your point and tactfully withdraw.

Anyway folks, I'd best re-enter the land of the living. Hope all your peacock tales are long and sordid.

Yours
Grand Duke Fritz von Splurgenhof

As an evolutionist christian myself, I think you're giving evolutionists a seriously bad name with this kinda crap. The whole "If God created the world, who created God?" prattle is useless because science has exactly the same problem. Scientists still have no real set idea where the matter in our universe came from. They're just as in the dark as the creationists.

Yes, and that is exactly why science does not make any assumptions or assertions about where the material in our universe came from. God is, by definition, outside of the realm of science. That doesn't mean that there is a God or that there is no God. It just means that science can make no distinction one way or the other.

<snip> almost impossible to translate fully. Remember, man is not infallible.
Absolutely true. And even the perfect translation would only last so long as the language it is written in remains unchanged (meaning living languages are constantly in flux as well).

However, this is not the statement that was made. It is a whole scale attack on the integrity of the translations. It proposes that the scripture was intentionally changed to support an anti-homosexual bias. It implies intent and conspiracy, but there is/was none.

The best way to defend against intentional mistranslations is to read and have as many versions as possible. There are literally hundreds of translators of different denominations and motivations all arguing with each other about how to translate the oldest known copies for nearly all versions now. It is ongoing, and a good thing. Reading their versions and then comparing them with the others is better than translating it yourself because then you are relying on what your teacher taught you what the words mean…

But the accusation that all of them agreed to mistranslate it is absurd. They would love nothing more than to be able to show how somebody else is bias and wrong, biblical translators get off on that.

Now I see you are correcting someone else as well.

You might think you know what you are talking about, but you know nothing about GOD, Evolution or anything else you have so far discussed on this forum.

Go pick up the "Holy Bible" and read it over and over. Someday before you die, you might be able to understand it.

And until that day you will remain lost, confussed and a false Christian.

Sorry, friend... but it seems you are the false Christian... if you think that the scripture is the answer (scripture is for reproof and instruction, remember... look in Second Timothy).

The only path to true Christianity is inspiration by the Holy Spirit... I'll pray for you, and your dependence upon the printed word.

Beauty is not the same as complexity or functional design. As a poet I tihnk that's blatently obvious.
You're claiming it was designed to be "beautiful". Fair enough. Evolution would have designed any creature to believe their natural habitat was beautiful no matter what it was, so there's not really much argument there anyway.

On the subject of physics, my degree is actually in archaeology and anthropology but I have always had an interest in science. (Exciting things I get to play with in my degree inclcude a modified electron microscope, a particle accelerator and a mass spectrometer.) I still think there are some pretty amazing linking coincidences in physics.
Only as far as we understand it today. It's probably not surprising that the things that look most like coincidences all come from the parts we understand the least. I'm reasonably confident that they'll turn out to be perfectly natural when we understand them properly.
The whole quantum theory thing is pretty fun too. Have you heard the quantum theory proof of the existence of God?
I've seen it. I got to the second sentence before I spotted a mistake and stopped reading.

The two Greek terms translated by this phrase refer to the passive and active partners in consensual homosexual acts.

You speak ancient Greek? In more detail, you know exactly what was meant by words that were pretty much new, even in Greek, at the time of this writing? You read Paul's mind?

That's pretty amazing.

but you seem to have a translation all your own in regards to being able to make such broad statements that “it’s a mistranslation,” whenever you don't like what a scripture says.

I have spoken directly to those who can actually read the languages. Have you?

You were doing that last night too, generally trying to whitewash the entire scripture with your version of what you seem to think it should say.

It has nothing to do with what I think it should say. It has to do with what God has led me to believe it says. There is quite a difference, as I am sure you know.

And then when I challenged you on it you said that, I (being me, not you) couldn’t find the original documents (that you couldn’t possibly have either) backing it up my statements, and generally saying things like saying “a study of the history of the church will show.” When anyone that does knows that is utter nonsense.

The fact that I have other studying going on and cannot currently find the links does not mean that they do not exist. TG Cat-tribe if you're really curious.

Predicting that you think it should be real or you want it to have been real is one thing, but suggesting that there is evidence to support your claim that homosexual relationship existed in the early church is flatly made up after the fact, is not a position, it’s a deception.

Really? So pointing out that I have seen the evidence is a deception? Go figure.

Again though, for the rest of you, I'm am not addressing my point to the topic of homosexuality, but rather, the accusation that scripture has been modified to say something new)

The idea that it has never been modified is ludicrous. We're talking about (especially in the case of the OT) stories that were passed on for generations by word of mouth. Then, they were written down and scribed over and over again by priests who all believed that they were the direct mouth of God. From this, we get the earliest texts now available. These texts are in an ancient language, from an ancient culture that no one fully understands. The idea that there would be no translation errors is ludicrous. Surely you are not arguing that human beings are infallible?

How does the theory that God set up evolution not depend on the existence of God?

That isn't a theory. It is a belief.

The theory is the theory of evolution, which is in no way dependent on the existence or non-existence of God. Believing that God set up the rules that govern it does not, in any way, change the theory itself.

I've studied evolution indepth enough to know that creationism is wrong...

BULL. How can a book that was written over the course of centuries, by many men from different nations, who have never even heard of each other, write a book that has no contradiction whatsoever. I understand that a lot of Christians are hippocritical but not the Bible. I'll take any questions.

Right, Im not all clued in on Creationism and stuff. But how do like dinosaurs come in? i mean the Bible said man was created and stuff, didnt say anything about Dinosaurs, but there are fossils and shit for them.

I cannot, myself, read Hebrew or Greek. However, having consulted those who do, I can state that there is nothing explicit in the Bible concerning homosexuality. The often quoted Levitical law, upon a closer translation, is apparently an admonishment not to have sex with a woman who is menstruating (something that would fit in well with the rest of the laws). The story of Sodom and Gomorah (sp?) is about hospitality - something that was a big issue in ancient Hebrew culture. The lone reference in Romans uses a word that specifically referred to the practice of men taking young boys as prostitutes, not to homosexuality as a whole.


I support each of your assertions.

Dempublicents Rocks. (Or do 'they' rock?)

OMGosh, I showed it to you, did you read it? Sometimes you Evolution zealots are worse than the fundamentalist creationists...
Do you even understand what he is talking about there? Species. Changing species. There should be a common link between species, as Darwin said himself, such as dogs and cats, Mammals, etc.

But we have found no such links in the fossil record. I ask, when does the prediction go invalid?

There are common links. Transitionals are common in the fossil record [relatively speaking]. Added to that we have the modern genetic sequencing evidence pointing to links.

Nothing in the extracts suggests - as you originally implied - that we should be able to breed dogs and get cats.

Right, Im not all clued in on Creationism and stuff. But how do like dinosaurs come in? i mean the Bible said man was created and stuff, didnt say anything about Dinosaurs, but there are fossils and shit for them.

The book of Genesis mentions that there were monsters in the day of Abraham. I'm not totally sure of the scripture #.

And to answer your question on whether or not we can tell a blonde gene to be brunnette: Absolutely we can. It's actually fairly easy after you find the specific gene that governs the trait. If we can splice the genetics of a bean plant with a firefly, we can turn a blonde gene into a brunnette gene. Infact, telling a cell not to develop cancer is far more difficult that changing hair color. We do not fully understand why cancer occurs. Also, Punnette squares help a great deal with determining hair color. Remember: If your parents are both blonde, you will not be naturally blonde.

In truth, telling a cell to not develop cancer would simply require one thing - keeping it from getting off track. Cancer develops due to mutations that alter the cell cycle and cell function. Generally, before cancer can develop, you need at least 5 major mutations - all of which have to go unnoticed by the cell and immune system. For this reason, the first mutations are generally in regulator genes. A gene known as P53, for instance, is mutated in nearly 50% of all cancers. This gene is responsible for checking the DNA for adequate replication and, if DNA damage cannot be repaired, causing the cell to apoptose (die). If it is gone, then damaged DNA can be replicated and more mutations can accrue...

ahh me sees. could be that, isnt there like something in Creationists say that Adam was like 20ft high or something? or am i just lying? haha

That isn't a theory. It is a belief.

The theory is the theory of evolution, which is in no way dependent on the existence or non-existence of God. Believing that God set up the rules that govern it does not, in any way, change the theory itself.
If you'd rather play word games than make serious points that's fine. Why don't you speak esperanto, then nobody will beat you in an argument?

Go take a course in ancient biblical manuscripts and how we know what we know, and then come back here and tell us again that you think modern translations have been changed from their original. You will find that your assumptions of their error via the years they have existed, is entirely without merit.

Not at all... it is clear that some parts of the original scriptures do not match what is 'taught' as acceptable translation.

It really is that simple.

Perhaps, if you looked a little deeper, rather than just accepting 'received' translations as (pardon the pun) gospel.

Just mentioning that it wouldn't be the only case in which a mistranslation would occur.

*snip*

And, for years, everyone has talked about Moses parting the Red Sea. This made no sense to anyone looking at the geography, as it meant he was going around his elbow to get to his butt, as it were. Proper translations have demonstrated that the wording was most likely the "Sea of Reeds". In other words, Moses was able to lead the people through a swamp which the Egyptians (probably many on chariots) were not able to get through.

Also, much of the original sin doctrine is based on a single verse. The Hebrew word for Adam and man are the exact same words. Translators have always picked whichever they thought was best in the context (and tradition) of the verse. The particular verse which Augustine used heavily in backing up original sin has no clear context. It could be translated as Adam, which would do away with pretty much his entire idea, or it could be tranlsated as man, which would support it.

Absolutely true. And even the perfect translation would only last so long as the language it is written in remains unchanged (meaning living languages are constantly in flux as well).

And this is all I have been saying. Thank you for agreeing to me.

However, this is not the statement that was made. It is a whole scale attack on the integrity of the translations. It proposes that the scripture was intentionally changed to support an anti-homosexual bias. It implies intent and conspiracy, but there is/was none.

I claimed no such thing. In fact, I specifically stated the exact opposite.

But the accusation that all of them agreed to mistranslate it is absurd. They would love nothing more than to be able to show how somebody else is bias and wrong, biblical translators get off on that.

There is a difference between pointing out that it is tradition to translate something a certain way and stating that there is some sort of conspiracy. I never even suggested the latter.

If you'd rather play word games than make serious points that's fine. Why don't you speak esperanto, then nobody will beat you in an argument?

I am making a serious point. There is nothing unscientific about believing in a God or not believing in one. It is completely outside the realm of science.

I never said any such thing. I said that the people in Sodom and Gomorrah were not hospitable. Rather than welcoming their new visitors, they wished to rape them. This was apparently quite prevalent in those cities. I certainly would never say that there is "nothing wrong" with that." Rape and extreme promiscuity are not exactly good things.

Actually, especially in light of the recent events prior to the story.. there are much more acceptable explanations than 'gang-rape'.

I seem to recall Jesus later making references that could be taken to read that Sodom's 'sin' was a lack of hospitality.

Well I was just wondering whether a random universe is an any less religious theory than a non-random one. There is still this abstract concept, "chance," that rules over everything.


There is a difference between "chance" as it is used by science and "chance" as it is used in lay conversation.

Chance is not anthropomorphised in science - chance doesn't "do" things, there is no "luck". Chance is merely abstracted probability - we now know that we live in a probabilistic world. Thanks QM.

You speak ancient Greek? In more detail, you know exactly what was meant by words that were pretty much new, even in Greek, at the time of this writing? You read Paul's mind?

That's pretty amazing.

You're the one proposing that every translation has it wrong except yours. I suggest your look in the mirror here.


I have spoken directly to those who can actually read the languages. Have you?
What have they published? Which publications? Perhaps I've read some of their work. Anything in Bible Review or Biblical Archaeology Society? or ASOR publications?


It has nothing to do with what I think it should say. It has to do with what God has led me to believe it says. There is quite a difference, as I am sure you know.
Sure, maybe we should all do that from now on. We'll read a scripture, then change it to our liking and then claim that God led us to do it. Sounds like what you are accusing others have done.


The fact that I have other studying going on and cannot currently find the links does not mean that they do not exist. TG Cat-tribe if you're really curious. I'm not questioning your ability to find a link of some society that supports your claim, I'm questioning their authority and credentials to make such claims.


Really? So pointing out that I have seen the evidence is a deception? Go figure.

Evidence? I've supplied a multitude of translations that say your opinion of mistranslation is in error, but you dismiss that out of hand. Accusing everyone but you side of mass-conspiracy.


The idea that it has never been modified is ludicrous. We're talking about (especially in the case of the OT) stories that were passed on for generations by word of mouth. Then, they were written down and scribed over and over again by priests who all believed that they were the direct mouth of God. From this, we get the earliest texts now available. These texts are in an ancient language, from an ancient culture that no one fully understands. The idea that there would be no translation errors is ludicrous. Surely you are not arguing that human beings are infallible?
Translation IS modification. Translations can cause error. Old Testament translation and New Testament translations are entirely different problems since the languages and duration of use are different. But you do not accuse of accidental errors and misquote from time to time. You accuse of whole sale changing of meaning for the purpose of being anti-homosexual. You are wrong.

Hmmmm...... Allright then, you also have stated that you are in favor of homosexual marriage. Now, no true Christian would ever endorse nor accept such a thing.

Are you some sort of new age Christian? Nah, I still think Satan has you under his spell.

And by the way, I am a puppet nation to Arnburg. I am the sacrificial lamb in the corrupt and immoral NSUN. Arnburg resigned, and created Barvinia. There is no way that my main nation was going to put up with such nonesense. I'm just in the NSUN to endorse an ally. I really don't ever go to vote on any of the issues any more, because every other issue it seems, is about homosexual rights of some sort.

The vast majority of homosexuals seem to had invaded this game. Pathetic!

I seem to recall that using a puppet for the purpose of endorsing UN nominations is an absolute contravention of NS rules.

BULL. How can a book that was written over the course of centuries, by many men from different nations, who have never even heard of each other, write a book that has no contradiction whatsoever. I understand that a lot of Christians are hippocritical but not the Bible. I'll take any questions.

Uh, I'm not entirely sure what Bible you are reading, but the Bible contradicts itself many times. Also the King James Bible(Or the one in English that most people these days read) is hardly even close to the original Bible. Entire sections from the Gospels were removed, other areas were added upon other changed, other removed. You think that your Bible is perfect? Learn Hebrew and read the original texts. You'll be surprised at how different your bible is from the actual biblical texts. Not to mention that the Bible was written by man. How can you be so sure that man did not mistake in interpretting God's will? What makes you so sure that those who wrote the Bible truly understood the message of God? Frankly, your statement is absurd and uneducated.

Oh, and to the person whom you quoted, that person likely has not studied evolution a great deal. To so boldly state that "Creationism is wrong" without support or evidence is showing of ignorance. In truth, those who truly study evolution and believe it to be true had better understand that it is possible for evolution to be wrong.

You're the one proposing that every translation has it wrong except yours. I suggest your look in the mirror here.

I am stating that this is my belief. Yes. And the fact that there disputes is adequate evidence to point out the fact that nothing in Scripture explicitly opposes homosexuality. It is all a matter of interpretation and translation.

Sure, maybe we should all do that from now on. We'll read a scripture, then change it to our liking and then claim that God led us to do it. Sounds like what you are accusing others have done.

I haven't changed anything. Do you seriously claim to be a Christian and then claim that a human being cannot have a personal relationship with God? Here I was thinking that Christ told us to pray for guidance....

I'm not questioning your ability to find a link of some society that supports your claim, I'm questioning their authority and credentials to make such claims.

I never stated that you had to accept the evidence. I stated that it was out there.

Evidence? I've supplied a multitude of translations that say your opinion of mistranslation is in error, but you dismiss that out of hand. Accusing everyone but you side of mass-conspiracy.

I have accused no one of conspiracy. I have pointed out the errors that can and do occur in translation. Add to that the power of tradition....

Translation IS modification. Translations can cause error. Old Testament translation and New Testament translations are entirely different problems since the languages and duration of use are different. But you do not accuse of accidental errors and misquote from time to time. You accuse of whole sale changing of meaning for the purpose of being anti-homosexual. You are wrong.

Incorrect. I have never made any such claim. Way to make things up there, champ.

One thing that creationists get wrong in my opinion is that they assume that when the bible says God made us in his own image they take it literally. THis is obviously NOT to be taken literally or it would blow their whole concept of God out of the water. First if it is to be taken literally, then God is really two gods a male and a female divinity and thus monotheism is wrong because we are male and female. BUT if you take it out of the physical realm and interpret it to mean that we are made in the three parts of Mind Body and Spirit then god can be a Father/Son/Holy Ghost type of God. If it is meant to be read in this manner, we could have been made originally as the only apes to have these three aspects thus raising our chances of survival. The spirit doesn't change, the mind grows, and the body is just a vessel to protect the other two from the enviroment in which it lives. Since the enviroment is constantly changing, the vessel would need to change as well.

This is why I rely on both being right. Genesis is rather symbolic poetry, or imagine a being that lives forever and whos days are not measured by the course of the earth around a sun, and our bodies are ruled by evolution to allow them to react to the enviroment to find the best way to protect the mind and spirit. I mean we need slightly different bodies to survive today than we would have say in 500 B.C.E. If we don't then why do we need all these medicines and vaccinations. We have diseases around now that weren't around then, we also have enviromental factors that weren't around then as well such as pollution of the enviormental and noise kind. Then again we don't have to be quite as perceptive and fast anymore because we have risen to become THE predator on the planet. No animal threatens our survival but ourselves.

Also why are there more people around now than there were 1,000 years ago? God must be quite busy in making all these new souls, unless he made them all in the begining which if he did that, well that opens another problem all together. IF he made them all in the begining then they must be waiting to be born in heaven or some other place which makes me wonder if we are in fact in hell. I mean why would God make these souls just to send them down to earth to live for a brief time (by his calendar). Perhaps all of us on Earth have made God mad and as punishment we are to live here on earth for a bit, kinda like being sent your room as a child. OR it could be that reincarnation is in fact true and that earth is more like a classroom where we are learning how to be good people, how to be nice to each other. If we did nothing to anger god and living here on earth is not punishment for crimes our soul committed while in the "waiting room".

These are just a few of the question I had when trying to decide which was right between the two. I believe God made us in his image of three parts in one. Our bodies evolve constantly and when our bodies die we are reborn again in a new body (kinda like when your car finally dies, you get a new one).

I'm not suggesting that the mutation isn't 'natural' I'm suggesting that Darwin was wrong in that it's not random.Do you mean Directed Evolution as in "specific mutations arise to combat specific threats"? I see it, personally, as a situation whereby 'any old mutation' occurs (good, bad, indiferent, fatal or even preventing the initial development) and that the only direction dictated is by the environment, in that a mutation that fulfilled a solution to an environmental problem best (e.g. there are many ways to be a faster creature, long legs, better muscles, better instincts/reactions, more efficient chemical energy transfer, etc, etc, etc) is going to be the one adopted if speed is required. Actually, at the level of "survival of the fittest" it could be any of many general fields of improvement (e.g. better speed, thicker hide, better defensive reactions, warning colouration, better camoflage, tendency to flock/herd/group, etc) that 'attracts' mutations. Not because more mutations occur for those qualities, but that beneficial mutations in those areas tend to help survival. Mutations for eye-colour might occur as often as for hide-colour, but has less impact upon the survivability (good or bad).

I'm not denying it either. Only that Darwins "Theory of Evolution, The origin of speicies" that of natural selection of random mutations, is incorrect.I still fail to see the reasoning behind this (why mutations are not random), except perhaps through my own (inner) conviction that the Universe is deterministic and thus nothing is 'random', just unfathomable given the available information... So if you were to assert that "the chain of mutations that caused the original land-exploring creature to develop lungs was destined to occur" I would agree with you on the basis of such determinism, but if you were to say "for any given universe where sea-dwelling creatures were pressured by resource concerns to rise out of the water and, over the generations, develop mechanisms for living for significant periods in a purely atmospheric environment, they would have developed the particular variety of lung that we observed on our world (and after many more generations there would arise a Homonid creature who would develop the ability to debate such an occurance at length)" then I must disagree. The way things happen was by chance. A long-shot. We're our version of the long-shot, but 'we' could have easily been a different example of a long-shot, the end of a completely different chain of development due to a different mutation arising during (say) the Cambrian period. One of those really-wierd body-plans, but which worked for them and could (had it not been lost through whatever catastrophe wiped out the creatures thriving with it at that time) have replaced the precursor form that eventually gave rise to the quadrapedal and (later) bipedal+arms body-form that we have the honour of having in our nature...

But we see, that some traits that are disadvantegous survive (like lemmings running off a cliff, or whales that beach themselves), even when they should not. I would think it would be rather more easy to prove that mutation occurs for it's own sake, equally good and bad, than it is to be able to prove that that it works for the benefit of the species (as Darwin said).Lemmings don't run off cliffs. That was a Disney lie that has entered modern mythology.
Whales do beach themselves, that is indeed a fact, but there's no reason to believe that it's an habitual practice and some say it might be man's intervention that causes it (e.g. the pod being deafened by sonar, or losing their ability to reason/navigate properly through chemical spills and other activity). The ones that do beach (especially when it comes to complete pods that do so and die en-mass) tend not to have any direct living descendants and thus any whales that are not susceptible to the effects that cause the current abherant behaviour, due to marginally lower sensitivity to noise, better tolerance of chemical agents or just generally inhabiting man-free areas of the oceans, are going to produce the majority of the world's whale populations.

Given how long-lived whales are, there really hasn't been long enough for any marginal improvements that do arise to have spread themselves throughout the world population (or, indeed, populations, as there are many different types of whale/dolphine/porpoise/orca/etc). Though 'thanks' to the mass whaling fleets of the 19th century on until the fairly recent cessation of whaling (except by Japan and Norway/whoever) the lower populations might mean that any (surviving) species might indeed be more easily and quickly pervaded by genetic improvements, where the massive world-wide populations that were might be less easily influenced by a mutation, a single whale's genetic dynasty being diluted by those of it's many contemporaries. Still, I doubt we have yet seen whales that tend (as a population norm) to shun ships, having acquired in the last 200+ years (as little as three or four generations) a tendency to avoid whalers. (Ok, so, by definition, those that tend to avoid human oceanic exploration are going to be more rarely seen, but the absolute version of the hypothesis is still sound. ;)) What we might get, though, is a learnt development to avoid human contact, given that whales have an intelligence and a non-trivial form of communication and teaching. That might give whales a better chance, in the short term, against human depravaties and what deliberate/accidental impacts we might incur upon their populations. That's a discussion for somewhere else, though...

DNA discovery has not, in any way, disproved anything about that. We do not understand how information is transfered to developing cells and why it chooses to develop as it does nor what influences may be brought to bear of changing these instructions or priorities. Will we someday be able to tell a cell not to develop the cancer it was going to? I think maybe, but will we be able to tell a developing cell to be blonde instead of brunette? I don't know. Well see, but the truth is, we don't yet understand how nature does it yet either, but we do know it does it. I'm saying that we should be able to tell by now that it's not all random mutation and natural selection though.We know that DNA, with the exception of the telomeres and any accidental mutation, is essentially the same from the moment the gametes fuse and create the blastolist (that's the word, isn't it?) to the moment the daughter-daughter-daughter-daughter-etc cell dies (all non-reproductive cells within the same organism). There is no indication that a physical change to the body-plan (neck strained longer, foreskin removed) can in any way change even the gamete cell DNA. There is the proteome, which as the surrounding chemical 'soup' that supports the basic function of each gamete (and compunded blastolist) and has some influence, but I think most of that has been identified as containing the 'tick-over and bootstrap' molecular machinary required to maintain, sort, extract, unwrap, process, copy and produce from the various parts of the DNA/RNA resource.

The tendency to develop cancer appears to be fairly polarised between those cancers that are inheritable and those that are spontaneous. For inheritable cancers, there is an inbuilt mutated instruction for breast cells to go cancerous in later life (upon a chemical signal that may or may not occur, but might well be connected with the menopause in some cases) which can be passed down the generations because it occurs after the major reproductive part of the person's life and thus viable descendants with the faulty tendency are already in existence by the time the long-lived parent finds their body rebelling through the expression of these delayed 'bad' instructions. Such inheritable sequences have been identified, and the irony is that it is only 'modern' living and the long lives we have given ourselves (through technological and societal changes) that has allowed us to routinely enter the period in life whereby these errors start to take effect.

Spontaneous cancers are ones that happen due to immediate environmental issues. E.g. significant chemical or radiological damage that, across many cells, may hit one in a manner that knocks out the usual self-regulation mechanism, outcompeting its (dead, dying or even repaired) neighbours with its unregulated division.

A 'hybrid' cancer might be one that has a tendency to mutate spontaneously (as distinct to 'destined to', given a specific trigger of 'normal' operation) and might well be due to a misapplication of the damage-mitigation machinary. Some parts of DNA tend to 'attract' mutation, through the way the conductive DNA chain tends to pass charges from various ionising-type damage along the chain to 'sinks' that are non-coding and/or easily repaired by standard cellular machinary. It is theorised that some chains of 'junk' DNA might be usefully employed either as such sinks or even the charge-carrying lengths, though I think there's still a lot of research needed in this field. If, however, the genetic line have developed a sink in the midst of a 'dangerous' part of a gene (which may or may not be active in certain cell types and during various stages of development) then any environmental damage might chance to occur in the vicinity and cause the problem. I'm mentioning this for completeness, seeing as the ones that kill in childhood have a good chance of not being inherited and the ones that kill post-reproduction are essentially the same as the normal inheritable ones given the amount of natural ionisation a body will receive during the time before the activation of such a damaged gene.

Yes, but with respect in this case. :)Cheers. And apologies for the long answers, above. What I'm attempting to do is provide the reasoning that is known to me (and hopefully is correct) that may be helpful to yourself, and hope I don't (too often) say "No! You're wrong! This is Right!", but instead more rationally pass on the arguments that I think you ought to consider.

So, then, in that case, do you think that science should also teach the creation traditions from other religions and cultures, including, but not limited to, the Aaragon, Abenaki, Acoma, Ainu, Aleut, Amunge, Angevin, Anishinabek, Anvik-Shageluk, Apache, Arapaho, Ararapivka, Arikara, Armenian, Arrernte, Ashkenazim, Assiniboine, Athabascan, Athena, Aztec, Babylonian, Balinese, Bannock, Bantu, Basque, Blackfoot, Blood, Bosnian, Breton, Brul, Bundjalung, Burns Paiute, Caddo, Cahuilla, Catalan, Cayuga, Cayuse, Celt, Chehalis, Chelan, Cherokee, Chewella, Cheyenne, Chickasaw, Chinook, Chippewa, Chirachaua, Choctaw, Chukchi, Coeur d'Alene, Columbia River, Colville, Comanche, Congolese, Concow, Coquille, Cow Creek, Cowlitz, Cree, Creek, Croat, Crow, Crow Creek, Cumbres, Curonian, Cushite, Cut Head, Da'an, Devon, Dihai-Kutchin, Diyari, Dogon, Duwamish, Egyptian, Elwha, Eritrean, Eskimo, Esrolvuli, Eta, Even, Evenk, Flathead, Fijian, Fox, Fuegan, Gaul, Gooniyandi, Gond, Govi Basin Mongolian, Grand Ronde, Gros Ventre, Haida, Han, Haranding, Havasupai, Hendriki, Heortling, Hidatsa, Hindi, Hmong, HoChunk, Hoh, Hoopa, Hopi, Hunkpapa, Hutu, Ik-kil-lin, Inca, Innu, Intsi Dindjich, Inuit, Iroquois, Isleta, Itchali, Itelemen, It-ka-lya-ruin, Itkpe'lit, Itku'dlin, Jicarilla Apache, Jotvingian, Kaiyuhkhotana, Kalapuya, Kalispel, Kamchandal, Kansa, Karuk, Katshikotin, Kaurna, Kaw, Kazahk, Ketschetnaer, Khanti, Khoi-San, Khymer, Kickapoo, Kiowa, Kirghiz, Kitchin-Kutchin, Klamath, Knaiakhotana, K'nyaw, Koch-Rajbongshi, Kolshina, Kono, Kootenai, Koyukukhotana, !Kung, Kurd, La Jolla, Lac Courte D'Oreille, Lac Du Flambeau, Laguna, Lake, Lakota, Lao, Latgalian, Leech Lake Chippewa, Lemmi, Lower Brul, Lower Yanktonai, Lowland Lummi, Lummi, Malawi, Makah, Mandan, Maori, Maricopan, Martinez, Mayan, Mazatec, Mednofski, Menominee, Meryam Mir, Mesa Grande, Mescalero Apache, Metlakatla, Miniconjou, Mission, Moallalla, Modoc, Mohawk, Mojave, Morongo, Muckleshoot, Murrinh-Patha, Nadruvian, Nagorno-Karabakh, Na-Kotchpo-tschig-Kouttchin, Nambe, Namib, Natche'-Kutehin, Navajo, Nes Pelem, Neyetse-kutchi, Nez Perce, Ngiyampaa, Nisqualli, Nnatsit-Kutchin, Nomelackie, Nooksack, Norman, Norse, Northern Cheyenne, Nyungar, Oglala, Ogorvalte, Ojibway, Okanagon, Okinawan, Olmec, Omaha, Oneida, Onondaga, Ordovices, Orlanthi, Osage, Osetto, O-til'-tin, Otoe, Paakantyi, Paiute, Pala Mission, Papago, Pawnee, Pazyryk, Pechango, Penan, Piegan, Pima, Pitt River, Ponca, Potowatomie, Prussian, Pueblo, Puyallup, Qiang, Quileute, Quinault, Red Cliff Chippewa, Red Lake Chippewa, Redwood, Rincon, Sac, Saisiyat, Sakuddeis, Salish, Salt River, Samish, Samoan, Samogitian, San Carlos Apache, San Idlefonso, San Juan, San Poil, Santa Clara, Sartar, Sauk-Suiattle, Selonian, Semigolian, Seminole, Senecan, Sephardim, Serano, Serb, Shasta, Shawnee, Shiite, Shinnecock, Shoalwater Bay, Shoshone, Sikh, Siletz, Silures, Sinhalese, Sioux, Siskiyou, Sisseton, Siuslaw, Skalvian, S'Klallam, Skokomish, Skyomish, Slovene, Snohomish, Snoqualmie, Soboba, Southern Cheyenne, Spokane, Squaxin Island, Steilacoom, Stillaquamish, Stockbridge, Sunni, Suquamish, Swinomish, Tadjik, Takhayuna, Tala, Talastari, Tamil, Tanaina, Taos, Tarim, Tasman, Tatar, Tesuque, Tlingit, Toltec, Tpe-ttckie-dhidie-Kouttchin, Tranjik-Kutchin, Truk, Tukkutih-Kutchin, Tulalip, Tungus, Turtle Mountain, Tuscarora, Turk, Turkmen, Tutsi, Ugalakmiut, Uintah, Umatilla, Umpqua, Uncompagre, U-nung'un, Upper Skagit, Ute, Uzbek, Vietnamese, Viking, Vunta-Kutchin, Wahpeton, Walla Walla, Wasco, Wembawemba, White Mountain Apache, Wichita, Wik-ungkan, Winnebago, Wiradjuri, Wylackie, Xhosa, Yahi, Yakama, Yakima, Yakut, Yanamamo, Yankton Sioux, Yellowknife, Yindjibarnd, Youkon Louchioux, Yukaghir, Yukonikhotana, Yullit, Yuma, Zjen-ta-Kouttchin, and Zulu?

If there is a demand for that, yes.

Not Christ, but look in the Bible!
1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (NIV)
"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral not idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders (10) nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (11) And that is what some of you were. But you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

So what do you think? Does this seem to endorse homosexuality?

Not trying to offend, but you may realize the danger we would be in if this became legal throughout the world...

The word you are showing as "homosexual offenders", is taken from the Greek "Arsenokoites". This word is a matter of some debate, since it does not show up anywhere else in CONTEMPORARY lexicons...

It is an artifact word, apparently coined purely for use in scripture... where it is only used twice: Once in the Verse of First Corinthians you cite, and once in First Timothy.

The lack of corroboration means that ANY translation of the word, is a guess.

*Sigh* there are too few people on this thread to bother with little old me. I've actually posted some quite interesting stuff but if no one's interesteed I suppose I'll go. :(What you say is interesting, but I really have no response to it (good or bad), and you have to know that I'm more drawn to replying to those that I think need information that I have, then next to those I agree with but would like to add to... I hope (still catching up as I am) you have some other responses than mine... It looks like the thread has acquired 50 new messages whilst I was writing the last response!


[Oh, I did respond to you! See... I'm so engrossed in other stuff I never realised, I must apologise for not realising, rather than apologising for not responding!]

So you believe that God is all for slavery and the denigration of women?

You believe that God is unaware that bleeding is not necessarily going to occur when a virgin has sex?

You believe that God feels that a woman raped in New York was consenting if no one saves her?

No, no and no. These are all the results of sin, the effects of which He has sacrificed Himself to reverse for any who chose to return to Him and His perfect plan for the peace, harmony and love in the universe.

What do you consider "questioning your intelligence". I don't feel that pointing out a blatant misunderstanding of the theory questions intelligence - and that is mostly what I see here.



Shrug, I have yet to meet a single person who holds ideas outside of science in contempt. I have seen those who feel that science is more correct than other methods of finding truth, but I have yet to see anyone who holds animosity towards those who disagree.


In this particular thread, it has only happened once or twice, however, historically it has happened more than that. I'm not suggesting that you participated. You have been among the more civil.

As for the second paragraph, I am not sure how you can come to that conclusion when there are people here who have actually advocated doing away with religion and "religious types". Granted that is more extreme that most people's position, but I have seen numerous people's intelligence called into question and a defense of evolution and evolution only that rivals the religious zealots of the dark ages perhaps minus the torture.

Where in the bible does it say, explicitly, that evolution never occurred?

Genisis chapters 1 and 2. John chapter 1.

Uh, I'm not entirely sure what Bible you are reading, but the Bible contradicts itself many times. Also the King James Bible(Or the one in English that most people these days read) is hardly even close to the original Bible. Entire sections from the Gospels were removed, other areas were added upon other changed, other removed. You think that your Bible is perfect? Learn Hebrew and read the original texts. You'll be surprised at how different your bible is from the actual biblical texts. <snip>

Did you and Dempublicents1 go to the same minimalist seminar or something? How can you go around making such baseless comments like that.

There is no accredited biblical scripture proposals that suggests such broad dismissals of the ancient scriptures integrity. Just because you yourself can't imagine how it could possibly to have been kept intact throughout the ages, archaeological discoveries have shown that it has.

Did you and Dempublicents1 go to the same minimalist seminar or something? How can you go around making such baseless comments like that.

There is no accredited biblical scripture proposals that suggests such broad dismissals of the ancient scriptures integrity. Just because you yourself can't imagine how it could possibly to have been kept intact throughout the ages, archaeological discoveries have shown that it has.
They can go around making those clams because they are not baseless … there are MANY big and small contradictions in a book that a supposedly perfect being should have been able to keep pure
Not to mention that the only think backed up by “archeological findings” is the fact that some of the places in the book existed and that possibly someone possessing some of the names happened to be in the area around that time

(EDIT: FYI, the NRSV translates it "Sodomites" which clearly does confine itself to man~boy relationships either.


Curious... that isn't true, either...

You specifically stated that evolution was a "Godless theory," thus clearly stating that it precludes the existence of a God.

As it is, evolutionary theory is only as Godless as you want it to be. If you believe that God is not intelligent enough to do things through a process, by all means, state that.

I have yet to meet a single person who stopped believing in God because of evolution.


I have met several people that given up their faith in God as a result of studying evolutionary theory.

Evolutionary theory does not contain any ideology that relates to God, making it Godless, in much the same way that most mathamatical and chemistry, and physics theories contain no reference to God. They are all Godless, just some are more damaging to belief in God than others, and few more so than evolutionary theory.

I am stating that this is my belief. Yes. And the fact that there disputes is adequate evidence to point out the fact that nothing in Scripture explicitly opposes homosexuality. It is all a matter of interpretation and translation.

In other words, even if it is explicitly expressing a position you don't like and it's against your position, you're going to say it's a matter of interpretations and translation.

Since you refuse consider data not conforming to you viewpoint as valid data, there doesn't seem to be anything else to be said.

Curious... that isn't true, either...
Hello my Hebrew speaking hero :fluffle:

I have met several people that given up their faith in God as a result of studying evolutionary theory.

Evolutionary theory does not contain any ideology that relates to God, making it Godless, in much the same way that most mathamatical and chemistry, and physics theories contain no reference to God. They are all Godless, just some are more damaging to belief in God than others, and few more so than evolutionary theory.
So attempted explination of reality is damaging to belief in god?

I have read and translated both Greek and Hebrew. I will also freely admit that there are certain passages of which we cannot be 100% certain. I will also tell you that those passages/words do not change the doctrine taught in the Bible. There are about 10 common errors that every typist makes (Spelling, word swapping etc...) and they are all evidenced within the ancient manuscripts. Compiling the various manuscripts allows scholars to conclude the proper words that were written.

All of this is to say, that the Scriptures are not fudging or mistranslated in Genesis 1 and 2. Furthermore, science is grudgingly starting to admit that an Inteligent Designer (ID) was behind the creation of the universe.

And yes, the Bible does not explicitly deny evolution. And yes, many Christians of past years believed in an evolutionary creation. But yes, the Bible does tacitly deny evolution. Romans teaches that death entered the world as a result of sin. If so, then no creature could have died before the sin of Adam and Eve. Therefore, evolution could not have occurred and Genesis 1 and 2 must be taken literally.

They can go around making those clams because they are not baseless … there are MANY big and small contradictions in a book that a supposedly perfect being should have been able to keep pure
Not to mention that the only think backed up by “archeological findings” is the fact that some of the places in the book existed and that possibly someone possessing some of the names happened to be in the area around that time


You see, that's just ignorance on your part. There are entire manuscripts/books retrieved from various sources (Dead Sea Scrolls, late Egyptian/Christian tombs etc.,) that can be used to verify if or any changes have occurred, and invariably, it has been shown that the supposed “changes” have not taken place as people like you have proposed over the centuries.

Evidence? I've supplied a multitude of translations that say your opinion of mistranslation is in error, but you dismiss that out of hand. Accusing everyone but you side of mass-conspiracy.


You do, of course, realise: that a translation cannot 'prove' another translation to be erroneous... only suggest.

And, when the 'translations' you offer are all based on the concept of 'received' translation, you are basically just showing ONE translation, just with different wording.

The word you are showing as "homosexual offenders", is taken from the Greek "Arsenokoites". This word is a matter of some debate, since it does not show up anywhere else in CONTEMPORARY lexicons...

It is an artifact word, apparently coined purely for use in scripture... where it is only used twice: Once in the Verse of First Corinthians you cite, and once in First Timothy.

The lack of corroboration means that ANY translation of the word, is a guess.

Hi G_n_I. I don't even want to know how that got started. In anycase, I just wanted to say a friend hello. :D

I'm surprised that you argue from a biblical perspective that homosexuality is acceptable, when the bible clearly defines marriage as the only acceptable place for a sexual relationship and further defines marriage as being between a male and female. Regardless of how this specific word should be translated, homosexuality falls outside biblically acceptable sexual practice.

No, no and no. These are all the results of sin, the effects of which He has sacrificed Himself to reverse for any who chose to return to Him and His perfect plan for the peace, harmony and love in the universe.

And yet they are all specifically endorsed by God in the Bible, which you state is unerring.

Which is it?

Genisis chapters 1 and 2. John chapter 1.

Incorrect. Your interpretation precludes evolution. It does not explicitly say "Evolution did not occur."

So attempted explination of reality is damaging to belief in god?

If it leaves Him out of the equation, yes, at least to some degree. But, like I said, more so with some theories than others.

Hi G_n_I. I don't even want to know how that got started. In anycase, I just wanted to say a friend hello. :D

I'm surprised that you argue from a biblical perspective that homosexuality is acceptable, when the bible clearly defines marriage as the only acceptable place for a sexual relationship and further defines marriage as being between a male and female. Regardless of how this specific word should be translated, homosexuality falls outside biblically acceptable sexual practice.

Lot.


Gays are out, but incest is fine and dandy.

Lovely book.

I have met several people that given up their faith in God as a result of studying evolutionary theory.

Evolutionary theory does not contain any ideology that relates to God, making it Godless, in much the same way that most mathamatical and chemistry, and physics theories contain no reference to God. They are all Godless, just some are more damaging to belief in God than others, and few more so than evolutionary theory.

So you had a few friends with no actual faith and that means that everyone else will be affected the same way?

Sad that your friends had no faith in the first place, but hardly a call for comparison to those of us who do.

Hello my Hebrew speaking hero :fluffle:

Bonjour, mon ami... I seem to be a few pages behind everyone else... :)

:fluffle:

Curious... that isn't true, either...

Yes it does:

NRSV: 1st Corinthians Chapter 6...

9 Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites*, 10thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

Bold added by me.

If that's not what you are accusing me of, what was it?

If it leaves Him out of the equation, yes, at least to some degree. But, like I said, more so with some theories than others.
But if the explanation can be made without him in a logical way why should we randomly insert an un-testable variable in there?

Yes it does:



Bold added by me.

If that's not what you are accusing me of, what was it?
You in no way proved your claim that it is the CORRECT translation

Did you and Dempublicents1 go to the same minimalist seminar or something? How can you go around making such baseless comments like that.

There is no accredited biblical scripture proposals that suggests such broad dismissals of the ancient scriptures integrity. Just because you yourself can't imagine how it could possibly to have been kept intact throughout the ages, archaeological discoveries have shown that it has.

Perhaps some elaborations are needed? Okay, I was not infact attacking the integrety of Christianity, or really even the bible. Sorry if it came off that way. Instead, I wanted to make it clear that first off the bible does contradict itself. One important contradiction is in Genesis 1 & 2, in which the order of creation sequences is different between the two(Unfortunately I can't go to far into specifics as I am moving and have packed up my Bibles. Yes, I have a Bible, 5 infact). Are these contradictions indictive of the Bible being false? No. Perhaps it was meant to be contradictory to convey the intricacy of God, and the need for personal interpretation. However, to say that the Bible does not contradict itself is to show ignorance: The bible does infact contradict itself, through mistranslation, human error, or by intention.

Note I was not trying to attack the integrity of the Bible.

In other words, even if it is explicitly expressing a position you don't like and it's against your position, you're going to say it's a matter of interpretations and translation.

Since you refuse consider data not conforming to you viewpoint as valid data, there doesn't seem to be anything else to be said.

Incorrect.

If it is explicitly expressing a position I see as being inconsistent with my knowledge of God, I pray for guidance on it. In fact, I do this even for those things which do seem to fit with my knowledge of God.

Again, I ask, are you seriously stating that Christianity precludes a personal relationship with God?

And yet they are all specifically endorsed by God in the Bible, which you state is unerring.

Which is it?

Show me where rape was condoned by God in the Bible. I recognize that many happened and that the leaders of the people who were supposed to be obedient to God did and or condoned some of these things but I'd like you to show me specifically where God condoned it.

Did you and Dempublicents1 go to the same minimalist seminar or something? How can you go around making such baseless comments like that.

There is no accredited biblical scripture proposals that suggests such broad dismissals of the ancient scriptures integrity. Just because you yourself can't imagine how it could possibly to have been kept intact throughout the ages, archaeological discoveries have shown that it has.

You just don't get it, do you?

All modern translations of the scripture, are going to mirror earlier translations. Why? Because all the translators have been raised on classical translations, and the indoctrination that goes with that.

So, even if the evidence strongly suggests an alternate meaning, a modern translation is STILL very unlikely to favour that alternate... because it would not follow the 'classic' translational approach.

This means that, even when translations are done from earlier manuscripts, the 'received translation' passed down (at least since the King James translation) will over-ride the native language.

So - if you REALLY want to know what is in scripture - you have to get round your obsession with 'accredited biblical scripture proposals', and actually go back to the original texts, in their original tongues.

Lot.


Gays are out, but incest is fine and dandy.

Lovely book.

As I said to Dem, show me where God condoned that behavior?

Note I was not trying to attack the integrity of the Bible.

Nor was I. Apparently intellectual honesty leads to false accusations of attacks and conspiracy theories around here.

The word you are showing as "homosexual offenders", is taken from the Greek "Arsenokoites". This word is a matter of some debate, since it does not show up anywhere else in CONTEMPORARY lexicons...

It is an artifact word, apparently coined purely for use in scripture... where it is only used twice: Once in the Verse of First Corinthians you cite, and once in First Timothy.

The lack of corroboration means that ANY translation of the word, is a guess.Well, that puts the dampner on what my immediate comment would have been (had I been sufficiently motivated enough to have made this comment originally) in that in English the term "homosexual offenders" means (to me, neither homosexual nor, at least in my opinion, an offender) a group of people who are homosexual and offenders, but not necessarily offenders because of homosexuality or, indeed, homosexual because they have offended...

i.e. did it mention "homosexual offenders" in the manner of "burgling criminals (i.e. "burgling members of the criminal fraternity") or in the manner of "red-shoed dancers" (i.e. "wearers of red shoes who also happen to be dancing").

However, it sounds like we'll get no joy from the original, so I'm resorting to sowing the seeds of doubt rather than anything else... ;)

Incorrect. Your interpretation precludes evolution. It does not explicitly say "Evolution did not occur."

It specifically states that God created everything in existance on this earth in six days and had Adam name His creations, which by default rules out the possibility for a long evolutionary period of developing seperate species.

I have met several people that given up their faith in God as a result of studying evolutionary theory.

Evolutionary theory does not contain any ideology that relates to God, making it Godless, in much the same way that most mathamatical and chemistry, and physics theories contain no reference to God. They are all Godless, just some are more damaging to belief in God than others, and few more so than evolutionary theory.

And I have met many Christians who believe in Evolution. Genesis 1 & 2 does not rule out Evolution. Genesis is rather ambiguous and very much open to interpretation. Some have interpreted Genesis into following evolution. It's not as large a stretch as you may think. Evolution is not necessarily Godless. There is nothing in the Theory of Evoultion which states "God cannot exist because evolution Exists". There are many who believe that God was a clockmaker, so to speak, creating the clock and setting it into motion, then watching it as it took it's course. Just because it is Science does not make it Godless.

I am studying an MSc in Human evolution, and i KNOW that creationism cannot account for most of the evidence in the hominid fossil record.



creationism :sniper:

I must say... i have lost it. Thus, I will now leave this 'conversation' to itself. :D

But if the explanation can be made without him in a logical way why should we randomly insert an un-testable variable in there?

Because there are, IMO, sufficient other proofs of the Bible's voracity to justify accepting it as the inspired word of God. The Genisis account contridicts evolutionary theory, which suggest that said theory is, perhaps well intentioned, never the less an eroneous theory.

As I said to Dem, show me where God condoned that behavior?

Have you not read the Old Testament? It is jam-packed with laws, all of which state they come directly from God. Within them is a law that, should a woman not bleed on her wedding night, she is to be stoned as an adulteress.

If a woman is raped outside a town, they take her word for it. However, if something happens inside the town, and no one saves her, the assumption is that she was consenting.

Hebrew men can be bought as slaves, but must have the opportunity to go free after 7 years. Of course, they can be tricked into pledging lifelong service if the owner keeps their wife and children. Hebrew women and all other nationalities can be bought and sold as lifelong slaves with basically no restrictions. A man who buys a young girl as a slave may marry her, but she ceases to be a technical slave at that point.

If a man rapes an unbetrothed woman, she is forced to marry him.

Every single one of these is a law explicitly laid out in the OT, in Leviticus, Deuteronomy, or Exodus. All of them claim the direct authority of God.

You just don't get it, do you?

All modern translations of the scripture, are going to mirror earlier translations. Why? Because all the translators have been raised on classical translations, and the indoctrination that goes with that.

So, even if the evidence strongly suggests an alternate meaning, a modern translation is STILL very unlikely to favour that alternate... because it would not follow the 'classic' translational approach.

This means that, even when translations are done from earlier manuscripts, the 'received translation' passed down (at least since the King James translation) will over-ride the native language.

So - if you REALLY want to know what is in scripture - you have to get round your obsession with 'accredited biblical scripture proposals', and actually go back to the original texts, in their original tongues.

Of course, but then, you are still stuck with your understanding of the ancient language and who taught it to you.

The point was, that 9 out of 10 translations said homosexuals, and the 10th said sodomites (NRSV: the one you quoted so it looked like you were saying I misquote the NRSV). But none of the translations suggested the word for man-boy relationship was used. Which in the greek, does have recorded uses outside of the two times this word was use in the New Testament.

And I have met many Christians who believe in Evolution. Genesis 1 & 2 does not rule out Evolution. Genesis is rather ambiguous and very much open to interpretation. Some have interpreted Genesis into following evolution. It's not as large a stretch as you may think. Evolution is not necessarily Godless. There is nothing in the Theory of Evoultion which states "God cannot exist because evolution Exists". There are many who believe that God was a clockmaker, so to speak, creating the clock and setting it into motion, then watching it as it took it's course. Just because it is Science does not make it Godless.

I think you need to re-read Genisis and maybe add Exodus 20: 8-11.

It specifically states that God created everything in existance on this earth in six days and had Adam name His creations, which by default rules out the possibility for a long evolutionary period of developing seperate species.

In your personal interpretation.

In fact, the word translated as "day" can mean "time period." In fact, the days can refer to the time over which a priest had visions of these things. In fact, the word for Adam in Hebrew is the exact same as the word for "man", suggesting that while one person may not have named all creations (and the Bible does not, in fact, claim that Adam named all of the creations), but that mankind does.

Meanwhile, even if we take the literal 6 days, the Priestly account does not say that these days were not essentially accelerated time in which evolution occurred.

Again, it is your personal interpretation, not what is actually there.

Have you not read the Old Testament? It is jam-packed with laws, all of which state they come directly from God. Within them is a law that, should a woman not bleed on her wedding night, she is to be stoned as an adulteress.

If a woman is raped outside a town, they take her word for it. However, if something happens inside the town, and no one saves her, the assumption is that she was consenting.

Hebrew men can be bought as slaves, but must have the opportunity to go free after 7 years. Of course, they can be tricked into pledging lifelong service if the owner keeps their wife and children. Hebrew women and all other nationalities can be bought and sold as lifelong slaves with basically no restrictions. A man who buys a young girl as a slave may marry her, but she ceases to be a technical slave at that point.

If a man rapes an unbetrothed woman, she is forced to marry him.

Every single one of these is a law explicitly laid out in the OT, in Leviticus, Deuteronomy, or Exodus. All of them claim the direct authority of God.

In none of these cases is the rape condoned. They are remedies for specific circumstances should one occur that were revelent to the culture of that time, though you have presented a somewhat skewed perspective on some of them. See the difference?

In your personal interpretation.

In fact, the word translated as "day" can mean "time period." In fact, the days can refer to the time over which a priest had visions of these things. In fact, the word for Adam in Hebrew is the exact same as the word for "man", suggesting that while one person may not have named all creations (and the Bible does not, in fact, claim that Adam named all of the creations), but that mankind does.

Meanwhile, even if we take the literal 6 days, the Priestly account does not say that these days were not essentially accelerated time in which evolution occurred.

Again, it is your personal interpretation, not what is actually there.

Not the way it is translated in Exodus 20: 8-11 and numerous other places in the Bible, which again lends credence to the way it was translated in Gen.

As I said to Dem, show me where God condoned that behavior?

Read the passage - it is quite clearly not condemned. Since it is included in the scriptures as just another matter of fact occurrence [in stark contrast to the way in which frowned-upon matters are discussed] it stands as condoned.

Hi G_n_I. I don't even want to know how that got started. In anycase, I just wanted to say a friend hello. :D

I'm surprised that you argue from a biblical perspective that homosexuality is acceptable, when the bible clearly defines marriage as the only acceptable place for a sexual relationship and further defines marriage as being between a male and female. Regardless of how this specific word should be translated, homosexuality falls outside biblically acceptable sexual practice.

Well, hello, my friend. :)

I do actually have scriptural logic to support homosexual marriage, though... based around the fact that what Jesus decries isn't 'homosexuality', but 'lust'. Oh sure, sometimes, you could say, the lust is between members of the same gender... but it is the 'lust' that Jesus speaks against.... be it between same genders, or opposed.

Further corroboration for this comes from the idea that we should all be castrated, if we can, (I'm not sure if the text means REALLY castrated...)... but that such is beyond most of us.

Then, you throw my good old pal, Paul, into the mix, and he says it is preferable to be married, than to be consumed by lust.

So - 'lust' is sanctioned within marriage... that is male lust AND female lust, but, not necessarily for the opposed sex... just so long as you don't stray OUTSIDE of the marital relationship...

And, thus, Paul sanctions gay marriage, as the alternative to gay lust.

In none of these cases is the rape condoned. They are remedies for specific circumstances should one occur that were revelent to the culture of that time, though you have presented a somewhat skewed perspective on some of them. See the difference?

Way to twist things there. I never once stated that rape was condoned. I stated that slavery was condoned. I stated that the Bible says that God is unaware that a lack of bleeding does not mean a girl is not a virgin. And I stated that God, according to the Bible, condones the denigration of women.

Never once did I state that the Bible condones rape.

I think you need to re-read Genisis and maybe add Exodus 20: 8-11.

I will as soon as I get my Bible out of packing.

However, to note, I did not interpret the text as such. I meant to say that others have. What I meant to say was that it is open to interpretation. Six days to us means six full spins of the Earth on the Axis. However, before Earth was created by God, perhaps days were different? Perhaps a "Day" to god is 6 billion years? It is not fully excepted by all that "Six days" refers to what we consider as "six days".

Also, as mentioned before, the word for "Adam" and "Man" were the same. Perhaps it meant that Man named the animals, which we most certainly did. Also, animals have different names by different cultures. A bear is not called a bear in Cantonese(A form of Chinese), it is called "shyong". A Chicken in spanish is "Pollo". Animals have more than one name.

In your personal interpretation.

In fact, the word translated as "day" can mean "time period." In fact, the days can refer to the time over which a priest had visions of these things. In fact, the word for Adam in Hebrew is the exact same as the word for "man", suggesting that while one person may not have named all creations (and the Bible does not, in fact, claim that Adam named all of the creations), but that mankind does.

Meanwhile, even if we take the literal 6 days, the Priestly account does not say that these days were not essentially accelerated time in which evolution occurred.

Again, it is your personal interpretation, not what is actually there.

How can the bible be so vague and unclear when it was 'inspired' by god? Maybe god is just sadistic, and playing with us? :) Maybe, maybe....and maybe....even if god's or gods' existance(s) is/are proven by reason to exist....who can really be sure if it is the god of a particular religion?

I have met several people that given up their faith in God as a result of studying evolutionary theory.

Evolutionary theory does not contain any ideology that relates to God, making it Godless, in much the same way that most mathamatical and chemistry, and physics theories contain no reference to God. They are all Godless, just some are more damaging to belief in God than others, and few more so than evolutionary theory.Evolution may be Godless in that definition, but it isn't anti-God. If your acquaintances gave up faith after studying evolution then I would hazard a guess (though you would have access to facts not available to me in the formation of this hypothesis) that they were either on the road to losing their faith anyway and a vital anchor or two to their faith was a fact that was shown to be in error (perhaps during the class on evolution) and cast off, or else they completely misunderstood evolution and (being of a mind to be devout in whatever they considered to be worth believing in) became devout in evolutionary theory to the exclusion of their prior belief in God.

For an example of the first, one of the facts they had been taught was that the geologic column was shown to only contain 6000 years of history. This is a vital fact to believe for certain forms of Creationism. If you are then shown information that refutes that claim then credibility in a faith that requires it would be severely dented. A couple of hits like that (quite easy in a fact-filled class on the fact-supported evolutionary theory) could take a borderline believer off the edge. Had they been members of a more moderate church, they might easily have continued in their (more flexible) faith, even if they (rather than their church) had the same original assumptions about the world...

And in the second, there's the problem (that I fall into the trap of on occasion) of what a lay-proof and scientific-proof are, and what a lay-theory and scientific-theory are. Some people (myself included) sometimes learn things 'as proven' and think (for a significant amount of time) that this means True (with a capital 'T'). Some people stick to ideas like glue and some are like post-it notes, sticking to any available surface. What we should all be are loose pieces of paper that can comfortable sit on any flat surface (sensible theory) but be ready to slide off when it's no longer flat (shown to be flawed).

Not the way it is translated in Exodus 20: 8-11 and numerous other places in the Bible, which again lends credence to the way it was translated in Gen.

...which again is completely a matter of interpretation. The wording used in Exodus is likewise open to interpretation.

Your personal view may be correct. It may not. Do not purport to be infallible.

Well, hello, my friend. :)

I do actually have scriptural logic to support homosexual marriage, though... based around the fact that what Jesus decries isn't 'homosexuality', but 'lust'. Oh sure, sometimes, you could say, the lust is between members of the same gender... but it is the 'lust' that Jesus speaks against.... be it between same genders, or opposed.

Further corroboration for this comes from the idea that we should all be castrated, if we can, (I'm not sure if the text means REALLY castrated...)... but that such is beyond most of us.

Then, you throw my good old pal, Paul, into the mix, and he says it is preferable to be married, than to be consumed by lust.

So - 'lust' is sanctioned within marriage... that is male lust AND female lust, but, not necessarily for the opposed sex... just so long as you don't stray OUTSIDE of the marital relationship...

And, thus, Paul sanctions gay marriage, as the alternative to gay lust.

Wow, you've entirely lost it haven't you? Actually reading anything else Paul says about marriage and control of the temptations is irrelevant I suppose?

How can the bible be so vague and unclear when it was 'inspired' by god? Maybe god is just sadistic, and playing with us? :) Maybe, maybe....and maybe....even if god's or gods' existance(s) is/are proven by reason to exist....who can really be sure if it is the god of a particular religion?

Maybe human beings are fallible and thus not so clear?

Maybe the God(s) of all religions are the same being seen in a different light, through the filter of humankind's imagination?

Maybe there is no correct interpretation of these things, just more correct and less correct?

Furthermore, science is grudgingly starting to admit that an Inteligent Designer (ID) was behind the creation of the universe."Science" or "Scientists"? (To be precise "Certain vocal scientists who someone with a predeliction towards ID is going to quote" as opposed to "The majority of scientists, in many different but relevant fields, who quietly analyse facts and measurements that give not one hint of Intelligent Design and who, of course, will not be counted as significant by the supporters of ID"?)

Yes it does:

Bold added by me.

If that's not what you are accusing me of, what was it?

Oh, surely, some translations give "sodomites", but I see contention over what a 'sodomite' is... since it can purely mean "those from Sodom", or it could mean "those like those from Sodom".

And, even if you decide that 'sodomite' is comparative... still, what do you compare it to? Jesus is arguably the voice of the New Testament, and his commentary seems to suggest that Sodom was punished for being unwelcoming to strangers.

So - 'sodomite' would have no sexual references at all, to Jesus.

But... going back to the Greek, we STILL find our contention over the word "Arsenokoite"... for which we have several possible translations... but no 'evidence' to support any one over the others.

Strong's Concordance gives "one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual"... but there is no SUPPORT for this translation, other than the fact that it fits what was SEEN as the probable meaning of the passage.

I attack both your use of the word "sodomite" because it is fundamentally flawed as a concept, and the translation of "Arsenokoite" as "sodomite", because it is insupportable.

Wow, you've entirely lost it haven't you? Actually reading anything else Paul says about marriage and control of the temptations is irrelevant I suppose?

Here is where I agree with you. Using selective reasoning is not sound reasoning. You can't just pick and choose.

I'd like to note, however, that Pope Benedict XIV(The new pope), who was considered the most conservative of all the candidates, stated very clearly that "The inclination of homosexuality is not in and of itself a sin". Basically, nowhere does it specifically say that Homosexual inclination is a sin. It may lead some to believe so, but it must be understood that the bible is an intricate writing, one which cannot be taken literally due to it's intricacy.

It specifically states that God created everything in existance on this earth in six days and had Adam name His creations, which by default rules out the possibility for a long evolutionary period of developing seperate species.

On the contrary... since 'adam (in Hebrew) is either a guy called Adam OR mankind collectively... and the two are interchangable... they use the same wording...

Evolution is not necessarily impossible during the lifespan of "adam"... since "adam" is still quite prolific.

Here is where I agree with you. Using selective reasoning is not sound reasoning. You can't just pick and choose.

And yet every single human being does it. The question is *how* you pick and choose.

<snip>
I attack both your use of the word "sodomite" because it is fundamentally flawed as a concept, and the translation of "Arsenokoite" as "sodomite", because it is insupportable.
Actually, the post of mine that you quoted, I proposed tha the world Homosexual was not a mistranslation of man-boy relationship as had been claimed. I only pointed out the NRSV (which normally I think is one of the better translations if you only have time for reading and not comparing) did pick a different word, but it too had not meant man-boy relationship.

Of course, but then, you are still stuck with your understanding of the ancient language and who taught it to you.

The point was, that 9 out of 10 translations said homosexuals, and the 10th said sodomites (NRSV: the one you quoted so it looked like you were saying I misquote the NRSV). But none of the translations suggested the word for man-boy relationship was used. Which in the greek, does have recorded uses outside of the two times this word was use in the New Testament.

I didn't say you misquoted anything... I argue against using the word at all, especially in that context.

I also disagree with your 'statistics'....

Looking at my personal collection:

Webster gives "nor abusers of themselves with mankind",

Weymouth gives "nor any who are guilty of unnatural crime",

World English gives "nor homosexuals",

Basic English gives "or makes a wrong use of men",

Douay Rheims gives "nor liers with mankind,"... but locates it in First Corinthians 6:10.

Young gives "nor sodomites",

Darby gives "nor who abuse themselves with men",

The Standard Version gives "nor abusers of themselves with men",

The Modern King James Version gives "nor sodomites",

while, the classic King James Version gives "nor abusers of themselves with mankind",

the French translation of Darby gives "ni ceux qui abusent d'eux-mêmes avec des hommes" (basically, 'nor those who abuse themselves with men'),

the French LSG (Louis Segond) gives "ni les infâmes", which I read as "nor those who lust".


Those are just the ones I can read with some facility. We have already looked at the Greek.

From my collection, 1 out of 12 said "homosexual", and 2 out of 12 said "Sodomite".

But then, I'm not sure what point you were trying to prove, by appealing to popularity...

But then, I'm not sure what point you were trying to prove, by appealing to popularity...

I believe the idea is to prove that, since no one has translated a word a certain way in a Biblical translation, that could not possibly have been the meaning of it. Never mind that it is a definition that has been put forth by scholars who have studied the Greek and is accepted as the probable definition by some theologians.

And what exactly do you propose that the word could mean, if not homosexual?

BTW: just re-read the post, I quoted which sources I used then, which translations said it if you're really interested, but that seems silly.

I believe the idea is to prove that, since no one has translated a word a certain way in a Biblical translation, that could not possibly have been the meaning of it. Never mind that it is a definition that has been put forth by scholars who have studied the Greek and is accepted as the probable definition by some theologians.
Your definition was that it means man-boy relationship. When clearly, you are fishing for it to mean anything other than what it says now.

And what exactly do you propose that the word could mean, if not homosexual?

BTW: just re-read the post, I quoted which sources I used then, which translations said it if you're really interested, but that seems silly.

Your definition was that it means man-boy relationship. When clearly, you are fishing for it to mean anything other than what it says now.

I really wish you would actually read my posts, instead of assuming they say things that you wish to argue with.

There have been suggestions made, but those who actually can read Greek, that the word itself specifically referred, at least at its inception, to a common practice in Roman society in which men would take young boy prostitutes. Note that this is different from an actual relationship. It is child-prostitution.

Eventually, the word may have developed to include all homosexual acts. As Grave pointed out, it is rather hard to tell, since there are no other contemporary uses of the word for comparison. At this point, those churches which felt that homosexuality was sinful would have begun to interpret it that way. This would have, of course, become tradition, much like the particular translations chosen for "Adam" or "man". What we *do* know is that there really wasn't a concept of homosexuality in those times, at least not in the way that it is currently understood. Thus, the word is unlikely to refer directly to homosexuality.

Furthermore, science is grudgingly starting to admit that an Inteligent Designer (ID) was behind the creation of the universe.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!! :D

Do you mind if I forward this to my colleagues?

I believe that evoloution is the most logical and likely reason for our existence. I think that science and religion should be able to coexist. I have written two essays on the matter for HIgher RMPS. If you don't want to read it then skip ahead to the next person. her's a couple of extracts:

However, some would argue that: “Far from challenging Christian belief, evolutionary theory actually makes belief in God more likely.” They would argue that the evolutionary theory does not, in fact, pose a challenge for religion at all. They argue that the earlier parts of the Bible (such as Genesis and Adam and Eve) should not be taken literally. As Russel Stannard explains in one article: “the early parts of the Bible were never intended as a literal account of our physical origins. The Adam and Eve account is an example of myth…”

Some would argue that the previous statement is religion’s defence against the challenges posed to it and Biblical literalism by science and the evolutionary theory. However, as Stannard goes on to explain: “Such an interpretation of early scripture is nothing new…” Indeed, early Church leaders, such as Saint Augustine, were commonly of the viewpoint that the Bible was not entirely literal and was more symbolic in its approach to events and acts of God. It was not until the Reformation in the 16th century that the literal approach to the Bible stories became prominent.

Many Christians are quite happy to agree and go along with the theory of evolution. However some are not. Creationists and other Fundamentalists would argue that the theory of evolution is just a theory (and an incorrect one at that). They argue that the Bible is the only true account of our origins; it is law. They argue that Adam and Eve and Genesis are right, while Evolution and the Big Bang theory are wrong. They believe that any archaeological and geological evidence of fossils was planted by God to test faith. Creationism is particularly prominent in America where, according to recent news, in some states (for example Kansas) they have taken their beliefs one step further and have been campaigning for Genesis and Adam and Eve to be taught in Science classes rather than Evolution and the Big Bang theory. Indeed in some, such as Tennessee, they have successfully banned the teaching of the evolutionary theory from schools and colleges. It is estimated that over 100 million Americans believe that God created the world about 10, 000 years ago over a period of six days. Some American schools have placed warning stickers on textbooks stating that evolution is “only a theory, standing alongside that of the Bible.” Some have even gone so far as to glue the offending pages together.

Creationism is particularly prominent in America where, according to recent news, in some states (for example Kansas) they have taken their beliefs one step further and have been campaigning for Genesis and Adam and Eve to be taught in Science classes rather than Evolution and the Big Bang theory. Indeed in some, such as Tennessee, they have successfully banned the teaching of the evolutionary theory from schools and colleges. It is estimated that over 100 million Americans believe that God created the world about 10, 000 years ago over a period of six days. Some American schools have placed warning stickers on textbooks stating that evolution is “only a theory, standing alongside that of the Bible.” Some have even gone so far as to glue the offending pages together.

While I agree with you in principle, this last paragraph is full of false statements. For instance, the sticker in Cobb county, the only one recently reported - which has actually now been struck down - does not explicitly mention the Bible. Most young-Earth Creationists believe the world is 6000 years old. The teaching of evolution has not been banned in Tennessee since the Scopes Monkey trials in, what?, the 30's? Kansas is not debating teaching Genesis. They wish to teach ID, which is just as much a religious idea, but is not specifically a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Isn't it an interesting fact that almost inevitablly, the cry for teaching Creationism or ID instead of Evolution is from one of the states ranked among the worst in general education level. Is it just a coincidence, you decide.

I really wish you would actually read my posts, instead of assuming they say things that you wish to argue with.

There have been suggestions made, but those who actually can read Greek, that the word itself specifically referred, at least at its inception, to a common practice in Roman society in which men would take young boy prostitutes. Note that this is different from an actual relationship. It is child-prostitution.

Eventually, the word may have developed to include all homosexual acts. As Grave pointed out, it is rather hard to tell, since there are no other contemporary uses of the word for comparison. At this point, those churches which felt that homosexuality was sinful would have begun to interpret it that way. This would have, of course, become tradition, much like the particular translations chosen for "Adam" or "man". What we *do* know is that there really wasn't a concept of homosexuality in those times, at least not in the way that it is currently understood. Thus, the word is unlikely to refer directly to homosexuality.

Actually it's very likely to refer to it. The word breaks down into "man" and "bed." But really, Paul had spoken like that before in Romans:

. NRSV:

22Claiming to be wise, they became fools; 23and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles. 24Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, 25because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. 26For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error. 28And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done. 29They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents,f 31foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32They know God’s decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die—yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them.

And no matter how you want to read it, it seem hard to re-define that as anything other than a standard homosexual condemnation. And with that in mind, I have no problem assigning the word used in Corinthians and Timothy as “homosexuals.”

Actually it's very likely to refer to it. The word breaks down into "man" and "bed." But really, Paul had spoken like that before in Romans:

Paul here speaks of "unnatural" things. That men leave their natural inclinations and go for something else. This is not the case in homosexuality. Homosexuals' natural inclinations are towards the same sex.

And no matter how you want to read it, it seem hard to re-define that as anything other than a standard homosexual condemnation.

And yet a great deal of people do exactly that. It is pretty clear that Paul is against someone doing something that is unnatural to them. Of course, the fact that homosexuality itself is not unnatural, and that an attraction to the same sex is perfectly natural to a homosexual makes it very easy to see that, by this verse, there is nothing wrong with it.

And with that in mind, I have no problem assigning the word used in Corinthians and Timothy as “homosexuals.”

And that is your interpretation. It is far from the only possible one.

Likewise, it is your personal decision to put your faith in Paul. Mine lies with God.

It specifically states that God created everything in existance on this earth in six days and had Adam name His creations, which by default rules out the possibility for a long evolutionary period of developing seperate species.
Which is of course contraindicated by just about any real world data we have

Paul here speaks of "unnatural" things. That men leave their natural inclinations and go for something else. This is not the case in homosexuality. Homosexuals' natural inclinations are towards the same sex.

How many ways can we use that analogy then? I could claim that for every urge and twisted desire I or anyone else gets, that, "it's my 'natural' state of being!" we will say, and thus it would be a sin to not do them?!?!

That would quickly led down a path better left untraveled. You follow it all you want, but I would start to question the origin of the spirit that talks to you if it suggests such things.

How many ways can we use that analogy then? I could claim that for every urge and twisted desire I or anyone else gets, that, "it's my 'natural' state of being!" we will say, and thus it would be a sin to not do them?!?!

That would quickly led down a path better left untraveled. You follow it all you want, but I would start to question the origin of the spirit that talks to you if it suggests such things.

The slippery slope idea never made sense, and it doesn't now.

What exactly is twisted about wishing to find love with another human being?

How many ways can we use that analogy then? I could claim that for every urge and twisted desire I or anyone else gets, that, "it's my 'natural' state of being!" we will say, and thus it would be a sin to not do them?!?!

That would quickly led down a path better left untraveled. You follow it all you want, but I would start to question the origin of the spirit that talks to you if it suggests such things.
Silly don’t you know slippery slope is a logical fallacy

:fluffle:

The slippery slope idea never made sense, and it doesn't now.

What exactly is twisted about wishing to find love with another human being?
What? You can't love someone without wanting to have sex with them?

How are to two exclussive? Love your Mom, Love your Parents, Love your best friend.

Every baseless sexual urge (of any variety) could be defended equally by your statement now, it's not a slippery slope, it's already there.

What? You can't love someone without wanting to have sex with them?

How are to two exclussive? Love your Mom, Love your Parents, Love your best friend.

You are using different definitions of love. (This is why sometimes I wish we all still spoke Greek). There are many different forms of love. Sex is the ultimate expression of a very specific type of love. Why should we deny that form to a select few people who aren't hurting anyone?

Every baseless sexual urge (of any variety) could be defended equally by your statement now, it's not a slippery slope, it's already there.

Incorrect.

Incorrect.

Really? Name one sexual depravity (IYO) between consenting adults, then tell me how that isn't defended by your statement of defending their 'natural' state and desire to express their love?

Well blame me for not reading back over the ....57 pages (wow), but to whoever started quoting the Bible first:

'yeah well, the bible says a lot of things...' Clancy Wiggum.

Really? Name one sexual depravity (IYO) between consenting adults, then tell me how that isn't defended by your statement of defending their 'natural' state and desire to express their love?

What are the sexual depravities between two consenting adults? I'd really like to know. :p

Sorry, but I don't buy into the idea of creationism. The evidence used is flimsy at best to support the so-called "theory". The supporters of it change their use of words in their evidence to support the so-called idea.
It used to be known as Creation, now they call it Creationist Science in a lame attempt to legitimize it.

Really? Name one sexual depravity (IYO) between consenting adults, then tell me how that isn't defended by your statement of defending their 'natural' state and desire to express their love?

Sexual depravaties and promiscuity are not born out of a desire to express love. They are the products of lust, which is not the same as love.

This is something that Paul (and, much later, C.S. Lewis) seemed to have trouble grasping. Lust and love are not the same thing - not by a long shot.

...which again is completely a matter of interpretation. The wording used in Exodus is likewise open to interpretation.

Your personal view may be correct. It may not. Do not purport to be infallible.

Didn't say it was infallible, just that the internal evidence in scripture points to a literal 6 24hour day interpretation. In fact if you read many of my posts from yesterday, you'll see that I consider myself equally capable of fallibility to any other human...

On the contrary... since 'adam (in Hebrew) is either a guy called Adam OR mankind collectively... and the two are interchangable... they use the same wording...

Evolution is not necessarily impossible during the lifespan of "adam"... since "adam" is still quite prolific.

Yes, but when you read chapters 3, 4 and 5, it is pretty clear what is being said. You'd have to be grasping at straws to place to much credence in the other interpretation.

Well, hello, my friend. :)

I do actually have scriptural logic to support homosexual marriage, though... based around the fact that what Jesus decries isn't 'homosexuality', but 'lust'. Oh sure, sometimes, you could say, the lust is between members of the same gender... but it is the 'lust' that Jesus speaks against.... be it between same genders, or opposed.

Further corroboration for this comes from the idea that we should all be castrated, if we can, (I'm not sure if the text means REALLY castrated...)... but that such is beyond most of us.

Then, you throw my good old pal, Paul, into the mix, and he says it is preferable to be married, than to be consumed by lust.

So - 'lust' is sanctioned within marriage... that is male lust AND female lust, but, not necessarily for the opposed sex... just so long as you don't stray OUTSIDE of the marital relationship...

And, thus, Paul sanctions gay marriage, as the alternative to gay lust.

But you're still missing the biblical definition of marriage. "For this reason shall a man leave his father and mother and cleave to (become inseperably connected with) his wife and the two twain shall become one flesh."

In terms of Paul, all you need do is see 1 Tim. to see that any person in good standing should be the husband of only 1 wife and never do you see in the new testiment the word eros (erotic love) used in a positive light for anything other than a male female relationship.

Further, I'll grant you that Christ was opposed to lustfulness, however, His counsel on the subject of marriage wasn't limited strictly to lustfulness. I think you know that better than most and are just looking to push a few buttons :p ;) ... Please correct me if I'm wrong...

Sexual depravaties and promiscuity are not born out of a desire to express love. They are the products of lust, which is not the same as love.

This is something that Paul (and, much later, C.S. Lewis) seemed to have trouble grasping. Lust and love are not the same thing - not by a long shot.
I agree entirely with C.S. Lewis' version of this topic, since you've already addressed that (no matter how briefly or unfairly accusing him of being stupid and not knowing the difference between love and lust) confronting what you've said now, the you essentially continue to think that there is no such thing as depravation between 'loving' consenting adults, I realize that I can't say it any better than he did (C.S. Lewis) maybe I should leave you to your humanists ideas. There is depravity, there is a real and existing right and wrong, whether we recognize it or not. It's existence does not depend on our recognition of it.

Didn't say it was infallible, just that the internal evidence in scripture points to a literal 6 24hour day interpretation. In fact if you read many of my posts from yesterday, you'll see that I consider myself equally capable of fallibility to any other human...

If you are not infallible, you cannot make this statement. Other interpretations are just as valid as yours.

By your interpretation, evidence in scripture points to a literal 24hour day interpretation. By others' interpretations, it does not.

I agree entirely with C.S. Lewis' version of this topic, since you've already addressed that (no matter how briefly or unfairly accusing him of being stupid and not knowing the difference between love and lust)

It isn't unfair in the least. He himself explicitly states that there is no difference. He states explicitly that there is no such thing as romantic love and that which we label as such is nothing more than lust. Thus, while Lewis was right about many things, he was wrong about this.

confronting what you've said now, the you essentially continue to think that there is no such thing as depravation between 'loving' consenting adults,

I challenge you to demonstrate a depravity that is, at its core, based in love.

*Waits*

What I said, very clearly in fact, is that depravity does not come from love, and is thus irrelevant to this discussion. In fact, I also very clearly said that depravity is, quite clearly, wrong.

Thank you so much for proving that you don't bother to read what I write.

There is depravity, there is a real and existing right and wrong, whether we recognize it or not. It's existence does not depend on our recognition of it.

Exactly. And this has what exactly to do with anything I have said?

Ok. I admit it. I made a vast oversimplification. Happy? It was a huge mistake. I'm considering asking this to be shut down, as it has become a clone of a few other threads.

A man and his dog lived together. They hunted, they hung out, they went for long walks together. They learned to rely on each other, to depend on each other, and they got to the point that they would do anything for the other, to please them in all things. After many years, dependable, friendship and true love, their time on earth ended.

A man and his dog lived together. They hunted, they hung out, they went for long walks together. They learned to rely on each other, to depend on each other, and they got to the point that they would do anything for the other, to please them in all things. The man began to have sex with the dog, and thought of it as his spouse. After many years, dependable, friendship and true love, their time on earth ended.

One of the two stories above is depraved, the other is not. But essentially, they are the same story, one includes sex, the other does not.

And what exactly do you propose that the word could mean, if not homosexual?

BTW: just re-read the post, I quoted which sources I used then, which translations said it if you're really interested, but that seems silly.


Your definition was that it means man-boy relationship. When clearly, you are fishing for it to mean anything other than what it says now.

Here is a conclusion... think you can jump to it from there?

The VERSE First Corinthians 6:9 DOES talk about slave boys kept for purposes of sex... but it is not the part of the verse you think it is.

"Arsenokoitai", whatever they REALLY are, are an artifact, and thus, there IS no certain meaning for the word...

However, 'Malakos' (conventionally meaning 'soft to the touch' - and often translated as 'effeminate' is the component that means 'man-boy love', as you so poetically put it.

Malakos: "of a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man".

If you actually read the sources in the native language, it would be much clearer to you, I think.

If you are not infallible, you cannot make this statement. Other interpretations are just as valid as yours.

By your interpretation, evidence in scripture points to a literal 24hour day interpretation. By others' interpretations, it does not.
Woah now, this is a totally invalid argument. To claim that an opinion (which is just that, your view based on facts and either/or a priori or a posteri reasoning) must be infallible to be taken as a valid point. The fact is, the internal evidence of Genesis does point to exactly what he said, 6 24 hour days of Creation. There is no mention in Genesis of any mechanism of evolution, nor anything like that. Taken literally in fact, there is no possibility of extinction either (see: Genesis I, II) due to the inherent wording of the material. However, even taken metaphorically there is no evidence of evolution. There just isn't anything mentioning God making any kind of blue print for life that would evolve into different branches, etc, etc. It is implicitly stated that God created such and such types of animals (birds, fish, etc), there is no mention that God "created a sea algae capable of interacting with sunlight to produce energy that would eventually mutate into an astounding variety of lifeforms). Intelligent Design doesn't have any Biblical support, it merely is a cop-out saying "we don't know how this could be so complicated naturally, so it must have supernatural origins".

No matter what your third grade teacher told you, everyone's opinions aren't worth the same. Some people make stupid interpretations, or don't bother to actually read anything/check evidence and yet they still spout their opinion. An opinion based on analysis and evidence weighs more than one that relies on heavily metaphorical thinking and a lack of clear evidence.

A man and his dog lived together. They hunted, they hung out, they went for long walks together. They learned to rely on each other, to depend on each other, and they got to the point that they would do anything for the other, to please them in all things. After many years, dependable, friendship and true love, their time on earth ended.

A man and his dog lived together. They hunted, they hung out, they went for long walks together. They learned to rely on each other, to depend on each other, and they got to the point that they would do anything for the other, to please them in all things. The man began to have sex with the dog, and thought of it as his spouse. After many years, dependable, friendship and true love, their time on earth ended.

One of the two stories above is depraved, the other is not. But essentially, they are the same story, one includes sex, the other does not.

That was really sad. Why did the dog have to die in both stories? But all dogs still go to heaven? Right!?

That was really sad. Why did the dog have to die in both stories? But all dogs still go to heaven? Right!?

:D sure enough lol

personally I think God was created for those whom have no hope in their lives. If one can believe in himself then God has no purpose. Science (although supressed at the begining because of the Church) has explained the evolution of man. Anyway, the hole point of religion is to give one ethics and values that should have been taught by your parents! I studied both in college and wrestled with religion because I have seen what it can do (I'm a soldier) to people. (Any questions look at the Balklans conflict 88-99, were both Christian and Muslims slaughtered each other.) If one clears their heads and debates the science fact from the religious theories, one will see that evolutionism and a scientific approach on how we veiw the world will make it a better place. Peace out. :)

Yes, but when you read chapters 3, 4 and 5, it is pretty clear what is being said. You'd have to be grasping at straws to place to much credence in the other interpretation.

Only if you read it ABSOLUTELY literally.

As I stated elsewhere... it MIGHT have been in this thread... the 'marriage' of Adam and Eve is an allegory. Look at the Hebrew.

In Genesis 2:7, God unites the dust with the breath of life.... in the Hebrew, he unites ['adam] with [Chay].

In Genesis 3:20, we discover that Adam has called his wife "Eve", "because she was the mother of all living" - which doesn't make sense at this point, since she is NOT a mother yet...

But, anyway - look at the Hebrew - this couple we have just seen 'married' (In Genesis 2:24) are Adam and Eve, or ['adam] and [Chavvah].

The ground (the earth, made of clay, remember)... and Chavvah - the life or living.

It's just a retelling of the earlier story - the union of 'breath of life' and the inanimate clay - the spirit and the flesh.

I wrote a fucking 4 page essay on it. I needed 10 pages...

No matter what your third grade teacher told you, everyone's opinions aren't worth the same. Some people make stupid interpretations, or don't bother to actually read anything/check evidence and yet they still spout their opinion. An opinion based on analysis and evidence weighs more than one that relies on heavily metaphorical thinking and a lack of clear evidence.

Flawed logic.

The carefully researched opinion COULD still be wrong, while the unresearched opinion COULD be a lucky guess.

Example: You flip a coin 10 times. After 9 flips you have 4 times with heads up, and 5 times with tails up.

Research suggests that the most likely result for the next flip will be heads up - and this IS the intuitive answer.

However, of course - the probability is ACTUALLY totally unaffected... there is still a 50:50 chance, either way.

Now - you call the coin based on the research, and you call heads.

While it's in the air, I make a guess that it will land tails-up again, even though it is counter-intuitive, and against the scope of the research.

The coin hits the floor. Tails up. The opinion based on a lucky guess, turned out to be more 'reliable' and more 'valid' than the carefully researched opinion.

A man and his dog lived together. They hunted, they hung out, they went for long walks together. They learned to rely on each other, to depend on each other, and they got to the point that they would do anything for the other, to please them in all things. After many years, dependable, friendship and true love, their time on earth ended.

A man and his dog lived together. They hunted, they hung out, they went for long walks together. They learned to rely on each other, to depend on each other, and they got to the point that they would do anything for the other, to please them in all things. The man began to have sex with the dog, and thought of it as his spouse. After many years, dependable, friendship and true love, their time on earth ended.

One of the two stories above is depraved, the other is not. But essentially, they are the same story, one includes sex, the other does not.

which part of 'consenting adults' dont you understand?

But you're still missing the biblical definition of marriage. "For this reason shall a man leave his father and mother and cleave to (become inseperably connected with) his wife and the two twain shall become one flesh."

In terms of Paul, all you need do is see 1 Tim. to see that any person in good standing should be the husband of only 1 wife and never do you see in the new testiment the word eros (erotic love) used in a positive light for anything other than a male female relationship.

Further, I'll grant you that Christ was opposed to lustfulness, however, His counsel on the subject of marriage wasn't limited strictly to lustfulness. I think you know that better than most and are just looking to push a few buttons :p ;) ... Please correct me if I'm wrong...

I could argue that Solomon wasn't the most faithful of husbands, or that Jesus plans a homosexual/heterosexual form of polygamy on his return...

You know me well enough to know I rarely do anything JUST to push buttons. The fact is - there IS scope for an argument to be made based on scripture, and nothing in scripture that expressly forbids it.

This creates, for me, a flawed premise.... you cannot claim that homosexual marriage is 'wrong' JUST because only heterosexual marriage is described positively in scripture.

You are, effectively, basing an argument on the assumption that: anything not EXPRESSLY condoned is EXPRESSLY condemned.

In which case - apart from the almost infinite variety of other things... reading the Bible in English is a sin, surely?

A man and his dog lived together. They hunted, they hung out, they went for long walks together. They learned to rely on each other, to depend on each other, and they got to the point that they would do anything for the other, to please them in all things. After many years, dependable, friendship and true love, their time on earth ended.

A man and his dog lived together. They hunted, they hung out, they went for long walks together. They learned to rely on each other, to depend on each other, and they got to the point that they would do anything for the other, to please them in all things. The man began to have sex with the dog, and thought of it as his spouse. After many years, dependable, friendship and true love, their time on earth ended.

One of the two stories above is depraved, the other is not. But essentially, they are the same story, one includes sex, the other does not.

These are not the same story.

One is about a platonic love with no complications, the other is about an 'erotic' love.

You must realise that the two are different... and that, although love often acheives expression in sex, sex does not, therefore, equate to love.

It is possible to love, with no trace of sex... the way I love my daughter, obviously.

It is possible to have sex, with no trace of love... the way a prostitute might earn her dollar, for example.

It is also possible to have love WITH sex - but that is not ONE love-artifact, it is the combination of love AND lust.

Also - as I beleive someone else might have already commented... a dog is NOT a consenting adult.

which part of 'consenting adults' dont you understand?
In dog years the dog was an adult... and consented, whats your point?

In dog years the dog was an adult... and consented, whats your point?

'consenting adults' refers to humans. A dog cannot give consent as there is not way of telling if it has and an adult means a human over the age of 18 in most countries.

'consenting adults' refers to humans. A dog cannot give consent as there is not way of telling if it has and an adult means a human over the age of 18 in most countries.
So you guys are suggesting that a man, on his own, in his own house, and consenting with himself can do something wrong sexually? Even when he harms no other person? He can be depraved and choose to do something that shouldn't be done.

Why then do you assume that two men are somehow 'better' than the one man alone, in that they can choose to do whatever they want but he cannot (so long as no dogs are involved apparently?).

The fact is, the internal evidence of Genesis does point to exactly what he said, 6 24 hour days of Creation.
Once again, we continue with the long storied tradition of "A sentence that starts with 'The fact is...' is probably wrong." The Pope says you're wrong. That Nazi (former) is all about the Big Bang and Evolution. Can the divinely inspired leader of 1.2 billion odd people be wrong... about the foundations of Christianity?

So you guys are suggesting that a man, on his own, in his own house, and consenting with himself can do something wrong sexually? Even when he harms no other person? He can be depraved and choose to do something that shouldn't be done.

Why then do you assume that two men are somehow 'better' than the one man alone, in that they can choose to do whatever they want but he cannot (so long as no dogs are involved apparently?).

I still dont know what you're on about. What are these depraved acts you're talking about? I cant think of anything that two (or however many) consenting adults should be banned from doing together as long as it doesnt hurt anyone.

In dog years the dog was an adult... and consented, whats your point?
I'm starting to see how the hardcore Christians get into trouble. Wow.

In dog years the dog was an adult... and consented, whats your point?

Dogs do not, you may be surprised to discover, have the same capacity to rationalise, etc. as the average human adult.

Hence, dogs can NOT consent to a sexual relationship.

This is, of course, the same reason why the 'slippery slope' argument about "gay-marriage-would-lead-to-people-marrying-babies" is also fatally flawed... sinc children cannot 'consent' either.

An act between a consenting adult, and another entity which is NOT a consenting adult is outside the scope of this (hijacked) debate.

We are discussing why consenting adults should have to match the morality of one leftover Doomsday Cult.

You all object to a man having sex with his dog. Even if the dog doesn't care (assume a bitch in heat). What if its a male dog and female owner?


As to consenting adults. There are various types of consenting adults, like the wife of low self esteem, who's spent her life being minimilized by her father and then her husband, whom through years of pressure has talked her into permitting him to bring his 'friends' home for her to submit to. It might takes months, it might take years, but someday, in some twisted torment, she decides that she actually likes this new addiction.

But we are worried about the dog?

What if the wife were another man?

What does it mean to consent? What if you feel ashamed afterwards? When is it not right to talk someone into consenting?

I say there are lines that sholdn't be crossed. You all agree (you said the man can't have sex with a dog, who can neither object nor feel bad afterwards), but you and I draw the lines of what is acceptable and what is not in different places. "Consenting" may mean nothing more than not objecting too loudly to some people.

You all object to a man having sex with his dog. Even if the dog doesn't care (assume a bitch in heat). What if its a male dog and female owner?


As to consenting adults. There are various types of consenting adults, like the wife of low self esteem, who's spent her life being minimilized by her father and then her husband, whom through years of pressure has talked her into permitting him to bring his 'friends' home for her to submit to. It might takes months, it might take years, but someday, in some twisted torment, she decides that she actually likes this new addiction.

But we are worried about the dog?

What if the wife were another man?

What does it mean to consent? What if you feel ashamed afterwards? When is it not right to talk someone into consenting?

I say there are lines that sholdn't be crossed. You all agree (you said the man can't have sex with a dog, who can neither object nor feel bad afterwards), but you and I draw the lines of what is acceptable and what is not in different places. "Consenting" may mean nothing more than not objecting too loudly to some people.

No - we said the man cannot have consensual sex with the dog. Our law requires consent for the act of intercourse - otherwise it is a violation.

A dog cannot consent, neither can a child.

I really wish I wasn't having to explain this to someone... it makes me worry about what kinds of people are out there.

The woman who is pressured is coerced... her consent is a matter for the courts to decide, perhaps... if it turns out she wasn't capable of making her own decisions.

If she WAS capable of making her own decisions, coercion is a means to consent, and once there is consent, it is a 'willing' act... regardless of the TRUE feelings of those involved.

I wonder why you put the 'she likes the idea' bit in... trying to give us a happy ending? Or are you implying that coercion is a valid means to acheive satisfactory romantic results.... I hope not.

The point is - consenting adults should be allowed to do as they please with other consenting adults... provided noone else has to suffer for it.

Your scenarios of coercion-raped wives, and the many ways to seduce a dog, are not dealing with that issue at all.... although your constant insistence is making me a little perturbed.

The beginning of the world or life cannot be considered science because it is nether observable or repeatable which are criteria for science. That said, while I believe in micro evolution (aka natural selection) I cannot acknowledge Macro evolution for it contradicts a proven law. That is the law of entropy that states that things tend toward chaos. Macro evolution maintains the opposite.

Grave_n_idle

What idealistic world do you live in? I am not talking about what is legal, but if there is a right and wrong. If there is, then we can discuss where it belongs, where the line should be drawn.

You wondered why I'm making up the dog scenario? Just do a google search for bestiality, you'll find plenty of info there. Then do a google search for consenting adult sex, you'll find plenty too. Then do a google search about gay sexual relationships...

I suggest that the magical 'consenting' rule that you people keep espousing about is not a line in and of itself. I suggest that there is a right and wrong, and even people who don't admit it, have a line. You can kill your dog by taking it to the humane society, but you can't have sex with it? You do have a line.

As to coercion, what should we do? Give everyone a detailed psychoanalyses before having consenting sex with them? That's absurd, heterosexual or homosexual, people will have sex with anyone that will let them, consenting is not a moral line, only a legal one.

That was my point.

What idealistic world do you live in? I am not talking about what is legal, but if there is a right and wrong. If there is, then we can discuss where it belongs, where the line should be drawn.

You wondered why I'm making up the dog scenario? Just do a google search for bestiality, you'll find plenty of info there. Then do a google search for consenting adult sex, you'll find plenty too. Then do a google search about gay sexual relationships...

I suggest that the magical 'consenting' rule that you people keep esousing about not a line itself. I suggest that there is a right and wrong, and even people who don't admit it, have a line. You can kill your dog by taking it to the humane society, but you can't have sex with it? You do have a line.

As to coercian, what should we do? Give everyone a detailed psycoanalyses before having consenting sex with them? That's absurd, hetrosexual or homosexual, people will have sex with anyone that will let them, consenting is not a moral line, only a legal one.

That was my point.

I am finding this disturbing... you want me to refute your arguments, by obtaining my evidence through a process of trawling through bestiality porn websites?

Doesn't move me, I'm afraid.

I am of the old school, that believes that sex is something consenting persons do with one another.

If they are both persons, and one DOES NOT consent, then it is rape. It's that simple.

If they are both lifeforms, but NOT both persons, the act, while 'sexual', is not 'sex', since consent would be impossible - and I do not consider it worthy of debating within the confines of sex-relations.

The same holds true for interference with minors.

If the act requires a consenting adult, and a piece of equipment, then consent is irrelevent, since only one entity is involved.

Oh - and before you ask, no, a corpse cannot give consent, either.

We all have our 'lines' that we will and won't cross. What is your point?

You honestly believe that people will have sex with 'anyone that wil let them'? Just what exactly ARE you?

I certainly don't fit that profile, and I don't think I've EVER met anyone that did...

Consenting is not about morals or laws, it is about human freedoms, and inhuman acts.

You draw your lines. And other people will object to your lines. What makes your lines more valid than theirs is? What if they say consenting adults is at age 30? What if it's 14?

Someone draws lines, there will always be someone that objects.

Scripturally, the lines for where sex should exist was only after marriage, a man and his wife (a woman).

You can object to that line all you want and try to pretend that those lines can be moved, if your want. But deep down, you know there is a truth in the fact that since there are lines at all, you are not likely to be the person that gets to draw where they belong.

You draw your lines. And other people will object to your lines. What makes your lines more valid than theirs is? What if they say consenting adults is at age 30? What if it's 14?

Someone draws lines, there will always be someone that objects.

Scripturally, the lines for where sex should exist was only after marriage, a man and his wife (a woman).

You can object to that line all you want and try to pretend that those lines can be moved, if your want. But deep down, you know there is a truth in the fact that since there are lines at all, you are not likely to be the person that gets to draw where they belong.
Not that i care to interfere with your discourrse w/Grave, but your last line needs to be thought out a little more. You are implying w/your "deep down" line that a person only discovers lines as they've been laid out for them and that a person isn't really doing anything of their own volition and soverignty. Too bad that your assumption is so broad and assuming ... you'd be better off implying that it's easy to find lines of varying degrees with varying peoples but you still would be generalizing. You indeed did as much assuming that Grave has something "deep down" that hasn't been consciously dealt with.

You draw your lines. And other people will object to your lines. What makes your lines more valid than theirs is? What if they say consenting adults is at age 30? What if it's 14?

Someone draws lines, there will always be someone that objects.

Scripturally, the lines for where sex should exist was only after marriage, a man and his wife (a woman).

You can object to that line all you want and try to pretend that those lines can be moved, if your want. But deep down, you know there is a truth in the fact that since there are lines at all, you are not likely to be the person that gets to draw where they belong.
Law dictates that the age of majority (18), within a few years either way, is when a person is able to consent to sexual activity with another person. There is, of course, an exemption for people under 18 (kids will be kids) in this.


Your scripture is just as well founded as anyone's guess.

The beginning of the world or life cannot be considered science because it is nether observable or repeatable which are criteria for science. That said, while I believe in micro evolution (aka natural selection) I cannot acknowledge Macro evolution for it contradicts a proven law. That is the law of entropy that states that things tend toward chaos. Macro evolution maintains the opposite.
First and foremost, you should get your Thermodynamics from a textbook, not a Christian website. You'll also be happy to know that astronomy, cosmology, physics, chemistry, biology and the Pope all disagree with you. Which is fortunate, because your life depends on the industrial properties of many of these revealed truths.

When you can pray to your heavenly father, and he'll magic you a steam engine, then you can get your thermodynamics from a Christian website.

Until then, you'll be happy to know that a Nobel prize was granted for a paper proving that thermodynamics all but demands a rich diversity of life. In a fabulous twist of irony, this paper is frequently cited by "Creationists" as scientific proof of an argument the paper totally destroys. So to sum up. I could either choose to be on the intellectual side of a Nobel Prize winning science, or a group of people so mentally impoverished, they weren't able to understand a paper. Choices.....

I'll never understand why it's an eiter/or argument.

Personally, I believe that God set the universe into motion with all it's scientific laws. Who says God didn't use evolution as a mechanism for creation?

Sure, this was posted way at the beginning of the thread, but I agree. I believe religion and science co-exist, and I have never understood why anybody would have to believe strictly one way or the other.

*points to Texpunditistan*
Ive studied both and think theres good arguements for either side.
I fail to see why God couldnt just have said:
"Let there be a small chimp-like creature that will one day evolve the use of a thumb, out comepete all other small, chimp-like creatures and eventualy develope higher intelligence, construct buildings and so on!

I think there no evidence god even exist's. Is it that hard to believe the universe started with the big bang and earth is just the product of science. Were is the proof god has done anything, besides facts like the divine proportions and such but even those could be products of the theory that life is written into the natural flow of the universe. My piont being hear is i think god was created by the human mind. Not critisizing any religious people hear but the facts just piont towards what im saying. If you can get god to come and tell me im wrong ill be happy to become a creationist and stop being an athiest but i doubt that will ever happen so intill that time i think everybody who beleives in creationism is completely blind to the facts of the universe. Were the hell is your god now.

Why do you debate over such issues when we are no longer in the past! The present is at hand and should be cared for. There is much more to worry about than creationism and all this. Don't you see? You sit here now and toil with the issue until you're all hyped up about who's right and what-not.

To the 'scientific' members of this conversation:

So there are bones that look similar to ours, but not quite or there are remnants of a species that looks similar to one that already existed. Couldn't it have been a whole different species? Don't a lot of birds look a like in structure but are actually different? Do you truly think that our eldest forefathers were fish and then primates? Do you want to be a furry primate or something? *sighs* I for one would rather not think that we are related to fish.

To the members whom I lean towards in favor:

Yes, I think God created the planet. I also think that if the science crazy evolutionists need proof, they can go to the Bible even if it means nothing to them, or listen to what I said above. No, I don't base my argument on no fact, I have proof, but I'm unsure whether anyone would care to listen.

Why do you debate over such issues when we are no longer in the past! The present is at hand and should be cared for. There is much more to worry about than creationism and all this. Don't you see? You sit here now and toil with the issue until you're all hyped up about who's right and what-not.

To the 'scientific' members of this conversation:

So there are bones that look similar to ours, but not quite or there are remnants of a species that looks similar to one that already existed. Couldn't it have been a whole different species? Don't a lot of birds look a like in structure but are actually different? Do you truly think that our eldest forefathers were fish and then primates? Do you want to be a furry primate or something? *sighs* I for one would rather not think that we are related to fish.

To the members whom I lean towards in favor:

Yes, I think God created the planet. I also think that if the science crazy evolutionists need proof, they can go to the Bible even if it means nothing to them, or listen to what I said above. No, I don't base my argument on no fact, I have proof, but I'm unsure whether anyone would care to listen.
Take biology. An advanced biology course. You'll learn why we need evolution soon enough.

I think there no evidence god even exist's. Is it that hard to believe the universe started with the big bang and earth is just the product of science. Were is the proof god has done anything, besides facts like the divine proportions and such but even those could be products of the theory that life is written into the natural flow of the universe. My piont being hear is i think god was created by the human mind. Not critisizing any religious people hear but the facts just piont towards what im saying. If you can get god to come and tell me im wrong ill be happy to become a creationist and stop being an athiest but i doubt that will ever happen so intill that time i think everybody who beleives in creationism is completely blind to the facts of the universe. Were the hell is your god now.

God moves in ways that you don't always see and with an attitude like that, I can't blame Him, but I am not the one to judge. In this conversation, I prefer that you base your opinions on true fact. There is much evidence that ignorant eyes cannot see. Don't ypu realize how crazy a 'big bang' sounds? Oh, so water just HAPPENED to be there and we just HAPPENED to form and the alignments of the planets just HAPPENED? There's more to life than sitting around and waiting to die. I refuse to believe that. That would mean, when your life ends, it ends. There is nothing left. Why would you follow some belief that sounds like the end of life on Earth is a dark, bottomless pitt of death? What is your purpose for living if you think that way?

Why do you debate over such issues when we are no longer in the past! The present is at hand and should be cared for. There is much more to worry about than creationism and all this. Don't you see? You sit here now and toil with the issue until you're all hyped up about who's right and what-not.

To the 'scientific' members of this conversation:

So there are bones that look similar to ours, but not quite or there are remnants of a species that looks similar to one that already existed. Couldn't it have been a whole different species? Don't a lot of birds look a like in structure but are actually different? Do you truly think that our eldest forefathers were fish and then primates? Do you want to be a furry primate or something? *sighs* I for one would rather not think that we are related to fish.

To the members whom I lean towards in favor:

Yes, I think God created the planet. I also think that if the science crazy evolutionists need proof, they can go to the Bible even if it means nothing to them, or listen to what I said above. No, I don't base my argument on no fact, I have proof, but I'm unsure whether anyone would care to listen.


Fact does not care what you want to think

The answer will never be revealed in our lifetime - simply because nobody has seen it, nobody can recreate it, and the argument will simply go on and on and on and on with no ends...

The religion of Christianity is not based on creationism.
The sciences of Geology and Biology are not based on evolution.

God moves in ways that you don't always see and with an attitude like that, I can't blame Him, but I am not the one to judge. In this conversation, I prefer that you base your opinions on true fact. There is much evidence that ignorant eyes cannot see. Don't ypu realize how crazy a 'big bang' sounds? Oh, so water just HAPPENED to be there and we just HAPPENED to form and the alignments of the planets just HAPPENED? There's more to life than sitting around and waiting to die. I refuse to believe that. That would mean, when your life ends, it ends. There is nothing left. Why would you follow some belief that sounds like the end of life on Earth is a dark, bottomless pitt of death? What is your purpose for living if you think that way?
If you need a big man in the sky to make your life have meaning, you're a very sad person.

That would mean, when your life ends, it ends. There is nothing left. Why would you follow some belief that sounds like the end of life on Earth is a dark, bottomless pitt of death? What is your purpose for living if you think that way?
Ah. So that's it. What a small god. I'll tell you what's left, the legacy one leaves. In great works, small kindnesses, lessons learned, follies avoided, and wounds bound. The sum of good or evil worked over a person's one shot at life.

A good example: It's pretty probable that our species future is off this rock. If that's possible, and it probably is, most of the humans who ever live will be born off this rock. The only thing any of them will remember, from this comparitively neolithic period in which we live, are those who took those first steps towards their future. Neil Armstrong, in the fullness of time, will probably be more famous than Jesus Christ. So suck on that.

If you need a big man in the sky to make your life have meaning, you're a very sad person.

Not true. Without God, there is NO purpose in life. See "Purpose-Driven Life" by Rick Warren.

Not true. Without God, there is NO purpose in life. See "Purpose-Driven Life" by Rick Warren.
Oh.


Sorry, I must have been faking my life for the past 10 or so years. I'll ensure to rectify my own purpose.

Ah. So that's it. What a small god. I'll tell you what's left, the legacy one leaves. In great works, small kindnesses, lessons learned, follies avoided, and wounds bound. The sum of good or evil worked over a person's one shot at life.

A good example: It's pretty probable that our species future is off this rock. If that's possible, and it probably is, most of the humans who ever live will be born off this rock. The only thing any of them will remember, from this comparitively neolithic period in which we live, are those who took those first steps towards their future. Neil Armstrong, in the fullness of time, will probably be more famous than Jesus Christ. So suck on that.

Why would they remember Neil Armstrong? Sure, I like him, but that won't help him much. Yes, we might remember the first person to sail around the world, or across the atlantic, or across the Pacific, but we certainly don't remember the first person to sit in and test the boats to make sure they floated.

With that in mind, people have been saying Jesus would be forgotten since two minutes after his first public speech.

Oh.


Sorry, I must have been faking my life for the past 10 or so years. I'll ensure to rectify my own purpose.

Let's say that we have common purposes, like, raising a family.

But Christians have an additional purpose - to bring more people to God. To us, this is the most important purpose.

I might have used to strong a tone in the previous post. Please forgive me. Muahahahahahaha.

Let's say that we have common purposes, like, raising a family.

But Christians have an additional purpose - to bring more people to God. To us, this is the most important purpose.

I might have used to strong a tone in the previous post. Please forgive me. Muahahahahahaha.
So, you just admitted that you have no argument. Cheers.

Oh.
Sorry, I must have been faking my life for the past 10 or so years. I'll ensure to rectify my own purpose.

Try the book of Ecclesiastes, then come back here and tell us about your meaningful life... ;)

Try the book of Ecclesiastes, then come back here and tell us about your meaningful life... ;)
No.


:)


Sorry, I don't need a 2000 year old book to tell me how to live my life. I'm doing well enough as is, kthxbi.


(Oh, and I have read it. Nice stories. Nothing much else besides, and trying to take more into it besides the fact that they are stories is wrong)

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA620.html

No.


:)


Sorry, I don't need a 2000 year old book to tell me how to live my life. I'm doing well enough as is, kthxbi.


(Oh, and I have read it. Nice stories. Nothing much else besides, and trying to take more into it besides the fact that they are stories is wrong)

At least the first part was honest. The second part was either a lie or a mistake. The book of Ecclesiastes is not a story, it's a thesis about finding the meaning of life. I like it, Eat Drink and Be Merry pretty much sums it up. Everything else is meaningless dust blowing in the wind…So you might as well thank God and enjoy it.

At least the first part was honest. The second part was either a lie or a mistake. The book of Ecclesiastes is not a story, it's a thesis about finding the meaning of life. I like it, Eat Drink and Be Merry pretty much sums it up. Everything else is meaningless dust blowing in the wind…So you might as well thank God and enjoy it.
The bible as a whole. It's one big story, and is meant to be taken as such. I find it amazing that people take the literal meaning of each word of a person who taught in parables.

Why would they remember Neil Armstrong? Sure, I like him, but that won't help him much. Yes, we might remember the first person to sail around the world, or across the atlantic, or across the Pacific, but we certainly don't remember the first person to sit in and test the boats to make sure they floated.

With that in mind, people have been saying Jesus would be forgotten since two minutes after his first public speech.
He was the first person to get off the rock. That's the only thing that will be collectively important to the people in the far flung future. The people in that chain, and he's first. Earth's oceans will have the relevance of Greek geography.

Get over your persecution complex. If you people insist on staying up on the cross, at least have the decency to die.

He was the first person to get off the rock. That's the only thing that will be collectively important to the people in the far flung future. The people in that chain, and he's first. Earth's oceans will have the relevance of Greek geography.

Get over your persecution complex. If you people insist on staying up on the cross, at least have the decency to die.

Actually... the first man in space was Yuri Gagarin. Neil Armstrong, if I remember correctly, was the first man on the moon.

But, your point is valid.

What is there to study about creationism? :confused: Creationism is just a myth that only the unenlightned class belives in.

What is there to study about creationism? :confused: Creationism is just a myth that only the unenlightned class belives in.

Ya know, insulting the other side because they haven't seen the evidence does not help the evolutionist's cause one bit.

I know this is a simplimication, so please include details in your post. I personally have studied evolution, believe in it and think that, although you have all rights to study it, it should be left out of the science classroom as creationism is not a science. I believe it is enough to put the disclaimer "Although we have lots of evidence for this and it is the most commonly accepted by the scientific community you have every right to believe whatever you want. This is a scientific explination of our existence and creationism is purely based on your personal faith."
A group of scientists (both "religious" and not) have studied the facts in the open without any interference from hypothesis or faiths and have come to a solution that can not be denied. There is evidence of evolution but only within a species, refered to as micro-evolution, changes from species to species have no real evidence but must be taken on FAITH in the hypothesis. The way it breaks right down is that Darwinism is nothing more than those seeking an "alternative" to religion by forming their own religion and making themselves believe that it is science not a faith. Many scientist now-a-days have lost their way by creating a hypothesis and find "facts" to prove it and excluding all else. This applies to ALOT more than just "religion". Feel free to comment on this but don't expect a response since I am only on here maybe once a week.

A group of scientists (both "religious" and not) have studied the facts in the open without any interference from hypothesis or faiths and have come to a solution that can not be denied. There is evidence of evolution but only within a species, refered to as micro-evolution, changes from species to species have no real evidence but must be taken on FAITH in the hypothesis. The way it breaks right down is that Darwinism is nothing more than those seeking an "alternative" to religion by forming their own religion and making themselves believe that it is science not a faith. Many scientist now-a-days have lost their way by creating a hypothesis and find "facts" to prove it and excluding all else. This applies to ALOT more than just "religion". Feel free to comment on this but don't expect a response since I am only on here maybe once a week.

Nope, you're wrong.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html

No scientists ever profess evolution as fully correct. It is and always has been a theory. The vast amount of evidence, biologic, geologic, chemist, and otherwise, however, supports the basic tenets of evolution.

So, it's like saying heliocentrism is a theory. Well, it is, but the vast amount of evidence shows it to be the case.

Nope, you're wrong.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html

No scientists ever professes evolution as fully correct. It is and always has been a theory. The vast amount of evidence, biologic, geologic, chemist, and otherwise, however, supports the basic tenets of evolution.

So, it's like saying heliocentrism is a theory. Well, it is, but the vast amount of evidence shows it to be the case.
You know, I used the word micro and macro evolution in this thread a few dasy back, and had to stinking pull out a dictionary to prove they were real words... What irony to see that they are used again by the other side. :p

Microevolution has been observed and is taken for granted even by creationists. And because there is no known barrier to large change and because we can expect small changes to accumulate into large changes, microevolution implies macroevolution. Small changes to developmental genes or their regulation can cause relatively large changes in the adult organism (Shapiro et al. 2004).


By the way, that's not proof, that's thesis. That's a prediction, doesn't actually counter the statement against it other than to point out that it disagrees.

You know, I used the word micro and macro evolution in this thread a few dasy back, and had to stinking pull out a dictionary to prove they were real words... What irony to see that they are used again by the other side. :p

LOL, well, anybody who doesn't know what microevolution and macroevolution means shouldn't be arguing on either side. :p


However, you should know that using the biological definitions, macroevolution HAS been observed. In this case it's called speciation, or the evolution of one species in to another.

LOL, well, anybody who doesn't know what microevolution and macroevolution means shouldn't be arguing on either side. :p


However, you should know that the using the biological definitions, macroevolution HAS been observed. In this case it's called speciation, or the evolution of one species in to another.
The real problem with using that kind of inter-species examples to show a supposed macro-evolution development is that the same argument will be turned by humans against each other.

"Your race has been separated long enough to be different species now etc., etc.," Much like the tigers in Asia have been sub-divided into supposed 'species.' when really, there is just one tiger. Like the bald eagle, just because eagles in Alaska are 30% bigger than the eagles in Florida, it doesn't prove that they are different species. I say they are different breeds.

The real problem with using that kind of inter-species examples to show a supposed macro-evolution development is that the same argument will be turned by humans against each other.

"Your race has been separated long enough to be different species now etc., etc.," Much like the tigers in Asia have been sub-divided into supposed 'species.' when really, there is just one tiger. Like the bald eagle, just because eagles in Alaska are 30% bigger than the eagles in Florida, it doesn't prove that they are different species. I say they are different breeds.

Biologists would disagree with you. There is a biological definition of species, and here is an example of speciation as pertaining to that definition.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

Also, http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA002.html

By the way, that's not proof, that's thesis. That's a prediction, doesn't actually counter the statement against it other than to point out that it disagrees.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902_2.html

Biologists would disagree with you. There is a biological definition of species, and here is an example of speciation as pertaining to that definition.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html Oops, there's that link again, telling us that there is fifty types of deer mice in north america proving the existence of macro-evolution. :gundge: We might as well start holding our breath because dogs will be breeding with cats any day now... Of course I'm exagerating the nonsense, but so is that link exagerating the importance of discovering that greenish warblers (Phylloscopus trochiloides), around the Himalayas are displaying behavioral and genetic characteristics that change gradually from region to region that they are found in.

Oops, there's that link again, telling us that there is fifty types of deer mice in north america proving the existence of macro-evolution. :gundge: We might as well start holding our breath because dogs will be breeding with cats any day now... Of course I'm exagerating the nonsense, but so is that link exagerating the importance of discovering that greenish warblers (Phylloscopus trochiloides), around the Himalayas are displaying behavioral and genetic characteristics that change gradually from region to region that they are found in.

What's being exaggerated? That's speciation in action.

The point of the link is to show that speciation has occured within the past 50 to 100 years, as well as to show the evidence that it is not only still occuring, but occured in the past.

And besides, there is other evidence for macroevolution. It is called the fossil record.

What's being exaggerated? That's speciation in action.

The point of the link is to show that speciation has occured within the past 50 to 100 years, as well as to show the evidence that it is not only still occuring, but occured in the past.

And besides, there is other evidence for macroevolution. It is called the fossil record.

Nah, that's not macro-evolution, that's micro. It's a species dividing itself into regional breeds. The samething happens with humans, but we are all still human. Chinese culture, african cultures, American culture, we are all dividing ourselves, but we are all still human.

If someone told me that people sometimes have a hard time producing children and they have to go to doctors to get fertility help, I wouldn't be surprised at all. So why do we then say that two deer mice that can't breed are suddenly different species?

As to the fossil record, sure, we see big changes in species, like the horse going from a twenty pound dog size to a moose sized creature, but it was always a horse, never a pig nor a deer.

Nah, that's not macro-evolution, that's micro. It's a species dividing itself into regional breeds. The samething happens with humans, but we are all still human. Chinese culture, african cultures, American culture, we are all dividing ourselves, but we are all still human.

If someone told me that people sometimes have a hard time producing children and they have to go to doctors to get fertility help, I wouldn't be surprised at all. So why do we then say that two deer mice that can't breed are suddenly different species?

As to the fossil record, sure, we see big changes in species, like the horse going from a twenty pound dog size to a moose sized creature, but it was always a horse, never a pig nor a deer.

Now you're redefining the term macroevolution to fit your logic. Did you do the research? How do you know they're the 'same species'? And what do you propose is stopping microevolution from building on itself until it is your definition of macroevolution?

As to the fossil record, you are mistaken. Nobody ever said a horse changed in to a 'pig' or 'deer'.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC216_2.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

Now you're redefining the term macroevolution to fit your logic. Did you do the research? How do you know they're the 'same species'? And what do you propose is stopping microevolution from building on itself until it is your definition of macroevolution?

As to the fossil record, you are mistaken. Nobody ever said a horse changed in to a 'pig' or 'deer'.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC216_2.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
No, not intentionally changing the meaning of macro-evolution. But pointing out that in the long run, according the theory, the horse should have been, at some time in history, something other than a horse, but that we can't show that.

We can show that a species of sparrows, spread over the continents, will sing different songs, but we can't show that they will ever be anything other than sparrows, not matter how much micro-evolution takes place.

Macro-evolution is still a prediction.

No, not intentionally changing the meaning of macro-evolution. But pointing out that in the long run, according the theory, the horse should have been, at some time in history, something other than a horse, but that we can't show that.

We can show that a species of sparrows, spread over the continents, will sing different songs, but we can't show that they will ever be anything other than sparrows, not matter how much micro-evolution takes place.

Macro-evolution is still a prediction.

Excuse me? I just gave plenty of evidence pertaining to the fossil record (see bold link). This shows evidence for micro-, macro-, and even supermacroevolution!

Also, I have seen nothing that says we 'haven't found evidence' that a horse came from another 'type' of animal. Give me a link, or evidence, rather than just constantly repeating misconceptions.

Regarding the horse, if as you suggest there is not much or no evidence saying horses came from different animals, I would like you to have a look here (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200_1.html).


You want to see all the misconceptions creationists have about transitional fossils?

Go here (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CC200) and find the section CC200 through CC251.

Excuse me? I just gave plenty of evidence pertaining to the fossil record (see bold link). This shows evidence for micro-, macro-, and even supermacroevolution!

Also, I have seen nothing that says we 'haven't found evidence' that a horse came from another 'type' of animal. Give me a link, or evidence, rather than just constantly repeating misconceptions.
I just perused them again. Those are arguments against the Jehovah Witnesses arguing a young earth creationist point of view. I'm arguing against macro-evolution being brought about by natural selection.

I'm not suggesting that I know what causes it, I'm only suggesting that the theory predicts we should have evidence of species evolving into new species, not just different breeds of themselves.

If a horse was the size of a fox, and an elephant was the size of a pig, and dinosaurs turned into birds, I have no problem with any of that. I run into problems with answering why there are no cross species developments. Why are marsupials still marsupials? Why mammals divided into their stable categories if they all came from the same mammal/rodents that survived the Paleocene? And yet now, we have deer, horses, bears, dogs, cats, pigs, apes, monkeys, rodents etc., all in the mammalian range but no cross overs? The Marsupials supposedly are older, and yet, the mammal rodents didn't lay eggs, marsupials do. The warm-blooded creatures (mammals, birds and dinosaurs) and the cold blooded fish, reptiles, amphibians, never seem to cross, and yet, macro evolution theory demands that they must.

Micro is a known and measurable occurrence, macro is guesswork.

I just perused them again. Those are arguments against the Jehovah Witnesses arguing a young earth creationist point of view. I'm arguing against macro-evolution being brought about by natural selection.

I'm not suggesting that I know what causes it, I'm only suggesting that the theory predicts we should have evidence of species evolving into new species, not just different breeds of themselves.

If a horse was the size of a fox, and an elephant was the size of a pig, and dinosaurs turned into birds, I have no problem with any of that. I run into problems with answering why there are no cross species developments. Why are marsupials still marsupials? Why mammals divided into their stable categories if they all came from the same mammal/rodents that survived the Paleocene? And yet now, we have deer, horses, bears, dogs, cats, pigs, apes, monkeys, rodents etc., all in the mammalian range but no cross overs? The Marsupials supposedly are older, and yet, the mammal rodents didn't lay eggs, marsupials do. The warm-blooded creatures (mammals, birds and dinosaurs) and the cold blooded fish, reptiles, amphibians, never seem to cross, and yet, macro evolution theory demands that they must.

Micro is a known and measurable occurrence, macro is guesswork.

No, as a matter of fact, the theory suggests that in the amount of time we have had to study it, we should NOT have seen any evolution between orders (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901_2.html). We have seen evolution between species, you just choose to ignore it, as you are making your own definition of species.

You are not using the term species correctly. Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species. These are the groups. Differences in species can be so small you would not recognise them. In your third paragraph, you are explaining Order. Mammal is a Class. Primate is an Order.

What do you mean by 'cross overs'? Without knowing what you mean by that, I cannot explain anything in your third and last paragraphs.

No, as a matter of fact, the theory suggests that in the amount of time we have had to study it, we should NOT have seen any evolution between orders (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901_2.html). We have seen evolution between species, you just choose to ignore it, as you are making your own definition of species.

You are not using the term species correctly. Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species. These are the groups. Differences in species can be so small you would not recognize them. In your third paragraph, you are explaining Order. Mammal is a Class. Primate is an Order.

What do you mean by 'cross overs'? Without knowing what you mean by that, I cannot explain anything in your third and last paragraphs.

In cross-over, I'm talking about finding any kind of record (fossil or whatever) or other reason to believe that there is something to the speculation that evolution as we speak of it can cover anything as big as the "class" change, given any amount of time.

But we haven't been able to find that, we can find our creatures changing over time, size and shape etc., but then they die out or continue to evolve today, within their family and genus (in the fossil records discovered anyway), and maybe species evolution (if we use your detailed versions to differentiate between monkeys, apes and chimps as three different genus within the family I'll agree to call them species).

The known record seems to indicate that it's like we started with more than one original product. Perhaps independent of each other, if so, it's a new theory, not natural selection evolution.

In cross-over, I'm talking about finding any kind of record or reason to believe that there something other than speculation to believe that a evolution can cover anything as big as the "class" change, given any amount of time.

But we can't find that, we can't find our creatures changing over time, but then they die out or evolve in family and genus in the fossil record, and maybe species (if we use your detailed versions to differentiate between monkeys, apes and chimps as three different genus within the family I'll agree not to call them species). It's like we started with more than one original product. Perhaps independent of each other, if so, it's a new theory, not natural selection evolution.

But we have found evidence of changes at class level.

"Evidence is not limited to seeing something happen before our eyes. Evidence for macroevolution includes the pattern of homology between organisms, the fossil sequence (including abundant transitional fossils), biogeography, and other evidence. Furthermore, there are no plausible mechanisms that would prevent macroevolution, given the variation which we observe. Indeed, plausible mechanisms leading to diversity do exist"

" The following are fossil transitionals between families, orders, and classes:

1. Human ancestry. Australopithecus, though its leg and pelvis bones show it walked upright, had a bony ridge on the forearm, probably vestigial, indicative of knuckle walking (Richmond and Strait 2000).

2. Dinosaur-bird transitions.

3. Haasiophis terrasanctus is a primitive marine snake with well-developed hind limbs. Although other limbless snakes might be more ancestral, this fossil shows a relationship of snakes with limbed ancestors (Tchernov et al. 2000). Pachyrhachis is another snake with legs that is related to Haasiophis (Caldwell and Lee 1997).

4. The jaws of mososaurs are also intermediate between snakes and lizards. Like the snake's stretchable jaws, they have highly flexible lower jaws, but unlike snakes, they do not have highly flexible upper jaws. Some other skull features of mososaurs are intermediate between snakes and primitive lizards (Caldwell and Lee 1997; Lee et al. 1999; Tchernov et al. 2000).

5. Transitions between mesonychids and whales.

6. Transitions between fish and tetrapods.

7. Transitions from condylarths (a kind of land mammal) to fully aquatic modern manatees. In particular, Pezosiren portelli is clearly a sirenian, but its hind limbs and pelvis are unreduced (Domning 2001a, 2001b). "



Furthermore, are you suggesting that the evidence states that the classes were put down as original classes? Because, the evidence suggests just the opposite.

But we have found evidence of changes at class level.

"Evidence is not limited to seeing something happen before our eyes. Evidence for macroevolution includes the pattern of homology between organisms, the fossil sequence (including abundant transitional fossils), biogeography, and other evidence. Furthermore, there are no plausible mechanisms that would prevent macroevolution, given the variation which we observe. Indeed, plausible mechanisms leading to diversity do exist"

Sure there's plausible reason to suspect it might not happen. Just because people keep saying theres no plausible reason people seem to have stoped thinking about it.

Simple example, we can concievablyt breed an animal with a nose to start breeding for an elephant like nose. But we can't breed an octopus to start having bones. It's plausible to reason that it can't be done.

Sure there's plausible reason to suspect it might not happen. Just because people keep saying theres no plausible reason people seem to have stoped thinking about it.

Simple example, we can concievablyt breed an animal with a nose to start breeding for an elephant like nose. But we can't breed an octopus to start having bones. It's plausible to reason that it can't be done.

I also just gave you a whole bunch of evidence there.

Plus, it is not plausible to reason it can't be done. You didn't give the 'octopus' near enough time to evolve in to a different class. You would need millions of years for that. Now, whether the octopus would evolve 'bones' or something else, that is what natural selection determines.

I also just gave you a whole bunch of evidence there.

Plus, it is not plausible to reason it can't be done. You didn't give the 'octopus' near enough time to evolve in to a different class. You would need millions of years for that. Now, whether the octopus would evolve 'bones' or something else, that is what natural selection determines.

But that's exactly what we must assume, that a creature with no bones developed bones and yet others remained without bones so that today we would have both. There is not just millions of years involved, hundreds of millions of years.

It's like life spontaneously erupts, in poisonous gas gysers at the bottom of the ocean are creatures not related to anything else on earth, including each other. Where did they come from? Natural selection seems to have zero plausible reason to explain it.

Hydrothermal Vents - What Are They?


What does a Vent Look Like?
Vents are geysers on the ocean floor that spew hot, mineral-rich water to nurture dense, bizarre biocommunities. Vents may be 3.5 - 4 billion years old, but were discovered by scientists less than 25 years ago.

Where are Vents Located?
Vents exist in all the world's oceans. Most are found at an average depth of 2225 meters (7,300 feet) in areas of seafloor spreading and near active volcanoes along the Mid-Ocean Ridge.
How are Vents Formed?
Seawater seeps into cracks in the earth's crust, becomes superheated by magma, picks up and loses minerals on its way, then rises and bursts out into the ocean again through holes in the seafloor.

Hydrothermal vents are mysterious geysers deep on the ocean floor that support bizarre oases. They are so strange, in fact, that they occasionally make front-page news. Sometimes the headlines sound as if they belong in those tabloids on display at supermarket checkout stands.
http://www.rain.org/ocean/ocean-studies-hydrothermal-vents.html
I still suggest, it’s something other than traditional evolutionary thought at work here. The evidence does not support cross class (I still want to say species) evolving.

I also just gave you a whole bunch of evidence there.

Plus, it is not plausible to reason it can't be done. You didn't give the 'octopus' near enough time to evolve in to a different class. You would need millions of years for that. Now, whether the octopus would evolve 'bones' or something else, that is what natural selection determines.

The octopus is probably a bad example. As far as I know the octopus has not really had a need to evolve for tens of millions of years.

It's like life spontaneously erupts, in poisonous gas gysers at the bottom of the ocean are creatures not related to anything else on earth, including each other. Where did they come from? Natural selection seems to have zero plausible reason to explain it.

Which is why Evolutionism is just as plausable as Creationism.

Theistic Evolutionism takes the best of both worlds...

But that's exactly what we must assume, that a creature with no bones developed bones and yet others remained without bones so that today we would have both. There is not just millions of years involved, hundreds of millions of years.

It's like life spontaneously erupts, in poisonous gas gysers at the bottom of the ocean are creatures not related to anything else on earth, including each other. Where did they come from? Natural selection seems to have zero plausible reason to explain it.


I said it IS possible for a creature to evolve bones! Did you misread the statement?

And you're right, it can be hundreds of millions of years for one class to eventually become a new class. But, we've had 4.5 billions of years for life to evolve, which allows plenty of time.

I assume you speak of the 'black smokers' at the bottom of the ocean. Where do you get the idea that the creatures are 'not related to anything else' on Earth? They are. Crabs, microorganisms, sea slugs, etc. They just rely on chemosynthesis rather than photosynthesis. That DOES support natural selection.



I still suggest, it’s something other than traditional evolutionary thought at work here. The evidence does not support cross class (I still want to say species) evolving.

Excuse me? Are you once again ignoring the evidence? I just put it there two posts ago! There IS evidence which supports cross class evolving. It's called fossil evidence!

The octopus is probably a bad example. As far as I know the octopus has not really had a need to evolve for tens of millions of years.

I'm not the one who brought up the octopus.

Which is why Evolutionism is just as plausable as Creationism.

Theistic Evolutionism takes the best of both worlds...

Wrong again. Evolution is based on heaps of evidence. His example (one small argument that would NOT cancel out evolution anyway) is based on false or twisted evidence. What he said is not what the evidence says.


Look, the only reason I'm arguing here, ph33rdom, is because I am showing how you yourself have misconceptions. I as well have misconceptions as to Christianity, but I don't profess to have studied Christianity.

My point is, if you had actually thoroughly studied evolution, you would realise that the vast body of scientific evidence supports that theory, and no other (that has been professed as of this date), as an explanation for biology as we know it today.


Therefore, by showing you your own misconceptions, I am showing you that you truly haven't studied evolution. Is this assumption correct?

It's like life spontaneously erupts, in poisonous gas gysers at the bottom of the ocean are creatures not related to anything else on earth, including each other. Where did they come from? Natural selection seems to have zero plausible reason to explain it.




Actually, it does. With the discovery of these creatures, it has been postulated that life began in these poisonous waters instead of in the soupy mixtures most commonely thought. Tell me: Do you know how these creatures survive in these waters? It is fairly simple, actually. The Sulfuric compounds produced by the vents are taken in by bacteria, which is broken into organic material. This organic material is then used by other organism, a completely seperate food chain than life up here. Basically, it would seem easier for life to give up these depths than to adapt to them from the outside. Of course, this is all postulation.

I said it IS possible for a creature to evolve bones! Did you misread the statement?

And you're right, it can be hundreds of millions of years for one class to eventually become a new class. But, we've had 4.5 billions of years for life to evolve, which allows plenty of time.

I assume you speak of the 'black smokers' at the bottom of the ocean. Where do you get the idea that the creatures are 'not related to anything else' on Earth? They are. Crabs, microorganisms, sea slugs, etc. They just rely on chemosynthesis rather than photosynthesis. That DOES support natural selection.


I am speaking of the 'black smokers' as you called them. However, the evidence suggest that we only have 250 million years for life development. The earth might be 4.5 millions years old but there doesn't seem to have been any life on it for the first 4.25 billion years.

In 250 million years, the organism that spawned everything from the octopus that doesn't need bones to the giant Apatosaurus and blue whale, and the worm, and the dandilion and rose bush occured? I don't think so, not when we can't even find real evidence of the entirely necessary big time macro-evolution required at such speed. Especially considering that the dinosaur age ended merely 60 million years ago… How did we get here today if everytning is so slow? Evolutionary theory can't have it both ways, every little change so slow and yet everything entirely so quickly.

There is more to it than just evolutionary theory’s natural selection at work here.

I am speaking of the 'black smokers' as you called them. However, the evidence suggest that we only have 250 million years for life development. Teh earth might be 4.5 millions years old, but there doesn't seem to have been any life on it for the first 4.25 billion years.

In 250 million years, the organism that spawned everything from the octopus that doesn't need bones to the giant Apatosaurus and blue whale, and the worm, and the dandilion and rose bush occured? I don't think so, not when we can't even find real evidence of the entirely necessary big time macro-evolution. Especially considering tha the dinosaur age ended merely 60million years ago… How did we get here if everytning is so slow?

There is more to it than just evolutionary theory’s natural selection at work here.

Who told you that life has only been around for 250 million years!? That is just plain wrong. Fossils of life go back at least 3 BILLION years. Of course, for the first 2 billion it was single celled life. THIS is when it was slowest.

As for the dinosaurs, going extinct 65 million years ago, the mass extinction itself is the cause of the rapid evolution. When the Earth goes through a big change, evolution is SUPPOSED to occur faster. 65 million years is plenty of time to allow what has happened to happen, and the fossil evidence SHOWS the transitions, and can DATE them.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html


You continue to use arguments based on misconceptions. Please study up before you use an argument that is just plain wrong.

And the worst part is, every time your misconception is proven to be wrong you spurt out another one. It's as if you assume that at least ONE of them has to be true.

Well, evidence against evolution is few and far between. The overwhelming majority of evidence supports it. What makes you think you have thought of something that nobody else has? It's possible, but not likely. And, if someone else has thought of it, it has probably already been debunked by science.


But, you can continue to argue misconceptions if you like. I don't mind. :D

Who told you that life has only been around for 250 million years!? That is just plain wrong. Fossils of life go back at least 3 BILLION years. Of course, for the first 2 billion it was single celled life. THIS is when it was slowest.

As for the dinosaurs, going extinct 65 million years ago, the mass extinction itself is the cause of the rapid evolution. When the Earth goes through a big change, evolution is SUPPOSED to occur faster. 65 million years is plenty of time to allow what has happened to happen, and the fossil evidence SHOWS the transitions, and can DATE them.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html


You continue to use arguments based on misconceptions. Please study up before you use an argument that is just plain wrong.

I was being generous at 250. About 225 million years ago began the Mesozoic Era (the age of reptiles), and the beginning of advanced life forms and possible natural selection processes to start. Before that there was essentially billions of years of the same thing (think of moss or single cell splittings etc, no reason to assume breeding at all really).


And yes, I'm aware of the algea type life talk,
http://www.ngnews.com/news/2002/05/0523_020523_rocks.html

I was being generous at 250. About 225 million years ago began the Mesozoic Era (the age of reptiles). Before that there was essentially billions of years of the same thing.

Not true again. Did you read the link I gave you? The cambrian had quite diverse life, which was VERY different than the precambrian. This is at least 500 million years ago.

But regardless, 500 million years is a long time, and the fossil records show how and when lifeforms have changed (evolved) to today. (Maybe not every missing link, and maybe not every creature's full 'lineage', but it's still quite clear)


EDIT: I might add in here that scientists are not idiots. If evolution had as many holes as many people purport it does, scientists would be looking for a different theory asap.

The simple fact is, most of the arguments against evolution are based on false or misinterpreted evidence. The only reason these arguments exist are because of the idea that evolution might in any way contradict the Bible.

Actually... the first man in space was Yuri Gagarin. Neil Armstrong, if I remember correctly, was the first man on the moon.

But, your point is valid.
Oh, he's absolutely a hero. But there's a difference. One of them set foot an another world. So close together in time, the lion's share of the glory is going to the guy who left footprints.

Look, Evolution is NOT a theory, the only theory part about it is how exactly it happens. Thats why people say Evoluition AND the THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION. There is no way you can have a poll on whether u believe in evolution when its a fact. Just like you can't have a poll on whether the earth is round or flat. But i am pleased with the amount of people who have chose evolution. Even though i am suspicious about the amount that say they studied a fact, and then say they don't believe in it?

Look, Evolution is NOT a theory, the only theory part about it is how exactly it happens. Thats why people say Evoluition AND the THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION. There is no way you can have a poll on whether u believe in evolution when its a fact. Just like you can't have a poll on whether the earth is round or flat. But i am pleased with the amount of people who have chose evolution. Even though i am suspicious about the amount that say they studied a fact, and then say they don't believe in it?

The point is, if you say it's 'fact' the Creationists will yell and scream. It's all a matter of wording.


Technically, nothing on Earth is 'fact'. But, you are right that if evolution is a theory, so is the statement 'the Earth is round'. It doesn't make it any less true.

Look, Evolution is NOT a theory, the only theory part about it is how exactly it happens. Thats why people say Evoluition AND the THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION. There is no way you can have a poll on whether u believe in evolution when its a fact. Just like you can't have a poll on whether the earth is round or flat. But i am pleased with the amount of people who have chose evolution. Even though i am suspicious about the amount that say they studied a fact, and then say they don't believe in it?

I suspect that to some people, "studying evolution" means having learned biology from some weird ID book like they supposedly use them in schools in Texas, Montana etc., which has one of those funky notices in the cover: "Evolution, the spherical shape of our planet, and the value of Pi are all theories. Please keep an open mind."

Okay, I made up the planet and Pi thingie.

The point is, if you say it's 'fact' the Creationists will yell and scream. It's all a matter of wording.
This "tolerance" is actually the problem. This should have been going on for a long time so it wouldn't be the problem it is now. But here we are. Who cares if they yell and scream? If anyone brings their idea in the town square, they should be mercilessly reminded that it's worth is determined by it's merit, and there is nothing magically sacred about it.

Creationists should have the hell kicked out of their views every time they bring them up in public. Their kids should cry and grow up ashamed at the ignorance of their parents. Biology, Chemistry, physics and probably history teachers should be fired for even suggesting the addition of even "Intelligent Design" to anything other than sociology, philosophy or theology classes.

Understanding takes an investment, staying ignorant doesn't Creationsits seek to diminish the investment others made, and reduce the rewards returned from that investment for everyone. Why? Because true spirituality takes an investment too, and they don't have the time, Survivor is on.

I started reading this thread, wondering why a poll on this seemed necessary. After a while, I read on with amusement, which turned into disbelief and finally fear!

Seriously, coming from (as I have now learned) the ungodly Europe, this whole debate mystifies me. This has not once been an issue in my life. I see absolutely no reason why evolution should stop one from believing in God or leading a Christian life. I come from a religious family (mother is an RE teacher), went to a catholic school and call a few catholic and (lutheran) protestant priests my close friends. Not once did I encounter such diatribes of so called Christians as in this thread.

I seriously hope that those individuals are trolls, but fear they are not. The world looks at Islamist extremists, but perhaps the danger is closer to home. Intolerance sooner or later kills people, and the intolerance displayed by some of the people here is absolutely frightening. Even worse is the thought of living in a country, where these extremist views have political weight.

Shaking my head in disbelief ...

Bierernstian

The ideas of micro- and macroevolution have been discredited - there is no real separation between them in practice, as species don't always represent discrete entities in their evolution.

However, I'll have to dig out the article talking about the reproductive isolation that occurred between populations of Drosophila (fruitflies) bred on different media. That would surely represent a solid case of "macroevolution", if you want it.

Wouldn't it be better if more Christians concentrated on the moral side of Christianity (the 'spirit' of religion) rather than on the stories presented in the Old Testament? I suspect that God really wouldn't care what you believe as regards the origin of the diversity of life on Earth, as long as you lead a good and worthy life.

Wouldn't it be better if more Christians concentrated on the moral side of Christianity (the 'spirit' of religion) rather than on the stories presented in the Old Testament? I suspect that God really wouldn't care what you believe as regards the origin of the diversity of life on Earth, as long as you lead a good and worthy life.

AGREEEED!

Isn't it an interesting fact that almost inevitablly, the cry for teaching Creationism or ID instead of Evolution is from one of the states ranked among the worst in general education level. Is it just a coincidence, you decide.Maybe so it's they only have to buy one Bible per child (or between two, in the less funded schools) rather than a whole slew of science texts. Next off, they'll replace all the target texts for English Literature with the Old and New Testaments and teach Pi=3 in Maths lessons. For craft/'shop'/whatever-you-left-pondians-call-it-these-days, they'll be building a church from donated materials. ;)


(No, I'm not being serious... If you need more confirmation than that cheeky-smiley, believe me...)

This "tolerance" is actually the problem. This should have been going on for a long time so it wouldn't be the problem it is now. But here we are. Who cares if they yell and scream? If anyone brings their idea in the town square, they should be mercilessly reminded that it's worth is determined by it's merit, and there is nothing magically sacred about it.

Creationists should have the hell kicked out of their views every time they bring them up in public. Their kids should cry and grow up ashamed at the ignorance of their parents. Biology, Chemistry, physics and probably history teachers should be fired for even suggesting the addition of even "Intelligent Design" to anything other than sociology, philosophy or theology classes.

Understanding takes an investment, staying ignorant doesn't Creationsits seek to diminish the investment others made, and reduce the rewards returned from that investment for everyone. Why? Because true spirituality takes an investment too, and they don't have the time, Survivor is on.
Good call. Intelligent design shouldn't even be brought up in sociology or philosophy class. Theology shouldn't even be a class. I wish education were privatised so I wouldn't have to send any kids I have to learn drivel like religious education or the theories of continental witch doctors pretending to be philosophers.

I use create more in connection with creativity and art.

Evolution more in connection with sociology and biology.


What's more interesting: What caused the BIG BANG several billion years ago?

You draw your lines. And other people will object to your lines. What makes your lines more valid than theirs is? What if they say consenting adults is at age 30? What if it's 14?

Someone draws lines, there will always be someone that objects.

Scripturally, the lines for where sex should exist was only after marriage, a man and his wife (a woman).

You can object to that line all you want and try to pretend that those lines can be moved, if your want. But deep down, you know there is a truth in the fact that since there are lines at all, you are not likely to be the person that gets to draw where they belong.

I draw my lines after puberty, and after the teenage brain has developed... so, late teens somewhere. Evidence supports the fact that teen brains do not work quite the same as the fully developed adult brain... so, to MY way of thinking, this means teen-sex is never truly capable of being consensual.

If that's my line, I'd like to see a good argument that could overturn it... the only reason why I can see it being attacked is someone who wanted to have sex with barely legal or pre-legal teens.


For someone who keeps debating scripture, you seem to have a fairly lax approach to actual knowledge about it... the sex pretty much WAS the marriage. The reason scripture doesn't call the pregnant Mary Joseph's wife, is because they hadn't had sex (allegedly). You are confusing our modern system with the more straightforward earlier approach. Consumation=marriage.

Aside from that, of course... where does scripture say that marital sex must be between a man and woman?

I don't have to object to that line. It is arbitrary, unfair, and based on a system to which I don't subscribe. I don't want someone else's cult to have power over MY legal rights.

I suspect that, deep down, you know there are no rules, except those we make. And, that is why you are so desperate for a divine 'authority', to allow your 'people' to impose their prejudices on others.

OK I have to be mindfull of the fact that was scientific back ground and knowledge I have is limited. But it seems to me that neither theory reaaly has the ability or the supprot of facts to stand alone. I mean I believe in a god and godess being pagn. but at the same time i also freely admit that the creation of everyting we have come to know on earth isn't the result of god or creator. to be honest we will findoout the answers to all of our questions when we die. :eek:

Why do you debate over such issues when we are no longer in the past! The present is at hand and should be cared for. There is much more to worry about than creationism and all this. Don't you see? You sit here now and toil with the issue until you're all hyped up about who's right and what-not.

To the 'scientific' members of this conversation:

So there are bones that look similar to ours, but not quite or there are remnants of a species that looks similar to one that already existed. Couldn't it have been a whole different species? Don't a lot of birds look a like in structure but are actually different? Do you truly think that our eldest forefathers were fish and then primates? Do you want to be a furry primate or something? *sighs* I for one would rather not think that we are related to fish.

To the members whom I lean towards in favor:

Yes, I think God created the planet. I also think that if the science crazy evolutionists need proof, they can go to the Bible even if it means nothing to them, or listen to what I said above. No, I don't base my argument on no fact, I have proof, but I'm unsure whether anyone would care to listen.

Unfortunately, the laws of science don't care much about your 'wishes'. Science deals in the observable, the recordable, the supportable.

So, if you 'wish' evolution didn't suggest we might have come from sea-dwellers at some point... well, good luck withy that... maybe your book will replace any need to actually think about it.

I'd be interested to see your 'proof' in Creationism as valid... as would the entire rest of the world, since nobody else seems to have any.

OK I have to be mindfull of the fact that was scientific back ground and knowledge I have is limited. But it seems to me that neither theory reaaly has the ability or the supprot of facts to stand alone. I mean I believe in a god and godess being pagn. but at the same time i also freely admit that the creation of everyting we have come to know on earth isn't the result of god or creator. to be honest we will findoout the answers to all of our questions when we die. :eek:


Why is it that people do this?

Why are there so many posts in this thread that say "I don't know what I'm talking about, but it seems to me..."?

Why don't these people bother themselves to *go find out*? Science is open access - entire lecture series can be easily downloaded from university websites the world over. Primary and secondary literature is easy come by. Lay-oriented explanations are readily available.

And *still* people wade in saying *up front* that they don't have the necessary understanding to comment sensibly - right before COMMENTING ANYWAY.

OK I have to be mindfull of the fact that was scientific back ground and knowledge I have is limited. But it seems to me that neither theory reaaly has the ability or the supprot of facts to stand alone. I mean I believe in a god and godess being pagn. but at the same time i also freely admit that the creation of everyting we have come to know on earth isn't the result of god or creator. to be honest we will findoout the answers to all of our questions when we die. :eek:

Well, ask to yourself, what is evolution (in the scientific sense) all about? The process of how all the species we have today came about, it has nothing to do with the origin of the universe (evolution is, obviously, a process that started billions of years after the begin of universe). And it does explain very well the events that came about. Once however you start talking about the universe started, you're not anymore talking about biological evolution anymore. This is not the domain of biologists or palaeontologists, but the domain of astrophysicists.
Yecs however talk about it in the same way, since it does contradict their beliefs about how the world started, and they wish that it should not be taught (or that it should be taught aside of their religious beliefs).

Why is it that people do this?

Why are there so many posts in this thread that say "I don't know what I'm talking about, but it seems to me..."?

Why don't these people bother themselves to *go find out*? Science is open access - entire lecture series can be easily downloaded from university websites the world over. Primary and secondary literature is easy come by. Lay-oriented explanations are readily available.

And *still* people wade in saying *up front* that they don't have the necessary understanding to comment sensibly - right before COMMENTING ANYWAY.

Heh, good point. But, look on the bright side: Judging from the poll, the bulk of the people that have voted have informed themselves about the stuff. :)

Heh, good point. But, look on the bright side: Judging from the poll, the bulk of the people that have voted have informed themselves about the stuff. :)

I wonder how many of them would look blankly at such concepts as "allele" - blind acceptance is *almost* as bad as rejection.

But hey, like you said - at least they're not creationists. That means there's hope.

how does one "believe" in evolution? its a scientific theory/fact.

It is either a theory or a fact. Can't be both. I agree that there are facts that can be used to support the theory of evolution, but there are not enough facts to prove it. If there were, it would not be presented as a theory.

Not true. Without God, there is NO purpose in life. See "Purpose-Driven Life" by Rick Warren.

Only true if you follow a religious life.

Your god is irrelevent to me, I'm afraid, and my life is full of meaning.

Well, again, judging from the poll nearly 20.5% are apparently Creationists...

It is either a theory or a fact. Can't be both. I agree that there are facts that can be used to support the theory of evolution, but there are not enough facts to prove it. If there were, it would not be presented as a theory.

Incorrect.

Evolution is a fact - genetic populations *do* change across time.

Evolution is also a theory - a framework explaining *how* genetic populations change across time.


Thanks for posting *yet another* mangled concept of what "theory" is in science.

It is either a theory or a fact. Can't be both. I agree that there are facts that can be used to support the theory of evolution, but there are not enough facts to prove it. If there were, it would not be presented as a theory.

Well, again, consider what "Theory" really means. I've heard the 'just a theory' argument from Creationist all too often. *Theory* means that it sufficiently explains the existing evidence, and that it has been verified by observation and experimentation. This holds - wether you believe it or not - true for the theory of evolution. It also holds true for other stuff, like... say the theory of relativity, or plate tectonics, for example... :)

Well, again, judging from the poll nearly 20.5% are apparently Creationists...

From what I've seen elsewhere, creationists have a nasty habit of rounding up supporters and asking them to vote in polls they wouldn't otherwise have had any interest in or even seen.

Ethical behaviour is definitely not their strong point.

From what I've seen elsewhere, creationists have a nasty habit of rounding up supporters and asking them to vote in polls they wouldn't otherwise have had any interest in or even seen.

Ethical behaviour is definitely not their strong point.

How true... :(

A man and his dog lived together. They hunted, they hung out, they went for long walks together. They learned to rely on each other, to depend on each other, and they got to the point that they would do anything for the other, to please them in all things. After many years, dependable, friendship and true love, their time on earth ended.

A man and his dog lived together. They hunted, they hung out, they went for long walks together. They learned to rely on each other, to depend on each other, and they got to the point that they would do anything for the other, to please them in all things. The man began to have sex with the dog, and thought of it as his spouse. After many years, dependable, friendship and true love, their time on earth ended.

One of the two stories above is depraved, the other is not. But essentially, they are the same story, one includes sex, the other does not.

Nice strawman you built there. Never mind that a dog cannot possibly give informed consent? Never mind that a dog cannot possibly marry? Never mind that the bond of romantic love that can form between two people cannot be felt by a dog?

Depends on how you define the term. I do believe in a Creator, though I don't consider it to be the biblical Yahweh. Essentially I believe that the laws of physics, biology and geology, rather than contradicting the existance of a Creator are it's toolbox. I believe in evolution but that it may have been tweaked here and there to achieve desired results like sentience. Specifically that the various mass extinctions throughout geologic history have been the Creator's way of saying "Okay, this isn't working out, let throw a big rock into the mix and see what happens." So, am I an Evolutionist or a Creationist?

I just perused them again. Those are arguments against the Jehovah Witnesses arguing a young earth creationist point of view. I'm arguing against macro-evolution being brought about by natural selection.

I'm not suggesting that I know what causes it, I'm only suggesting that the theory predicts we should have evidence of species evolving into new species, not just different breeds of themselves.

If a horse was the size of a fox, and an elephant was the size of a pig, and dinosaurs turned into birds, I have no problem with any of that. I run into problems with answering why there are no cross species developments. Why are marsupials still marsupials? Why mammals divided into their stable categories if they all came from the same mammal/rodents that survived the Paleocene? And yet now, we have deer, horses, bears, dogs, cats, pigs, apes, monkeys, rodents etc., all in the mammalian range but no cross overs? The Marsupials supposedly are older, and yet, the mammal rodents didn't lay eggs, marsupials do. The warm-blooded creatures (mammals, birds and dinosaurs) and the cold blooded fish, reptiles, amphibians, never seem to cross, and yet, macro evolution theory demands that they must.

Micro is a known and measurable occurrence, macro is guesswork.

So - let me get this straight...

You don't believe in evolution, because you never saw a moose turn into a fish?

What about the fact that where we now have cats, dogs and bears, ALL can be traced back to ONE form of miacid a few handfuls of millenia ago?

Surely - if there were NO evolution, there would not be dogs, cats and bears... there would just be bigger or smaller miacids?

It is either a theory or a fact. Can't be both. I agree that there are facts that can be used to support the theory of evolution, but there are not enough facts to prove it. If there were, it would not be presented as a theory.
Yay another one that does not understand scientific process nor correct use of the words theory nor prove
Evolution is and always will be a theory that is how science works it does not just stop because it is good enough it is always trying to make its predictions more exact

Everything is always a theory maybe you should learn that it will help in these arguments

Only true if you follow a religious life.

Your god is irrelevent to me, I'm afraid, and my life is full of meaning.
okay.... :(

No matter what your third grade teacher told you, everyone's opinions aren't worth the same. Some people make stupid interpretations, or don't bother to actually read anything/check evidence and yet they still spout their opinion. An opinion based on analysis and evidence weighs more than one that relies on heavily metaphorical thinking and a lack of clear evidence.

And yet people who read and check evidence equally can come to differet conclusions. As such, my point remains. PR's interpretation is no better than anothers'.

Yay another one that does not understand scientific process nor correct use of the words theory nor prove
Evolution is and always will be a theory that is how science works it does not just stop because it is good enough it is always trying to make its predictions more exact

Everything is always a theory maybe you should learn that it will help in these arguments
Thank you all for your kind responses :)

Remember this post for the rest of your life. We'll see who's right now won't we ;)

Thank you all for your kind responses :)

Remember this post for the rest of your life. We'll see who's right now won't we ;)

We can already see - UT is right, which will be confirmed by anyone with even a modicum of scientific understanding.

Thank you all for your kind responses :)

Remember this post for the rest of your life. We'll see who's right now won't we ;)
Now I am assuming that you mean that it will be proven when I pass away … though I fail to see how that will prove creationism (it may let me know if there is a creator) but even if there was it does not prove creationism

Nor how that will have any effect on you using incorrect terminology which is what I was really arguing

Thank you all for your kind responses :)

Remember this post for the rest of your life. We'll see who's right now won't we ;)

See who's right about what? That every well supported scientific hypothesis is a theory. Do you really need to die to find that out?

I still dont know what you're on about. What are these depraved acts you're talking about? I cant think of anything that two (or however many) consenting adults should be banned from doing together as long as it doesnt hurt anyone.

I wouldn't say that anything between consenting adults should be banned. There are acts between consenting adults that I believe to be immoral and born completely out of lust, rather than love. I would not be a part of such acts myself.

I am speaking of the 'black smokers' as you called them. However, the evidence suggest that we only have 250 million years for life development. The earth might be 4.5 millions years old but there doesn't seem to have been any life on it for the first 4.25 billion years.

In 250 million years, the organism that spawned everything from the octopus that doesn't need bones to the giant Apatosaurus and blue whale, and the worm, and the dandilion and rose bush occured? I don't think so, not when we can't even find real evidence of the entirely necessary big time macro-evolution required at such speed. Especially considering that the dinosaur age ended merely 60 million years ago… How did we get here today if everytning is so slow? Evolutionary theory can't have it both ways, every little change so slow and yet everything entirely so quickly.

There is more to it than just evolutionary theory’s natural selection at work here.

So now you argue against evolution because you don't like the probability?

Not really a legitimate argument.

I think I have worked out your chronological problem, though... you seem to be assuming that evolution would happen one thing at a time, and one after another.

Scripturally, the lines for where sex should exist was only after marriage, a man and his wife (a woman).

Actually, it's more like a man and his wives.

Also, they don't both have to consent. The man can be a rapist and the woman can be his victim. The man can be tricked into marrying the wrong woman by her father. A man must take his sister-in-law as a wife if she has not borne a child, regardless of whether either of them wants it. All sorts of things most of us would find pretty distasteful. Do you think these things are what God meant to be? Or have you already moved the line from what is actually there?

So now you argue against evolution because you don't like the probability?

Not really a legitimate argument.

I think I have worked out your chronological problem, though... you seem to be assuming that evolution would happen one thing at a time, and one after another.

Right, also he made some blatant errors(i reckon this has been said earlier, but i'm going to re-iterate it): There's plenty of fossil record older than 250 million years (that's the Permian-Triassic boundary, i reckon). What about stromatolithes from the Precambrian (dating back as much as 3.5 billion years), or Ediacara fauna (600 million years), Burgess Shale (500 million years), and so on and so on... you need to have deficit of knowledge in palaeontology to claim that there are no fossils older than 250 million years... :(

"Your race has been separated long enough to be different species now etc., etc.," Much like the tigers in Asia have been sub-divided into supposed 'species.' when really, there is just one tiger. Like the bald eagle, just because eagles in Alaska are 30% bigger than the eagles in Florida, it doesn't prove that they are different species. I say they are different breeds.

Apparently you are unaware of the definition of species in multicellular organisms. Perhaps you should look it up.

Right, also he made some blatant errors(i reckon this has been said earlier, but i'm going to re-iterate it): There's plenty of fossil record older than 250 million years (that's the Permian-Triassic boundary, i reckon). What about stromatolithes from the Precambrian (dating back as much as 3.5 billion years), or Ediacara fauna (600 million years), Burgess Shale (500 million years), and so on and so on... you need to have deficit of knowledge in palaeontology to claim that there are no fossils older than 250 million years... :(

I think it's to do with the vegetation...

Maybe they couldn't make a good Strawman back then.... :)

I think it's to do with the vegetation...

Maybe they couldn't make a good Strawman back then.... :)

I'm sorry, but i don't understand? Are you refering to the mere fact that Angiosperm plants appear so late in the stratigraphic column?

Amusing note here: i remember a creationist claiming that the stratigraphic order came to existence because 'superior' organisms crawled over the 'inferior' ones during the deluge. I wonder however, how could Angiosperm trees possibly crawl over trilobites? :D

[QUOTE=Pure Metal]how does one "believe" in evolution? its a scientific theory/fact.[QUOTE]


it's not 'fact'. it's just theory. fact is when you can prove something: concrete. science is mostly theories. just to set that straight.

BTW i haven't read the whole thread, so somebody might've said that already.

BTWII how the hell am i meant to work the quote thing?

I'm sorry, but i don't understand? Are you refering to the mere fact that Angiosperm plants appear so late in the stratigraphic column?

Amusing note here: i remember a creationist claiming that the stratigraphic order came to existence because 'superior' organisms crawled over the 'inferior' ones during the deluge. I wonder however, how could Angiosperm trees possibly crawl over trilobites? :D

Didn't get my "Strawman Fallacy" related humour? Sigh... :(

I've seen the same arguments... the Deluge caused all the layering... complex organisms above simpler because they could swim better.

I'm thinking this must have been an interesting thing to watch... how long could a Wooly Mammoth outswim the average fish, I wonder...

[QUOTE=Pure Metal]how does one "believe" in evolution? its a scientific theory/fact.[QUOTE]


it's not 'fact'. it's just theory. fact is when you can prove something: concrete. science is mostly theories. just to set that straight.

BTW i haven't read the whole thread, so somebody might've said that already.

BTWII how the hell am i meant to work the quote thing?

You got it all right, but for one thing... you didn't put a / before the word QUOTE in your second set of brackets.

Didn't get my "Strawman Fallacy" related humour? Sigh... :(

Sorry, i'm non-native speaker. I have the tendency to not get some jokes.
:(


I've seen the same arguments... the Deluge caused all the layering... complex organisms above simpler because they could swim better.

I'm thinking this must have been an interesting thing to watch... how long could a Wooly Mammoth outswim the average fish, I wonder...

Yeah... funny stuff. It would have required a real wonder to make something like that work. :D

okay.... :(

Sorry, friend... but it is true... 'god' only has significance in your life if you recognise, and attribute value to, the concept.

Sorry, i'm non-native speaker. I have the tendency to not get some jokes.
:(


No harm done, I am not well known for my sense of humour... and now I see why. :)

The "Strawman Fallacy" is where you create your OWN version of someone else's argument and attack that... or pick the weakest argument you can find, beat THAT, and claim it defeats all your opponents claims.

(In simplest terms).

MY 'joke' was to imply that the dating errors the other poster was making, was due to the wrong vegetation... i.e. that 'straw' wasn't available yet... for the strawman???



Yeah... funny stuff. It would have required a real wonder to make something like that work. :D

See, it's often though that the Flood was the miracle... I guess the Mammoths outswimming the fish was the REAL miracle. :)

Actually, it's more like a man and his wives.

Also, they don't both have to consent. 1-The man can be a rapist and the woman can be his victim. 2-The man can be tricked into marrying the wrong woman by her father. 3-A man must take his sister-in-law as a wife if she has not borne a child, regardless of whether either of them wants it. All sorts of things most of us would find pretty distasteful. Do you think these things are what God meant to be? Or have you already moved the line from what is actually there?

You have a problem with what exactly?

1-There is more than one type of rape. Aggressive Rape, such as during a war or a raid or done violently, led immediatly to retaliation and the killing of all the men (or the rapist raiding party) and where he came from. Stautory Rape on the other hand led to pregnant daughters. Punishment was to force the boy and his family to be financially responsible and marry the girl to raise the kid.

2-Outside of the fact that arraigned marriages have a high success rate, this was different. You should note that the act was done and reported by the victim in this case. The behavior is not condoned and advocated. Me telling you what someone else did to me is not me telling you, you should do it.

3-If a woman became a widow while she had no children, she had no financial security for the present or old age at all.. No husband, no family. It's not like they had social security, life insurance and IRA's back then. What do you think society should have done with these women? There would have been lots of them considering the percentage of men that died before reaching the age of thirty. Should society have let these women starve? What if no one took responsibility for them? No, the scriptures gave these women rights, something they could point at and say, “Hey, this is your responsibility, I have a claim to make.” The family of the husband is responsible for widows, I fail to see your objection to this, it helped the widows more than anyone else. Is your problem that you associate marriage with purely just sex or something? Get that American- European fantasy of romantic candle lit dinners out of your head for a moment and think what these people had to do to stay alive from one year to the next. Without good social engineering rules like that, the world would have been even crueler than it already was.

If we still did those rules today, maybe more people would help their own families out. Maybe if society treated families that neglect their widows like dead-beat dads, the world would be a better place now.

You shouldn't be so quick to judge against others, especially when you haven’t considered the alternatives of the choices they had to make.

No harm done, I am not well known for my sense of humour... and now I see why. :)

The "Strawman Fallacy" is where you create your OWN version of someone else's argument and attack that... or pick the weakest argument you can find, beat THAT, and claim it defeats all your opponents claims.

(In simplest terms).

MY 'joke' was to imply that the dating errors the other poster was making, was due to the wrong vegetation... i.e. that 'straw' wasn't available yet... for the strawman???




See, it's often though that the Flood was the miracle... I guess the Mammoths outswimming the fish was the REAL miracle. :)

I got it before the explination :)

No harm done, I am not well known for my sense of humour... and now I see why. :)

The "Strawman Fallacy" is where you create your OWN version of someone else's argument and attack that... or pick the weakest argument you can find, beat THAT, and claim it defeats all your opponents claims.

(In simplest terms).

MY 'joke' was to imply that the dating errors the other poster was making, was due to the wrong vegetation... i.e. that 'straw' wasn't available yet... for the strawman???

Ah now i see. Thanks for the explanation. :)

See, it's often though that the Flood was the miracle... I guess the Mammoths outswimming the fish was the REAL miracle. :)

Oh yes... amazing, isn't it? ;)

I got it before the explination :)
:fluffle: well, of course YOU did! :fluffle:

Ah now i see. Thanks for the explanation. :)


Most welcome.


Oh yes... amazing, isn't it? ;)

Particularly amazing because, as you stated, trees seem to be surprisingly good swimmers, too... if the whole 'Flood' story were to be assumed true.

Yay! 1,000th post!