NationStates Jolt Archive

This is something that I figured out just recently: biblical literalists already use the New Testament passage that says that the Old Testament Laws don't apply anymore to let themselves eat pork and not stone people. What if that passage were interpreted in a modern scientific sense, i.e. invalidating the physical laws of the Old Testament. That would mean the creation account is wrong, and they can accept evolution. Not that they will, but there's no biblical law against stupidity.

This is something that I figured out just recently: biblical literalists already use the New Testament passage that says that the Old Testament Laws don't apply anymore to let themselves eat pork and not stone people. What if that passage were interpreted in a modern scientific sense, i.e. invalidating the physical laws of the Old Testament. That would mean the creation account is wrong, and they can accept evolution. Not that they will, but there's no biblical law against stupidity.
actually just because evolution may be true doesn't mean that the creation story is false.
by the way, there are many verses warning against stupidity....
and also your entire argument doesn't really make sense to me because when we talk about the "old law" not applying anymore we are really talking about the old covenant, under which you were responsible for purifying yourself (ie no pork) and not about the laws that were in place in the government of Israel (like stoning people) which don't apply to us anyway because we are not Israeli.

actually just because evolution may be true doesn't mean that the creation story is false.
by the way, there are many verses warning against stupidity....
and also your entire argument doesn't really make sense to me because when we talk about the "old law" not applying anymore we are really talking about the old covenant, under which you were responsible for purifying yourself (ie no pork) and not about the laws that were in place in the government of Israel (like stoning people) which don't apply to us anyway because we are not Israeli.

Does it actually say "Old Covenant"? What are the words, I'm interested. Especially since the actual covenants just require circumicision and adherence to the ten commandments, the pork stuff and the stoning stuff being part of the laws, not the three covenants.

And while evolution doesn't invalidate creationism in general, it does invalidate a completely literal interpretation.

actually maybe covenant was the wrong word

we know that when Paul speaks of being "under the law" he is speaking at least in part about the dietary rules. There are verses where he warns against being a stumbling block to others who don't understand the new covenant and talks about not eating pork and such around them because it may cause them to stumble.
example 1 Corinthians 8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%208&version=31)
we also know that the laws that were about stoning and stuff are still in effect after the new covenant.

There can be a biblical against stupidity. But sadly, there isn't yet.

There can be a biblical against stupidity. But sadly, there isn't yet.

That made absolutely no sense. In the same line, the chicken came first if we're going by the bible, it says god created the birds, not the eggs.

Evolution is a solid idea, but don't try to push your acceptance of it on people using the bible as a weapon... trust me, it won't fly.

Rather than use the arguement that the old laws don't apply, (since the creation story isn't a law), I find it a more sound arguement to say that God doesn't change. Most Fundamentalists agree with this. If God doesn't change then his teaching methods shouldn't change. Since God (Jesus) spoke in parables in the NT wouldn't it make sense that God would also speak in parables in the OT? Throughout the bible God spoke in a way as to not confuse people. Talking to Moses (or even me for that matter) about millions of years would be an act of confusion. I don't think I've ever seen a million of anything, and I doubt Moses did either. Even today, scientists compare the age of the earth to a year or week or day. It is a way for ordinary people to comprehend. Wouldn't God want people to comprehend?

actually just because evolution may be true doesn't mean that the creation story is false.


I think that the evolution THEORY is totally false.
First off, there is no REAL fossil evidence to ever support the evolutionary theory at all.
Secondly, If you take chance into consideration, there is no probable way for the universe to just happen.
Also, if you are a Christian and you believe in evolution not creation then I can't see how you can believe in God at all because without creation there is no Adam and Eve. Without Adam and Eve there would be no first sin and we would not need someone, Jesus, to laid down his life for our sins.
I also suggest if you want to find out more on how evolution is a fraud, read The Case For A Creator by Lee Strobel. In this book it quotes over a hundred scientists who have found new research to prove that Evolution is fake and God is real.

The thing about the Biblical creation story--actually, the two creation stories, because there are two of them in Genesis (but that's a whole 'nother thread)--is that it's not particularly original. Pretty much every ancient culture has something similar in their most ancient and holy writings, just as most cultures have a flood myth and a birth of man myth and a wrath of god/destruction myth. They're common threads that run from culture to culture, not because they have some common ancestry, but because they represent the earliest questions human beings asked about themselves and their environments. They're the earliest proofs of our self-awareness as thinking beings.

I think that the evolution THEORY is totally false.
First off, there is no REAL fossil evidence to ever support the evolutionary theory at all.

Oh really? Then what have people been digging up?


Secondly, If you take chance into consideration, there is no probable way for the universe to just happen.

Evolution does not discuss the orgins of the universe. That's abiogensis.


Also, if you are a Christian and you believe in evolution not creation then I can't see how you can believe in God

Evolution has never set out to prove or disprove the existence of God.


at all because without creation there is no Adam and Eve. Without Adam and Eve there would be no first sin and we would not need someone, Jesus, to laid down his life for our sins.


Evolution doesn't discuss "moral" systems.


I also suggest if you want to find out more on how evolution is a fraud, read The Case For A Creator by Lee Strobel. In this book it quotes over a hundred scientists who have found new research to prove that Evolution is fake and God is real.

Wow a Christian Journalist is an expert in Biology? Hmm he talks to ID people well we can guess his viewpoints.

Actually his stuff is very simplistic. Not even worth reading. Especially if you understand science. If you are going to read this stuff you should at least read the demboski/behe/whatever types that do the pushing for ID.

Sigh.
The whole idea of religion is positively ridiculous, in my humble, but well-educated opinion. I could rant about the silliness of it for several pages, but I'll try to limit my comments to a few, hopefully coherant arguements:
1) The bible is clearly an allegory. Some of the stuff within it is so unrealistic, it defies the very laws of nature. That's not to say that the bible doesn't present some smart ideas about being nice to other people (although some of that stuff about women submitting to men is pretty nasty), just that it isn't meant to be taken seriously.
2) I have a major problem with the idea of God. If God exists and is almighty, why is he so darn quiet? I mean, especially if the bible is taken literally, it would stand to be expected that God would pop down from heavan every once and a while to give us a bit of advice. For example, if a person was about to make a poor choice and "sin", why wouldn't God, freezing time of course, as he simply couldn't miss a second of that night's Desperate Housewives episode, just make a little trip down to earth and tell that sinner why his actions are innapropriate. To me, that seems quite a bit more effective then sending an agent in the form of a mangy old priest, waving a crucifix so violently that some poor sucker gets socked in the eye.
3) If God exists, why would he make people? If I were God, I'd just prance around in the sky and bake alot of brownies in my celestial Easy-Bake-Oven. Not that I'm a bit of a loner, or anything.
4) How do you define a sinner? When I consider life, I see no true wrong and no true right. Life is life, as I should shortly explain, and who's to say that "heavan" and "hell" are so different after all. There are no true laws of human nature and behavoir, says my adolescent self, only rules people have imposed after years of judgement.
5) This is the part where you subtly cough to hint that the red light is flashing, and my on-stage time has expired. So I'll finish up quick (for now), with a silly little whim: WHY DO WE PUT SO MUCH SIGNIFICANCE IN LIFE? Life is just this: Birth, growth, reproduction, death. Humans just think about it too much. There is no answer. There is no meaning of life.

I think that the evolution THEORY is totally false.Okay, let's see why:
First off, there is no REAL fossil evidence to ever support the evolutionary theory at all.You could offer something to prove that the fossil evidence we have isn't real.
Secondly, If you take chance into consideration, there is no probable way for the universe to just happen.And? This has nothing to do with evolution. In fact, evolution doesn't even cover how LIFE began, so why do you think that evolution is false?
Also, if you are a Christian and you believe in evolution not creation then I can't see how you can believe in God at all because without creation there is no Adam and Eve.This arguement has no relevance to most non-Christians. In fact, plenty of Christians have pointed out to me that Genesis and especially Adam and Eve is more of a parable than a literal depiction of what happened. That particular story is a wonderful depiction of how man wears clothes, has shame, and engages in things that animals do not, such as philosophy.
Without Adam and Eve there would be no first sin and we would not need someone, Jesus, to laid down his life for our sins.Considering Adam and Eve a parable would not necessarily entail nullifying the first sin. As for Jesus laying down his life for our sins, I presume this has a lot more to do with everyone, no matter how good they are, making mistakes in their life, rather than for some woman eating a fruit she was explicitely told not to.
I also suggest if you want to find out more on how evolution is a fraud, read The Case For A Creator by Lee Strobel. In this book it quotes over a hundred scientists who have found new research to prove that Evolution is fake and God is real.I suggest that you read through the talkorgins (http://www.talkorigins.org) FAQ to clear up some of your misconceptions.

Evolution does not discuss the orgins of the universe. That's abiogensis.Hey, Forrest. Abiogenesis (a = non, bio = life, genesis = creation) covers the origin of life, not the universe... ;)

I think that the evolution THEORY is totally false.

You capitalize theory as if it is a bad word of some sort. In science, theory is the highest status an idea can obtain. It is hardly something to look at with derision, at least, if you think that science is a good method for studying the world.

First off, there is no REAL fossil evidence to ever support the evolutionary theory at all.

Really? All the fossils are faked?

Secondly, If you take chance into consideration, there is no probable way for the universe to just happen.

Evolutionary theory doesn't cover the beginning of the universe. Of course, none of the theories that do cover the beginning of the universe suggest that it "just happened." In fact, scientists must admit that, if there was a beginning to the universe, we don't and can't know what came before. We can measure things that will give us an idea of what the initial conditions at time t=0 (plus just a little bit), but time t=0 (minus just a little bit) would be outside the universe (since it is before the beginning) and thus outside that which we can study.

Also, if you are a Christian and you believe in evolution not creation then I can't see how you can believe in God at all because without creation there is no Adam and Eve.

(a) One can realize the validity of evolutionary theory and still believe in creation. One simply cannot believe in Creationism - a literal interpretation of either of the two creation stories in Genesis.

(b) One does not need a literal Adam and Eve to get the point of the story. Adam and Eve could, together, represent all of humankind.

(c) Are you discounting the first, Priestly, account of creation, in which human beings are made in large numbers, male and female, and told to be fruitful and multiply, all in one day?

Without Adam and Eve there would be no first sin and we would not need someone, Jesus, to laid down his life for our sins.

The Anselmian view of absolution is hardly the only one. You should look up a guy named Peter Abelard. He had some interesting things to say on the subject.

I also suggest if you want to find out more on how evolution is a fraud, read The Case For A Creator by Lee Strobel. In this book it quotes over a hundred scientists who have found new research to prove that Evolution is fake and God is real.

It is impossible to find scientific evidence that God is real, unless you are positing a god limited by the rules of the universe - thus, a god that is not omnipotent, omniscient, etc.

Personally, I find refusal to accept evolution as willful blind ignorance.
There is, in fact, so much information to be seen and experienced that to ignore all of it, is quite simply, ignorance by choice.

To be a literalist, you must believe that the earth was created approximately 6,000 years ago.
Beucase we can find remnants of plantlife, from the paleozoic period (about 65 million years) shouldnt stand in your way of determined foolishness.

The mere mention of remains of such earlier humans like Neandertal, and cro-magnon man, shouldnt make the Literalist start questioning themselves, any more than (Im going to horribly mispell this: (Austrilopithises) , our earliest known relatives.
The fact thhat such a being being nearly identical in design to the human form is coincidence, I assure you!

Why is so impossible for these people to look objectively at thier own religions, and realize that these largely uneducated people, over two thousand years ago, didnt have the slightest clue how exactly the world started, and made up some stories, along with some moral lessons to go with it?

You can still accept the moral lesson about temptation in Genesis, without buying the poppycock idea that the world was created in six days.

Perhaps both sides are right (kind of...)?

Maybe time moves faster for god, so what he felt like seven days was like 4,5 billion years for us?

I think that the evolution THEORY is totally false.
First off, there is no REAL fossil evidence to ever support the evolutionary theory at all.
Secondly, If you take chance into consideration, there is no probable way for the universe to just happen.
Also, if you are a Christian and you believe in evolution not creation then I can't see how you can believe in God at all because without creation there is no Adam and Eve. Without Adam and Eve there would be no first sin and we would not need someone, Jesus, to laid down his life for our sins.
I also suggest if you want to find out more on how evolution is a fraud, read The Case For A Creator by Lee Strobel. In this book it quotes over a hundred scientists who have found new research to prove that Evolution is fake and God is real.
I didn't say it was true, I said it "may be true" the truth is I don't know if it is true, nobody really does. They can run around an claim that "evolution is a fact" but they can't really prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
What I do know is that there is a God, that He is all powerful, and that I don't want to be the one who limits him to what I think he can or can't do.

The thing about the Biblical creation story--actually, the two creation stories, because there are two of them in Genesis (but that's a whole 'nother thread)--is that it's not particularly original. Pretty much every ancient culture has something similar in their most ancient and holy writings, just as most cultures have a flood myth and a birth of man myth and a wrath of god/destruction myth. They're common threads that run from culture to culture, not because they have some common ancestry, but because they represent the earliest questions human beings asked about themselves and their environments. They're the earliest proofs of our self-awareness as thinking beings.
or maybe it all really happened. I believe there really is a God. wouldn't he make himself known to everybody not just one small culture?

Sigh.
The whole idea of religion is positively ridiculous, in my humble, but well-educated opinion. I could rant about the silliness of it for several pages, but I'll try to limit my comments to a few, hopefully coherant arguements:
1) The bible is clearly an allegory. Some of the stuff within it is so unrealistic, it defies the very laws of nature. That's not to say that the bible doesn't present some smart ideas about being nice to other people (although some of that stuff about women submitting to men is pretty nasty), just that it isn't meant to be taken seriously.
2) I have a major problem with the idea of God. If God exists and is almighty, why is he so darn quiet? I mean, especially if the bible is taken literally, it would stand to be expected that God would pop down from heavan every once and a while to give us a bit of advice. For example, if a person was about to make a poor choice and "sin", why wouldn't God, freezing time of course, as he simply couldn't miss a second of that night's Desperate Housewives episode, just make a little trip down to earth and tell that sinner why his actions are innapropriate. To me, that seems quite a bit more effective then sending an agent in the form of a mangy old priest, waving a crucifix so violently that some poor sucker gets socked in the eye.
3) If God exists, why would he make people? If I were God, I'd just prance around in the sky and bake alot of brownies in my celestial Easy-Bake-Oven. Not that I'm a bit of a loner, or anything.
4) How do you define a sinner? When I consider life, I see no true wrong and no true right. Life is life, as I should shortly explain, and who's to say that "heavan" and "hell" are so different after all. There are no true laws of human nature and behavoir, says my adolescent self, only rules people have imposed after years of judgement.
5) This is the part where you subtly cough to hint that the red light is flashing, and my on-stage time has expired. So I'll finish up quick (for now), with a silly little whim: WHY DO WE PUT SO MUCH SIGNIFICANCE IN LIFE? Life is just this: Birth, growth, reproduction, death. Humans just think about it too much. There is no answer. There is no meaning of life.

1)God isn't tied down by the laws of 'nature' or even human logic. He is God all mighty and awesome.
2)Sin separates us from God, he chooses not to be in the presence of sin.
3)God made people to love and obey him.
4)All are sinners. What is sin? disobeying God is a rather simple way to put it.
5)I don't know why people care so much about how life started, in my book what happens after is the really important part.

DISCLAIMER this is what I believe I have not posted it to start a flame war or to entertain people who want to ask "If God is all powerful then could he make a rock so big even he couldn't move it?" and other such questions. I do understand everyone doesn't believe this, and I am not going to try to force you to, I just felt the need to reply to that post. :)

Oh really? Then what have people been digging up?


Evolution does not discuss the orgins of the universe. That's abiogensis.


Evolution has never set out to prove or disprove the existence of God.



Evolution doesn't discuss "moral" systems.





Ok, first off I didn't say there wern't any fossils I said there weren't any to support evolution. I know you are going to say what about those acient fossils that made up the Nebraska man or the Nebraska mom, well do you know what they found to start off those images of two acient humans dating back millions and millions of years. They found a tooth, not a skeleton, not even a jaw bone, a tooth with they ADDED to a jawbone of a ape and that was added to a face of a aoe and so on to make a acient man and woman. Soon after the fossils word got araound in the papers and everywere a second tooth was found that matched the other tooth in every way shape and form, then that tooth was added to a skull which was added to the skeleton of a WILD PIG. The nebraska man and woman is nothing but a gigantic ape pig.

[/QUOTE]

Evolution has never set out to prove or disprove the existence of God.

I know the evolutionary theory doesn't set out to prove that God is false but it does anyway. If the world just happened and there was no need for any inteligent beings help then that would put God out of work, wouldn't it.

Evolution doesn't discuss "moral" systems.

It doesn't spicifically but if this theory puts God out of a job and shows there is a way the earth could have been created without God, This theory is put down students throats basically every day in High School and Colleage, then wouldn't more people fall away from God.

Wow a Christian Journalist is an expert in Biology? Hmm he talks to ID people well we can guess his viewpoints.

Yea well let me just read a quote form him thats on the back of the book.

"My road to atheim was paved by science. . . but, ironically so was my later journey to God" -Lee Strobel

I have read many evolutionary books, so I was just wandering if you have read any creationary books, expect the Bible, If you haven't in a while or at all, just take a look at this book you may be suprised.
.

I know the evolutionary theory doesn't set out to prove that God is false but it does anyway. If the world just happened and there was no need for any inteligent beings help then that would put God out of work, wouldn't it.

So you are saying evolution proves God is false? Wow, I guess we can finally see an end to all the great theological debates of human's history.

Or maybe evolution proves NOTHING about God.

...You say "if the world just happened," well that has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. Then you think "there was no need for any intelligent beings help," well says who? Says you, that's who. I know plenty of people who believe in God AND evolution. Didn't anyone ever tell you God works in mysterious ways?


It doesn't spicifically but if this theory puts God out of a job

There you go again saying that God is out of a job. Nonsense. As an immortal, omniscience, omnipotent being, God doesn't really have employment troubles. If you think God's only "job" was to make living things pop into existence at one single moment in time, you display even less knowledge of God than I, an atheist do.

and shows there is a way the earth could have been created without God,

Evolution has nothing to do with the way Earth was 'created.' Nothing. Nada.

This theory is put down students throats basically every day in High School and Colleage, then wouldn't more people fall away from God.

Actually I was put away from God by having GOD shoved down my throat every day in Church. Evolution had nothing to do with it for me, so its unlikely it would for anyone else.


I have read many evolutionary books

Yeah, I'm going to call bullshit on that one. Sorry.

First of all I was saying if evolution was true THEN God would be out of a job.

So there is no way in my mind, to be a evolutionist and a Christian. I know that that evolution is false and God is true.

Aso, I have read many evolutionary books. For example what about the high school science text book that starts out, "4.6 billion years a go..." huh.

If evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the world then what about the text books that start out with the big bag theory then they say cause of that tiny bacteria were formed which EVOLVED into higher intelligent beings and so on. So, I think it does.

First of all I was saying if evolution was true THEN God would be out of a job.

So there is no way in my mind, to be a evolutionist and a Christian. I know that that evolution is false and God is true.

Clearly your mind is set, but you are absolutely wrong about it is impossible to be an 'evolutionist' and a Christian. There are many who are. And your premise, the if-then statement, is also false, for reasons I've already stated and which you've ignored.

This is something that I figured out just recently: biblical literalists already use the New Testament passage that says that the Old Testament Laws don't apply anymore to let themselves eat pork and not stone people. What if that passage were interpreted in a modern scientific sense, i.e. invalidating the physical laws of the Old Testament. That would mean the creation account is wrong, and they can accept evolution. Not that they will, but there's no biblical law against stupidity.
Could they? Yes.

Will they? No.

People will cling to a belief until hell freezes over, often all the more fiercely because it can be proven to be wrong.

and what are those statements. Also, I am expressing MY views on this matter and most likely other people have views about being a Christian and a Evolutionist, but I'm sayin it can't truly be done if you believe all of the Evolutionary theory and all of Christianity

I think that the evolution THEORY is totally false.
First off, there is no REAL fossil evidence to ever support the evolutionary theory at all.
Secondly, If you take chance into consideration, there is no probable way for the universe to just happen.
Also, if you are a Christian and you believe in evolution not creation then I can't see how you can believe in God at all because without creation there is no Adam and Eve. Without Adam and Eve there would be no first sin and we would not need someone, Jesus, to laid down his life for our sins.
I also suggest if you want to find out more on how evolution is a fraud, read The Case For A Creator by Lee Strobel. In this book it quotes over a hundred scientists who have found new research to prove that Evolution is fake and God is real.

but you see when a christian scientist is trying to prove evolution wrong he creates other variables in the equation. so therefor any results are flawed. and if god says that everything was created by him why doesnt he metion the dinosaurs? because people didnt know about them. they were around 65 million years before the bible was written by men .
kthnxbye

[/QUOTE]


Yeah, I'm going to call bullshit on that one. Sorry.[/QUOTE]

lmfao

First of all I was saying if evolution was true THEN God would be out of a job.

So there is no way in my mind, to be a evolutionist and a Christian. I know that that evolution is false and God is true.

Aso, I have read many evolutionary books. For example what about the high school science text book that starts out, "4.6 billion years a go..." huh.

If evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the world then what about the text books that start out with the big bag theory then they say cause of that tiny bacteria were formed which EVOLVED into higher intelligent beings and so on. So, I think it does.

dealing with extreme is a path to the dark side~ the true god~ yoda

Perhaps both sides are right (kind of...)?

Maybe time moves faster for god, so what he felt like seven days was like 4,5 billion years for us?

Ok, I don't want to debate with EVERYONE on this subject but 3 days in the OT in the Bible is the same as 3 days in the NT, Or you would be saing that Jesus was in the tomb for 4 billion years i don't think so. I mean you guys have the right to say that and I'm just sayin MY views, sry if i offened anyone or anything like that.

Ok, I don't want to debate with EVERYONE on this subject but 3 days in the OT in the Bible is the same as 3 days in the NT, Or you would be saing that Jesus was in the tomb for 4 billion years i don't think so. I mean you guys have the right to say that and I'm just sayin MY views, sry if i offened anyone or anything like that.
sorry. I have to chime in.
when in the NT they talked about 3 days they were talking from a human perspective in Genesis nobody was around but God so one could assume the 6 days was from a God perspective that was handed down to a human.
don't like that one?
okay how bout this God can do whatever it is God wants to do. If he wanted to create a planet that looked really really old he could, in whatever time frame he saw fit. He (God) doesn't have any responsibility to explain to us every single thing that ever happened or how it happened and we don't have the right to try to limit God. (he could do this, but couldn't do that because it would be impossible) With God ALL things are possible. whether we understand how or not, that is just the way it is....

Perhaps both sides are right (kind of...)?

Maybe time moves faster for god, so what he felt like seven days was like 4,5 billion years for us?

You know, that's a point that I've considered fun to ponder on for many years now.
Take ants, for example. They don't live very long. There are a great many of them, and the smallest of them are almost iconceivably tiny. Humans, by comparison to the ant , are immortal, inconceivably huge, and omnipotent. I mean hey, we can lift an ant up, and carry it as far away as we like. We can completely alter all of what the ant knows the world to be like. To the ant, we are omnipotent, eternal gods. Which is awesome, by the way.
So you could say, using this amusing idea, that we are the ants - or just a colony - and "God" is a human. Then, this God human - let's call him Doug, it's a good name for the God Of Ants - he has existed sine before the dawn of ant memory, and he will exist for many thousands of ant lives. If he wants, Doug can completely change the world of the ants - change the soil, raise or lower water levels, change the plant life, introduce new predators and prey - he can even "create" strange, mechanical creatures. Wooh! We have a god. All-seeing, all powerful. Bwahhah!
well. I like the idea. It could be that something like this happened. Although as I age, I find it harder and harder to believe. Damn my cynicism!
While I don't like the Catholic church [and I am [I]well familiar with it, thankyou all, the idea of a god and an afterlife charms me. I like the idea of many gods, but that's just me. It is far too late for me to discuss me personal theology with complete strangers.

Also! Perhaps the "seven days" thing, or in fact, the entirity of Genesis was an extended metaphor! It wouldn't surprise me. And I don't mean our interpretation today, I mean it's likely it was always written that way. Whether it was written by a mortal or dictated by a god, it's very likely that, how old is the bible? 2 thousand years, three tops? Anyway, it's very likely that, no matter who the author was, all that time ago, people just needed something to answer The Question, and there it was, The Answer, in a rather lovely extended metaphor, even if it did pale in comparison to the Greek's Question and Answer. :D
My closing comment, because I'm rambling, is CONTEXT! ALWAYS REMEMBER CONTEXT CHANGES EVERYTHING! As does THOUSANDS OF YEARS of translation and re-writing! What we have today is NOT what was originally written!

Person who said "there's no REAL fossil evidence of evolution", you disgust me with your imbecilic ravings! If you're going to rant and rave, do it enough so you might actually have some smidgin of a shred of actual sense behind your wild allegations!
So what are the dinosaurs? Hm? Punk? Just pretty DRAGONS? While that would be nice, I THINK NOT!
DARWIN looks down on you from the heavens in CONTEMPT.

Thankyou, goodnight.

This angry face amuses me! :mad:

Also... I have to mention the Hypnotoad, because it makes about as much sense as Purist Creationists, and their "OMGZ Eviloution be teh dev0lorz, that's right, did you see the word EVIL in EVOLUTION? Because I did"...
Right, I'll really go now.

The biggest problem here is that we're comparing Creationism (pure faith) and Evolutionism (pure science). Apples and oranges, people.

God cannot be proven with science. It's all based on faith. Faith cannot be proven. Thus, God cannot be proven to exist with science. Science is limited by certain laws (Gravity, Newton's Laws, Thermodynamics, ect.), but God is not.

sorry. I have to chime in.
when in the NT they talked about 3 days they were talking from a human perspective in Genesis nobody was around but God so one could assume the 6 days was from a God perspective that was handed down to a human.
don't like that one?
okay how bout this God can do whatever it is God wants to do. If he wanted to create a planet that looked really really old he could, in whatever time frame he saw fit. He (God) doesn't have any responsibility to explain to us every single thing that ever happened or how it happened and we don't have the right to try to limit God. (he could do this, but couldn't do that because it would be impossible) With God ALL things are possible. whether we understand how or not, that is just the way it is....

Ah, but God chose to give us free will, right? And rights, and all that shiney, glorious stuff? Hokay, so I know full-well that the God of the Old Testament was big on vengeance and pillars-o-salt and all, but since Jesus he's been a compassionate, loving god. Why the hell would he lie to us, and fabricate stuff? And then stick it in the ground? Why?! For an all knowing, all seeing being of awesomeage, that's pretty boring.
I mean, I know if I were God, I'd sure as hell make those dinosaurs. I might release them on human cities also, but that's why everyone should be happy every day that I Am Not God.

The biggest problem here is that we're comparing Creationism (pure faith) and Evolutionism (pure science). Apples and oranges, people.

God cannot be proven with science. It's all based on faith. Faith cannot be proven. Thus, God cannot be proven to exist with science. Science is limited by certain laws (Gravity, Newton's Laws, Thermodynamics, ect.), but God is not.

Exactly what I've been trying to say for ages! Except I am not very good at concise, and so... yeah. Heh. Well said.

I think that the evolution THEORY is totally false.

I have a treasure map to sell you.

First off, there is no REAL fossil evidence to ever support the evolutionary theory at all.

There is so much that only a true fool can ignore it.

Secondly, If you take chance into consideration, there is no probable way for the universe to just happen.

Hehehehehe, you really are on a role.

Also, if you are a Christian and you believe in evolution not creation then I can't see how you can believe in God at all because without creation there is no Adam and Eve. Without Adam and Eve there would be no first sin and we would not need someone, Jesus, to laid down his life for our sins.

Bet you still believe in Father Christmas as well.

I also suggest if you want to find out more on how evolution is a fraud, read The Case For A Creator by Lee Strobel. In this book it quotes over a hundred scientists who have found new research to prove that Evolution is fake and God is real.

Find someone with a little bit of credibility.

sorry. I have to chime in.
when in the NT they talked about 3 days they were talking from a human perspective in Genesis nobody was around but God so one could assume the 6 days was from a God perspective that was handed down to a human.
don't like that one?
okay how bout this God can do whatever it is God wants to do. If he wanted to create a planet that looked really really old he could, in whatever time frame he saw fit. He (God) doesn't have any responsibility to explain to us every single thing that ever happened or how it happened and we don't have the right to try to limit God. (he could do this, but couldn't do that because it would be impossible) With God ALL things are possible. whether we understand how or not, that is just the way it is....

You know, it really does amaze me that there are still so many people prepared to believe in fairy stories. Seemingly intelligent people (well intelligent enough to write messages with a computer) are willing to demean themselves before a god for which there is ZERO evidence. In fact, not only is there no evidence for god, there isn't even evidence for the need for a god.

Ah, but God chose to give us free will, right? And rights, and all that shiney, glorious stuff? Hokay, so I know full-well that the God of the Old Testament was big on vengeance and pillars-o-salt and all, but since Jesus he's been a compassionate, loving god. Why the hell would he lie to us, and fabricate stuff? And then stick it in the ground? Why?! For an all knowing, all seeing being of awesomeage, that's pretty boring.
I mean, I know if I were God, I'd sure as hell make those dinosaurs. I might release them on human cities also, but that's why everyone should be happy every day that I Am Not God.
I never said that God lied, I was leaning to saying that just because we have all this fancy science and our Holy Bible doesn't mean we are anywhere near understanding anything about why we are here or how we got here. God can do whatever he wants, if he wanted to take millions of years to make the planet he could. People limit him to what they think really happened and no one will ever know apart from waiting until you get to heaven and just asking God, but who is really going to care about evolution/creation then? anyway I don't understand why free will enters into this conversation at all, or why your percieved discrepancy between the God of the old testament and the God of the new (who are the same and unchanging) have anything to do with what I was talking about. please explain.

There is so much that only a true fool can ignore it.




O yea, name some.

You know, it really does amaze me that there are still so many people prepared to believe in fairy stories. Seemingly intelligent people (well intelligent enough to write messages with a computer) are willing to demean themselves before a god for which there is ZERO evidence. In fact, not only is there no evidence for god, there isn't even evidence for the need for a god.
fairy stories :rolleyes: I really wish people wouldn't trample all over my beliefs just because they don't believe the same thing.
as far as evidence I see it everyday. I don't deny your right to interpret what you see, and you shouldn't demean me because we don't see eye to eye.
Just because you don't see the need for a God doesn't mean there isn't one, and just because you don't see the point in my religion doesn't mean that you have the right to put it down. It is really offensive. What is almost as offensive is your implying that Christians are somehow less intelligent than you. :mad:

Again, that's because it's faith. Faith =/= science.

And ability to type a message on a computer is no indication of intelligence. A simple visit to FanFiction.net, or an IM message such as 'ur dum LoL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1' is enough to prove that.

fairy stories :rolleyes: I really wish people wouldn't trample all over my beliefs just because they don't believe the same thing.
as far as evidence I see it everyday. I don't deny your right to interpret what you see, and you shouldn't demean me because we don't see eye to eye.
Just because you don't see the need for a God doesn't mean there isn't one, and just because you don't see the point in my religion doesn't mean that you have the right to put it down. It is really offensive. What is almost as offensive is your implying that Christians are somehow less intelligent than you. :mad:

I agree

O yea, name some.

Whales. *whistles innocently*

You know, it really does amaze me that there are still so many people prepared to believe in fairy stories. Seemingly intelligent people (well intelligent enough to write messages with a computer) are willing to demean themselves before a god for which there is ZERO evidence. In fact, not only is there no evidence for god, there isn't even evidence for the need for a god.

Ok, I got a question for you. Why are you putting all your faith in science, when science changes every year. The science text books from the 80s are totally different than the ones today. But, Christianity has not changed over thousands of years. So why is it stupid for me to put my faith in soemthing that has not changed for that long, when what you believe in changes basically every year? huh?

The only way Biblical Literalists could accept Evolution would be if God aided it. However, since the Bible makes no mention of God using Evolution to create creatures, I personally believe that Evolution never happened.

Whales. *whistles innocently*

Heres your answer (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC335.html) *whistles more innocently*

Again, that's because it's faith. Faith =/= science.

And ability to type a message on a computer is no indication of intelligence. A simple visit to FanFiction.net, or an IM message such as 'ur dum LoL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1' is enough to prove that.
I'd like to see a rat throw together that sentence.

Hehehehehe, you really are on a role.


Also, instead of ignoring my point with a stupid comment, why don't you try to disprove, if you can.

Heres your answer (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC335.html) *whistles more innocently*

...wow. Interesting, but completely irrelevent, and also contradictory to your position.

What I was getting at is the fact that whales are fairly recently evolved. The common ancestor for both baleen and toothed whales is found in the Oligocene, and the families of some modern species are found in the late Miocene epoch. You could even go back to the Eocene with Basilosaurus/Zeuglodon. (www.ucmp.berkeley.edu (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/cetacea/cetacean.html))

Another point: Some species of pythons still have vestigal legs, which have been reduced to a single claw where the hind legs would be.

Alright... im a touch too lazy to read this entire thing, so forgive me if im repeating someone elses point.
I have noticed several of you stating that "Those who believe in evolution cannot believe in God"...
This is completely false in my opinion. I am a Catholic. I go to a Catholic high school. I believe in God.
I also believe in evolution.
There are many, many examples of places in the bible where the authors got something wrong scientifically. For example, the hare is listed as an animal that chews cud.
There is also that whole thing about the earth being a flat plane with a firmament above it and water below it.
(there are many more, but im too lazy to go dig out the sheet my religion teacher gave me...)
I think we can both agree that those are false.
Therefor, the only way that I can see ANY part of the bible as true is by interpreting it not as the literal word of God, but at the figurative teachings of God.
The stories in Genesis are attempting to teach a moral lesson, not lay down scientific fact.
My personal belief is that God, rather than just creating man and animals and so on, was instead the cause of the Big Bang, and from then on just let things go as they would. Perhaps he even pushed a big button labeled "PUSH TO START EVOLUTION".
The other point i have is that God is far beyond our human understanding. Who are we to judge whether there is only one truth. We can never understand God, so why try to argue that you know what hes thinking? For all we know, God could be sitting in heaven laughing his ass off at us arguing about this.

bueler? Bueler?
anyone home?
or am i just that brilliant that I stopped the debate?
*does the Kashim WINZ dance!!!*
<("<) <("^) <('')> (^")> (>")>
<("<) <("v) ^('')^ (v")> (>")>
<("<) <("^) <('')> (^")> (>")>
<("<) <("v) v('')v (v")> (>")>
<("<) <("^) <('')> (^")> (>")>
<("<) (>")><("<) (>")><("<)
^('')^<('')>v('')v^('')^<('')>
(_|_) (|__) (__|) (_|_) (|__)
<("<) <("^) <('')> (^")> (>")>
<("<) <("v) ^('')^ (v")> (>")>
<("<) <("^) <('')> (^")> (>")>
<("<) <("v) v('')v (v")> (>")>
<("<) <("^) <('')> (^")> (>")>
<("<) (>")><("<) (>")><("<)
^('')^<('')>v('')v^('')^<('')>
<("<) v("^) <('')> (^")v (>")>
v("^) (^")v v("^) (^")v v("^)
<("<) ^(..)^ (>")> v(..)v <("<)


**edit**
Guess Not....

I think that the evolution THEORY is totally false.
First off, there is no REAL fossil evidence to ever support the evolutionary theory at all.
Secondly, If you take chance into consideration, there is no probable way for the universe to just happen.
Also, if you are a Christian and you believe in evolution not creation then I can't see how you can believe in God at all because without creation there is no Adam and Eve. Without Adam and Eve there would be no first sin and we would not need someone, Jesus, to laid down his life for our sins.
I also suggest if you want to find out more on how evolution is a fraud, read The Case For A Creator by Lee Strobel. In this book it quotes over a hundred scientists who have found new research to prove that Evolution is fake and God is real.
Eight posts into troll territory. Keen.

Ok, I got a question for you. Why are you putting all your faith in science, when science changes every year. The science text books from the 80s are totally different than the ones today. But, Christianity has not changed over thousands of years. So why is it stupid for me to put my faith in soemthing that has not changed for that long, when what you believe in changes basically every year? huh?
The only food for troll here ... since i've posted DOZENS of times on the subject of evolution ...
But, Christianity has not changed over thousands of years.
And so you have the knowledge and evidence to back that up!
So, which Bible do you subscribe to? NRSV? NIV? King James?

Heres your answer (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC335.html) *whistles more innocently*
Well, ambulocetus natans is what you need to understand - homework time.
Also (my apologies) ...

The common ancestor for both baleen and toothed whales is found in the Oligocene, and the families of some modern species are found in the late Miocene epoch. You could even go back to the Eocene with Basilosaurus/Zeuglodon. (www.ucmp.berkeley.edu)

Another point: Some species of pythons still have vestigal legs, which have been reduced to a single claw where the hind legs would be.
...posted earlier.

And heres the other problem with a literal interpretation.
Even in you use the same translation of the bible....
there are still 2 SEPERATE CREATION STORIES!!
I've always been interested to know how literal readers deal with the fact that the bible itself tells the story 2 different ways...
and if one of them is purely metaphorical, then why not the other? Where does the bible differentiate between them?

I think that the evolution THEORY is totally false.
First off, there is no REAL fossil evidence to ever support the evolutionary theory at all.
Secondly, If you take chance into consideration, there is no probable way for the universe to just happen.
Also, if you are a Christian and you believe in evolution not creation then I can't see how you can believe in God at all because without creation there is no Adam and Eve. Without Adam and Eve there would be no first sin and we would not need someone, Jesus, to laid down his life for our sins.
I also suggest if you want to find out more on how evolution is a fraud, read The Case For A Creator by Lee Strobel. In this book it quotes over a hundred scientists who have found new research to prove that Evolution is fake and God is real.
Pokes the monkey.
God has been proven scientifically real?
Pokes the monkey.

In my haste to finish last night, I forgot my most important point. All the things I brought up previously have wishy-washy answers that it would be redundant to argue. But here's one point that needs a solid, plausible answer, as it isn't based upon philosophy, IMHO.
If there is a God, how did he come into existence? Who made him? Does God have a God, and, if so, how does the God of Gods exist?

Jehovah, Zeus, Thor, Aphrodite, the Easter Bunny, Mister Ed....whatever ! :rolleyes:

In my haste to finish last night, I forgot my most important point. All the things I brought up previously have wishy-washy answers that it would be redundant to argue. But here's one point that needs a solid, plausible answer, as it isn't based upon philosophy, IMHO.
If there is a God, how did he come into existence? Who made him? Does God have a God, and, if so, how does the God of Gods exist?

Now, this is an interesting point and I'm glad someone brought it up because it also ties into the rationale of believing in a divine being (or beings) whoever or whatever it/they may be. (From now on I'm going to refer to any divine being(s) singularly for the sake of simplicity.)

The point Christians make is this: science, as someone pointed out earlier, can explain all of the physical world up to the point the world was made. It can explain the origin of life and how the world and universe got to being the way it is etc. but cannot explain the origin of the totality of things.

Now I think all scientists will agree that nothing in the natural, physical world can cause itself. There is no affect without a cause, basically. Sure it is theoretically possible that this anomaly occurs somewhere in nature, but so unlikely and unreasonable that no one really considers it as a possibility. Most accept such a phenomenon as being outside of the laws of nature. Therefore, there must be another world outside of the physical world where such a feat is possible. This theoretical world is what we call the metaphysical world or supernatural world. In this world there is something that is the cause of itself. This thing is also apparently able to cause at least the very beginning of the world (the big bang, or whatever). Thus some kind of metaphysical being (which we call a god) must exist.

Now of course this doesn't prove that there is a benevolent triune God that became man and died for our sins, or that the Bible or any other Holy Book has any validity at all. Getting past the "I believe there is something out there" stage you need to involve Faith, Reason can't do it alone. But Reason can get you to there^ at least.

Also I'd like to comment on some other people's posts. So many people seem to think there isn't a god because his actions make no sense. What?!?! That argument is so flawed it isn't even funny. Stop looking at a non-human being in a human way. Why does an ostrich stick its head in the ground when it's afraid? Non-human beings do things that don't make sense to us, because we're humans and we're applying human reason to their actions. God also is not human (yes I know Christians believe that God became man and so forth, but there is still a divine will afterwards) so don't apply human reasoning to him.

Now, this is an interesting point and I'm glad someone brought it up because it also ties into the rationale of believing in a divine being (or beings) whoever or whatever it/they may be. (From now on I'm going to refer to any divine being(s) singularly for the sake of simplicity.)

The point Christians make is this: science, as someone pointed out earlier, can explain all of the physical world up to the point the world was made. It can explain the origin of life and how the world and universe got to being the way it is etc. but cannot explain the origin of the totality of things.

Now I think all scientists will agree that nothing in the natural, physical world can cause itself. There is no affect without a cause, basically. Sure it is theoretically possible that this anomaly occurs somewhere in nature, but so unlikely and unreasonable that no one really considers it as a possibility. Most accept such a phenomenon as being outside of the laws of nature. Therefore, there must be another world outside of the physical world where such a feat is possible. This theoretical world is what we call the metaphysical world or supernatural world. In this world there is something that is the cause of itself. This thing is also apparently able to cause at least the very beginning of the world (the big bang, or whatever). Thus some kind of metaphysical being (which we call a god) must exist.

Now of course this doesn't prove that there is a benevolent triune God that became man and died for our sins, or that the Bible or any other Holy Book has any validity at all. Getting past the "I believe there is something out there" stage you need to involve Faith, Reason can't do it alone. But Reason can get you to there^ at least.

Also I'd like to comment on some other people's posts. So many people seem to think there isn't a god because his actions make no sense. What?!?! That argument is so flawed it isn't even funny. Stop looking at a non-human being in a human way. Why does an ostrich stick its head in the ground when it's afraid? Non-human beings do things that don't make sense to us, because we're humans and we're applying human reason to their actions. God also is not human (yes I know Christians believe that God became man and so forth, but there is still a divine will afterwards) so don't apply human reasoning to him.

Even though I don't fully agree, you're the first person to give me a rebuttle that seems educated and made me think. You're ideas are as likely as mine, but I have one thing to say: Even if it seems beyond human comprehension, is it at all possible that the universe just is? As in, could it have been here forever? Does it have to have a beginning?

Note: Think about this: humans understand all things to have beginnings because all earthly things we are familiar with have beginnings. The whole of the universe is not limited to things that act in familiar ways to our own life.

Other Note: Yes, this is a bit (or a lot) contradictory of my original posting (I will fully admit to being a self-absorbed hypocrite), but, seeing as I'm not yet a high-school graduate, my philosophical musings could concievably posess major flaws. Like everyone else, I'm just trying to understand.

It boils down to these questions, dictates my supposition:
1) Was there an ultimate beginning? (And, similarly, will there be an ultimate end?)
2) If there was such a beginning, which was first: religions spiritual, humanoid God, your metaphysical, non-human God, or Science's unconcious, inanimate universe?

I never said that God lied, I was leaning to saying that just because we have all this fancy science and our Holy Bible doesn't mean we are anywhere near understanding anything about why we are here or how we got here. God can do whatever he wants, if he wanted to take millions of years to make the planet he could. People limit him to what they think really happened and no one will ever know apart from waiting until you get to heaven and just asking God, but who is really going to care about evolution/creation then? anyway I don't understand why free will enters into this conversation at all, or why your percieved discrepancy between the God of the old testament and the God of the new (who are the same and unchanging) have anything to do with what I was talking about. please explain.

I don't think we're anywhere near understanding anything, either. Oh, and I do mean anything.
Personally, if I make it to heaven, which I'm kind of hoping on in the unlikely event of my death [yes. I am first aiming for immortality, so far I'm doing pretty good, 18 years and no deaths yet!] and had the option of speaking to God, almost the first thing I'd do would be ask about all the niggling questions on evolution that I've had since I was an itty bitty anklebiter. Like, would Velocilraptors have evolved into human-like sentient creatures if the dinosaurs hadn't gone extinct? How big is the universe? Will you make me a dragon? Please tell me the T-Rex didn't have feathers? If I had access to what should be the font of all knowledge and an eternity to digest that information, I'd sure as hell use it.

I never said that I thought that the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament were different gods. I am well aware that Christianity has but one deity. 'Sept for Jesus. And the Saints. Really, if you look at it, the system of worship is quite interestingly similar to... what's it called... polytheism (?) at times. But I digress!
Anyway, your point about 6 days being put into a human perspective... I think that is a fine point. It's also interesting, because, right, say that every day in the life of this eternal God is... oh, a hundred million years. That may or may not be giving too much time. Right. Or we could say, since this is God after all, that each day is merely the begining and end of an event, right? So we'll just say that a "God-Day" is a symbolic measurement of events rather than time. Then why, why is evolution contrary to what the bible says? If you want to take a creation story written over two thousand years ago literally, which in my opinion is foolish in the utmost, considering how many times it's been translated (probably often very poorly), re-written, re-scribed, and all that, not to mention the change in context...! But I digress again. So.
We have erratic God-Days [in terms of time]. Say Day One is The Big Bang. It works! If you insist on making Religion and Science exist in tandem [another foolish thing, IMO], It's quite possible to accept evolution. Quite easy.
Whats more! And I must admit that this is me, the cynical history student, speaking, You said yourself that there was only God present at creation, yes? Right. So this happened so, so long before anyone thought that counting their sheep would be a good idea, let alone writing down the answer to How We Came To Be Here. How was this information passed down? It had to be written by a person. Because as far as I know, God is yet to write a single word. I'm not saying he can't. He just hasn't.

And my point about Free Will, is partially to do with my penchant for wild tangents. But it is all relevant, let me assure you. Well, it seems so to me.
If you could create anything, anything at all that you wanted, why would you only make pretend versions? Why? If you live forever, and for some reason have interest in only one relatively tiney yet rather pretty and becoming blue planet, why would you make it only 6 thousand years old? Life must be pretty boring for this god dude. Why not just start from the begining? Surely that would be a wiser and more mighty decision.
I know you're going to say something along the lines of "we can't put human restrictions on a god, or human moral codes", but since we were apparantly crafted in his image, I'm going to assume that god is very much like a person.
Why would you do what is essentially lying to your children? It's not lying to protect them either. That would be tellling your children that their dog ran away rather than telling them that it attacked someone and had to be put down. Saying "oh, yeah, I did this stuff, but there's some bones lying around... heh, yeah, they are pretty old huh..." is a completely different thing.

Personally, I think that taking the creation story - indeed, any creation story - literally is one of the highest intelectual follys imaginable. Because firstly, it was not written to be taken literally. Not really. I could go on, but I've already rambled enough and failed to answer your question to a standard which brings me satisfaction, so it's time for bullet points.

- Science and Religion are not things which have to be mixed. There is an accute difference between what you know and what you believe, and there are satisfactions to be had in both.

- Genesis, in the form we have it today, is not the origional text. I guarantee that without a moment's hesitation. It is more than likely that the number of times the thing has been translated and re-written, more than half of the origional intention has been lost. And let's not forget that for almost a thousand years the church was an extremely powerful power in Europe. It was almost a Monarchy in the Middle Ages, and to that end, things would have been changed to further secure power. If you don't believe that, there is no more point in debating anything sensibly.

- How can you be satisfied in any knowledge without being able to question it? Everything that I consider to be something I know I have gained through question. It's one of the most enjoyable thing about knowledge. In my opinon.
That is all. I'd like a reply to this, but it's likely nobody cares about this little theological discussion anymore.

By the way, I'm not an atheist. I'm agnostic at the moment (and if anyone tells me it's the Devils Fence I will never again treat them as a human being), although I will never, ever take anything in the Bible Literally, which isn't to say I don't respect it. And I also kind of know what I'm talking about, you know, after 13 years of Catholic Education.

fairy stories :rolleyes: I really wish people wouldn't trample all over my beliefs just because they don't believe the same thing.
as far as evidence I see it everyday. I don't deny your right to interpret what you see, and you shouldn't demean me because we don't see eye to eye.
Just because you don't see the need for a God doesn't mean there isn't one, and just because you don't see the point in my religion doesn't mean that you have the right to put it down. It is really offensive. What is almost as offensive is your implying that Christians are somehow less intelligent than you. :mad:

fairy story
noun: a children's tale about magical and imaginary beings and lands. An untrue account.

Yes, that covers religion.

There is no evidence for god(s), there isn't even evidence for the need for god(s). Therefore, you have to accept that a continued belief in fairy stories, in the face of all the evidence that disproves the content of those stories, has to label the believer as low on the intelligence scale.

Christianity, like other religions, tried to explain a universe to the simple people of the past. It was also used as a control - putting priests in a position of authority. They relied on stories which are no different from those of Father Christmas, the Tooth Fairy or the Star Wars saga. As a child they may be believable, but by the time we grow up we put them behind us.

The fact that grown people can still believe in gods in the 21st century shows that modern education systems need a lot of improvement.

I didn't say it was true, I said it "may be true" the truth is I don't know if it is true, nobody really does. They can run around an claim that "evolution is a fact" but they can't really prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Incorrect. With the evidence we currently have, the idea that a process called evolution occurs is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It is possible for science to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. It is simply not possible for science to prove something beyond all doubt.

What I do know is that there is a God, that He is all powerful, and that I don't want to be the one who limits him to what I think he can or can't do.

Good then.

Ok, I got a question for you. Why are you putting all your faith in science, when science changes every year. The science text books from the 80s are totally different than the ones today. But, Christianity has not changed over thousands of years. So why is it stupid for me to put my faith in soemthing that has not changed for that long, when what you believe in changes basically every year? huh?

Science makes progress, but there has been little real change in the last 25 years. If you want to base things on age then christianity, being a relative newcomer, has to be rejected right away.

I know the evolutionary theory doesn't set out to prove that God is false but it does anyway. If the world just happened and there was no need for any inteligent beings help then that would put God out of work, wouldn't it.

You are confusing the origin of the universe with the origin of species. Nothing in evolutionary theory speculates at all on how the universe, the world, or even life came to be. It only deals with how life changes over time.

Meanwhile, thinking that it puts God out of work is simply silly. What weak faith you have if you cannot consider the idea that God simply worked through natural processes, instead of around them.

Also, instead of ignoring my point with a stupid comment, why don't you try to disprove, if you can.

Things do just happen. Why do you have a problem with that?

The others have answered you pretty well so I will just add a couple comments.

The example you offered is one of the great things of science; it is self-correcting. The is why the claim of fact can't be used. One theory sounds like it's a fact and then say 100 years later it's proven it's not.


I know the evolutionary theory doesn't set out to prove that God is false but it does anyway. If the world just happened and there was no need for any inteligent beings help then that would put God out of work, wouldn't it.

Actually no it doesn't. It can't. How do you test for God? Unless we get a burning bush saying "Beaaches! It was me!" then we don't ask the question as we can't prove or disprove it.


It doesn't spicifically but if this theory puts God out of a job and shows there is a way the earth could have been created without God, This theory is put down students throats basically every day in High School and Colleage, then wouldn't more people fall away from God.

Again. How does it put the almighty out of work? Evolution has nothing do with the beginnings of the universe.

As to "brainwashing" no sorry. Unless things have changed, biology was voluntary when I went to school. I opted for chemistry, physics, and astronomy. I became interested in Biology in college. A primatologist taught a physical anthropology couse and hooked me on both biology and primates.

If a persons faith is weak, then evolution making people fall away from God is an excuse.

The two don't compete. Don't forget Darwin was a deeply religous man.


Yea well let me just read a quote form him thats on the back of the book.

"My road to atheim was paved by science. . . but, ironically so was my later journey to God" -Lee Strobel

Hmm isn't that take from the quoate The way to Hell is paved with Good intentions."

If you want something more interesting, try Darwin's Dangerous idea. ;)

I have read many evolutionary books, so I was just wandering if you have read any creationary books, expect the Bible, If you haven't in a while or at all, just take a look at this book you may be suprised.
.

Well I am sorry but I have to give you a leary eye on that statement. Some of your arguments don't suggest that.

For me I have read Behe, Johnson, just starting the Dembowski book, and a few by some really extreamist wacko creationists.....

You know, it really does amaze me that there are still so many people prepared to believe in fairy stories. Seemingly intelligent people (well intelligent enough to write messages with a computer) are willing to demean themselves before a god for which there is ZERO evidence. In fact, not only is there no evidence for god, there isn't even evidence for the need for a god.

Oh look, more bigotry from Brenchley. Good to see you are still incapable of even considering that others might have different experiences in life than you.

But, Christianity has not changed over thousands of years.

Wow, not only have you never studied science, you've obviously never studied Christianity either. Anyone who would claim that Christianity hasn't changed over thousands of years hasn't bothered to even take a peek into its history.

And heres the other problem with a literal interpretation.
Even in you use the same translation of the bible....
there are still 2 SEPERATE CREATION STORIES!!
I've always been interested to know how literal readers deal with the fact that the bible itself tells the story 2 different ways...
and if one of them is purely metaphorical, then why not the other? Where does the bible differentiate between them?

Most people don't read it closely enough to notice the two separate stories, especially when you consider the fact that many modern translations have altered words to try and make it sound more like one bit story and don't translate over the huge differences in style.