NationStates Jolt Archive

Pony up.

I have a question for Creationists, a rather long winded one. It is on the matter of Biblical justification for certain things and while i am open to getting slammed for what I think I dont want to bother posting my opinion to be forced to listen to the Anti-religious(minority) around who just like to blather pointlessly about the stupidity of religion.

I do however have bone to pick with Creationism, and I am sincerely hoping there is indeed someone here who can earnestly represent that particular group.

So if you are a Creationist(In the Christian Fundamentalist sense--for clearification) please step up and have a dialogue with me for a tic or two.

If I cant find any...I will give it a day bump the thread and place my question for people in general to discuss...though it will be pointless without the opposition's point of veiw.

EDIT:
Since there are indeed interested parties.

I am Believer.
I believe in Jesus Christ is the son of God, that he died on the cross as a blood sacrifice for the sins of the world.
I believe he is the Messiah.
I believe in the trinity.

I am believer who submits himself to the bible, as best as I can...and I often fall short.

There is the qualifier.
Now, on the matter of creation.
In genisis we are all familiar witht he six days of work and the seventh day of rest.

I would like to know why this is taken literally when the bible clearly states man can not know Gods time.

Or to clearify.
I believe that the Big Bang, is perfectly acceptable theory to walk hand in hand with genisis---first there was the void.

I also believe that genisis is practically describing evolution.
the sea, the earth, the crawling, the larger animals, then finally--Man form the earth. From the dirt.
Evolution doesnt even contradict a First Man First Woman theory.

So, what I want to know why in the creation of earht and man are the scientific theories of the Big Bang, and Evolution so tabboo? SO wrong?

Why are not the Seven Days alagory, or man being fashioned from dirt alagory...if truly genisis was delivered in a vision how could a man of the period hope to describe the information he was imparting?

Why is it that for a Perfect All powerful God Evolution such a complex mechanism? Surely designing evolution would be but an after thought for an Almighty God?

And if in the blink of an eye you were to be shown the Evolutionary process through a spiritual vision...how else would you describe it then "Man came from dirt"?

And if creation is indeed at the hand of God(which I believe) they doesnt it make sense that it has taken man a thousand generations to even scratch the surface of the process involved?

And be even less certain of the creation of the universe?

Simply, why are evolution and the big bang veiwed as heresy when clearly they are perfectly well within the power of God to inact?

What biblical justification is there for taking Genisis descriptions and designations of time literally?

I think most of...those....have been long ago exiled from the aethistic, secular paradise which is Nationstates General.

I'm not a creationist but could I have a crack at answering it from how I think a creationist might answer it?

I created mankind plain and simple.:p

what do you mean by the Christian Fundamentalist view?

what do you mean by the Christian Fundamentalist view?

He means people who are hardcore Christians. Like ultra-bible thumpers (as a Christian, I do not even like ultrafundamentalists, for they impose themselves too heavily on others).

They're the type who go around screaming, "If you ain't Christian, you're goin' to hell!" (as a proud hillbilly, I can make that joke...)

First thank you very much my predictable peanut gallery with your gross lack of inventive, I never fail to not be disappointed in you.

To Hyde, sounds good.


To Smunkie,
Well, I dont really mean Fundamentalist by my definition it is Radical.
I mean people who essentially insist that all of the Bible is literal...until there is a contradictory section to their radical thinking, at which point it becomes alagory. Like Creationists who insist the Earth was made in Six Days.

My wife wants to check her email so I will post the question in bit.

Pony up.

I have a question for Creationists, a rather long winded one. It is on the matter of Biblical justification for certain things and while i am open to getting slammed for what I think I dont want to bother posting my opinion to be forced to listen to the Anti-religious(minority) around who just like to blather pointlessly about the stupidity of religion.

I do however have bone to pick with Creationism, and I am sincerely hoping there is indeed someone here who can earnestly represent that particular group.

So if you are a Creationist(In the Christian Fundamentalist sense--for clearification) please step up and have a dialogue with me for a tic or two.

If I cant find any...I will give it a day bump the thread and place my question for people in general to discuss...though it will be pointless without the opposition's point of veiw.

well why not just post your opinion then?
Regardless of whether there are people here who are anti-religion or not, there are an equal amount who are quite learned.
And if that does'nt do it for you, there are also some seriously argumentative SOBs who will argue the point anyway just for the sake of it.

He means people who are hardcore Christians. Like ultra-bible thumpers (as a Christian, I do not even like ultrafundamentalists, for they impose themselves too heavily on others).

They're the type who go around screaming, "If you ain't Christian, you're goin' to hell!" (as a proud hillbilly, I can make that joke...)

I am a Christian Fundamentalist.... I just wonder what he means by the "Christian Fundamentalist view" since none of the fundamentals really have anything to do with creationism or not.

To Smunkie,
Well, I dont really mean Fundamentalist by my definition it is Radical.
I mean people who essentially insist that all of the Bible is literal...until there is a contradictory section to their radical thinking, at which point it becomes alagory. Like Creationists who insist the Earth was made in Six Days.

My wife wants to check her email so I will post the question in bit.
oh, just wondering.

I am an Old Earth Creationist. does your question apply to me? maybe? I used to hang out with a few young earth creationists, I may be able to answer as they would.

He means people who are hardcore Christians. Like ultra-bible thumpers (as a Christian, I do not even like ultrafundamentalists, for they impose themselves too heavily on others).

They're the type who go around screaming, "If you ain't Christian, you're goin' to hell!" (as a proud hillbilly, I can make that joke...)

Thats more of a stereotype of a fundamentalist rather then anything else. You don't have to impose your beliefs on others to be a fundamentalist.

I think most of...those....have been long ago exiled from the aethistic, secular paradise which is Nationstates General.

Aethistic? Aesthetic Atheism?

Added my jibbering question to the OP.

So, what I want to know why in the creation of earht and man are the scientific theories of the Big Bang, and Evolution so tabboo? SO wrong?


Because to some people it further removes any legitimate reason to believe in God, or the Christian God at least. It also suggests that humans were not designed with any sort of purpose, that they were just made up of random mutations etc...


Why are not the Seven Days alagory, or man being fashioned from dirt alagory...if truly genisis was delivered in a vision how could a man of the period hope to describe the information he was imparting?


I don't understand the question.


Why is it that for a Perfect All powerful God Evolution such a complex mechanism? Surely designing evolution would be but an after thought for an Almighty God?


Also don't understand the question properly...


And if in the blink of an eye you were to be shown the Evolutionary process through a spiritual vision...how else would you describe it then "Man came from dirt"?


You could easily say that men gradually came from changing animals or something easy and mundane that would suggest evolution more. Also most creationists interpret the Bibles days as the same as days now and 6 days is way too short for evolution obviously.


And if creation is indeed at the hand of God(which I believe) they doesnt it make sense that it has taken man a thousand generations to even scratch the surface of the process involved?


Don't understand the question.


Simply, why are evolution and the big bang veiwed as heresy when clearly they are perfectly well within the power of God to inact?


Same as at the top


What biblical justification is there for taking Genisis descriptions and designations of time literally?

What biblical justification is there for taking any of it literally?

I don't understand Creationists really. I mean, you say the Earth was created in 6 days with god resting on the 7th. Now, from my point of view, i don't see how that is possible. Could the whole "6 days" thing be a metaphore of some sort? Could each of these "days" be the symbolism for something even greater than what we can comprehend?

Maybe 6 Days is a metaphore for 6 Million Years. Is this possible? I sure as hell think so.

Or to clearify.
I believe that the Big Bang, is perfectly acceptable theory to walk hand in hand with genisis---first there was the void.

I find it laughable that you put your belief in a scientific theory, which uses research made within the past forty years to explain over fourteen billion years of universal history?

I also believe that genisis is practically describing evolution.
the sea, the earth, the crawling, the larger animals, then finally--Man form the earth. From the dirt.
Evolution doesnt even contradict a First Man First Woman theory.

Good for you, but a lot of Evolution barely makes sense. I'm not calling it wrong, I'm just pointing out that it requires a lot of faith.

So, what I want to know why in the creation of earht and man are the scientific theories of the Big Bang, and Evolution so tabboo? SO wrong?

It's not that they're "SO wrong" it's because uneducated individuals proclaim it to be so right, when to be honest we have no idea what the universe is in fact like.

Why are not the Seven Days alagory, or man being fashioned from dirt alagory...if truly genisis was delivered in a vision how could a man of the period hope to describe the information he was imparting?

Yet we can somehow better explain the origin of life and the universe today? Huh......? :eek:

Why is it that for a Perfect All powerful God Evolution such a complex mechanism? Surely designing evolution would be but an after thought for an Almighty God?

The theory of evolution contradicts literal biblical translation, which is where the problem lies. No Christian will disagree with you that God is not above evolutionary capability in his creations.

And if in the blink of an eye you were to be shown the Evolutionary process through a spiritual vision...how else would you describe it then "Man came from dirt"?

Well you're current belief is that he came from nothing..... :confused:

And if creation is indeed at the hand of God(which I believe) they doesnt it make sense that it has taken man a thousand generations to even scratch the surface of the process involved?

Not really, if you read the bible you will know why.

And be even less certain of the creation of the universe?

Bible says how its done, good enough for most Christians.

Simply, why are evolution and the big bang veiwed as heresy when clearly they are perfectly well within the power of God to inact?

No one disagrees if it is within Gods power, but the problem arises as it causes doubt on biblical canonicity and then, further doubt into divine scripture. T

What biblical justification is there for taking Genisis descriptions and designations of time literally?

Have you read the bible lately? There is a strong focus on time, years, days and months. Why would Genesis be any different from Exodus, Mark or John?

-snip-
The two words you're looking for are Genesis and Allegory, by the way.

What you are proposing is an allegorical interpretation of a perceived historical document at the expense of any statement of its historical accuracy. This, as you may have noticed, is an extremely controversial topic, because it implies a sort of rejectionist approach to the past itself, and (at the risk of being extremely offensive here) individuals who feel they do not have much time left don't like that.

-snip-

I want some clarification here;

Are you playing 'Devil's Advocate', or trolling to get a rise out of people?

Or do you HONESTLY believe in creationism, including the idea that the Earth, indeed the universe was created 6,000 years ago?

I think one of the main issues is the ease with which people can get divinity degrees in the US.

You have people with little grounding in philosophy and theology interpreting a text that like it or not seems to hold power to/over a significant number of people.

He means people who are hardcore Christians. Like ultra-bible thumpers (as a Christian, I do not even like ultrafundamentalists, for they impose themselves too heavily on others).

Penn: And the creationist argument?
Teller: *Hits Penn with Bible*

[/Bullshit]

I find it laughable that you put your belief in a scientific theory, which uses research made within the past forty years to explain over fourteen billion years of universal history?

Strange in no part of my question did I ask anyone what they found laughable, typical of your reputation I can expect you to be a verbose ass.

I simply accept science as seeking fact, I trust sceintific theory. I also accept that it is flawed an subject to change.


Good for you, but a lot of Evolution barely makes sense. I'm not calling it wrong, I'm just pointing out that it requires a lot of faith.

See Above.


It's not that they're "SO wrong" it's because uneducated individuals proclaim it to be so right, when to be honest we have no idea what the universe is in fact like.
I dont know of any individual theory that presumes the absolute factual nature of the Big Bang or of Evolution.

I have however heard innumerable arguements from Literal Creationists that they are totally wrong.



Yet we can somehow better explain the origin of life and the universe today? Huh......? :eek:
In my opinion we have a far better understanding of the universe theen 2000years ago, or 3000 years, or even 500 years ago.
So yes.




The theory of evolution contradicts literal biblical translation, which is where the problem lies. No Christian will disagree with you that God is not above evolutionary capability in his creations.
There is no Biblical justification for this literal translation of the Genesis creation.



Well you're current belief is that he came from nothing..... :confused:

I dont really see how you figure my current belief is that we came from nothing. What is Y-O-U-R belief on where man originated from? Simply for frame of reference.


Not really, if you read the bible you will know why.

Just say you dont know, or dont understand the question.
The "I know, but I'm not saying" is rather mundane.



Bible says how its done, good enough for most Christians.

True enough, but since creation belief is not a factor in Christian salvation what harm is there in exploration of alternative interpretations tothe text?


No one disagrees if it is within Gods power, but the problem arises as it causes doubt on biblical canonicity and then, further doubt into divine scripture. T No, it causes no doubts what so ever. The biblical canon has little to with modern scientific theory, especially the Old Testament canon. That is if you are using the word canonicity as it should be used.



Have you read the bible lately? There is a strong focus on time, years, days and months. Why would Genesis be any different from Exodus, Mark or John?

Yeah, I have.
Daily.
And the bible is very clear that one cannot know God's time.
Therefore those six days are man's time, the two are =/= so what makes the Creation Story of Genesis any less allegorical then any other allegory in the bible?

I think the main issue comes from the use of the word 'day'. Maybe the people of biblical times weren't quite as wise as we are today, but they surely understood the concept of a day as opposed to millenia, or thousands of millenia, etc.. Moreover, day and night are clearly defined in genesis, so the metaphor argument is moot.


1:5 And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.


So unless the earth was spinning 8760000000 times slower than it currently does, a 'day' is the standard 24 hour period we are accustomed to.

The two words you're looking for are Genesis and Allegory, by the way.

What you are proposing is an allegorical interpretation of a perceived historical document at the expense of any statement of its historical accuracy. This, as you may have noticed, is an extremely controversial topic, because it implies a sort of rejectionist approach to the past itself, and (at the risk of being extremely offensive here) individuals who feel they do not have much time left don't like that.

I dont follow.

I'm not a follower of any religion, but I think that the issue for Creationists may not specifically be "6 days versus evolution" (although that's often where the arguments are) but with the method for calculating the 6000 year history. Genesis contains a name for each generation between creation and Christ (I think). That means the Earth is only 6000 years old, and everything else must be made to fit with that. Since they believe that God can do whatever he wishes, a six day creation with man and dinosaur living side by side isn't difficult to accept.

I'm not a follower of any religion, but I think that the issue for Creationists may not specifically be "6 days versus evolution" (although that's often where the arguments are) but with the method for calculating the 6000 year history. Genesis contains a name for each generation between creation and Christ (I think). That means the Earth is only 6000 years old, and everything else must be made to fit with that. Since they believe that God can do whatever he wishes, a six day creation with man and dinosaur living side by side isn't difficult to accept.

Perhaps, but one would think the Bible would have mentioned Moses being chased by velociraptors. :p

I'm not a follower of any religion, but I think that the issue for Creationists may not specifically be "6 days versus evolution" (although that's often where the arguments are) but with the method for calculating the 6000 year history. Genesis contains a name for each generation between creation and Christ (I think). That means the Earth is only 6000 years old, and everything else must be made to fit with that. Since they believe that God can do whatever he wishes, a six day creation with man and dinosaur living side by side isn't difficult to accept.

you got it ;)

if there are more than 6,000 years of human history then it screws up all prophecy, including things about Jesus and his divinity.

Perhaps, but one would think the Bible would have mentioned Moses being chased by velociraptors. :p

*tries really hard to remember the plagues of Egypt*


*fails*

must have been velociraptors on Moses' team having at the Egyptions :p

I think the main issue comes from the use of the word 'day'. Maybe the people of biblical times weren't quite as wise as we are today, but they surely understood the concept of a day as opposed to millenia, or thousands of millenia, etc.. Moreover, day and night are clearly defined in genesis, so the metaphor argument is moot.



So unless the earth was spinning 8760000000 times slower than it currently does, a 'day' is the standard 24 hour period we are accustomed to.

Allegory arguement isnt moot, because the bible uses allegory.
And even a Creationist must admit, there was no Man present at creation to document it. Sine most Christian and Jew consider Genesis to written by Moses then that means he recieved his information
1. Second thrid or 100th hand.
2. or he recieved via Divine Vision, either way he could no place intricate details of things that he was commiting to parchment is he wasnt directly there. There is nothing to suggest the allegory concept is moot.
First, why would God operate on 24 hour clock?
Next the 24 hour clock didnt exist until our sun was made.
Next is the fact that the hebrew word used for day has many meanings, meaning that are and were used often.

Next "For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night." So there it is said in the sight of God a thousand years is like a day, or merely an hour(a watch in the night was an hour long) so there it references one span of time being essentially meaningless as we perceive it to the eyes of God.
So no, metaphore makes more sense then literal translation.

you got it ;)

if there are more than 6,000 years of human history then it screws up all prophecy, including things about Jesus and his divinity.

I didn't realise it would mess with prophecy (except in the vaguest sense) - please could you give me some more details? many thanks :)

I'm not a creationist, but I'll throw in my two bits anyway.


The whole hitch between creationism versus evolution is based on whether or not you take the '6 days' part literally, as others have said. Obviously, if you claim that '6 days' in God's time differs from Man's time, then things recorded in the bible relating to biblical dates then come under question. \

Basically, a good portion of the bible unravels like if you yank on a piece of string on a mummy if something in Genesis turns out to be inaccurate.

oh, just wondering.

I am an Old Earth Creationist. does your question apply to me? maybe? I used to hang out with a few young earth creationists, I may be able to answer as they would.
I used to work for a Young Earth creationist. The Canadians of NSG have probably heard of him.

Stockwell Day.

I dont follow.
The Bible is widely perceived to be a description of History. This as a general perception is due probably to the Church's machinations, and it could be either accurate or not, but people view Bible scripture as an attempt to describe what happened and thus either view it as true or false from the scope of historical accuracy.

In this context, whenever you propose the status of the book as being an Allegory for what happened rather than a literal description, you are in effect saying "Okay, it paints a nice picture with some useful application". This is more than asserting that it is true or false; this is asserting that it has an arbitrary historical relevance. In other words, whether or not it describes history (or things that "really happened") is not as important as the ideas we can pull out of the narrative by means of metaphorical analysis.

Whenever it is implied that rigid historical accuracy is not an important part of the Christian faith, many will feel somewhat hurt; especially those who are... somewhat advanced in age (whose pasts are particularly rich and that may perhaps have been the highlights of their lives). People can feel a deep emotional connection to their own personal histories, and to tell someone that what lies in the past does not in relative terms matter can be sometimes rather tactless. For Christians, this is even more so, as the revelatory experience and the proposed sacrifice of Christ are both key turning points in their lives. As a direct result, many Christians collectively posesses a fiercely reactionary streak in regards to anything that might progress into historical skepticism. This often includes the use of allegorical interpretation.

I didn't realise it would mess with prophecy (except in the vaguest sense) - please could you give me some more details? many thanks :)

I actually am about to head out to church, but I can get into more detail later.


;)

I actually am about to head out to church, but I can get into more detail later.


;)

coolies - thank you :) will be off to bed soon, but I'll catch up tomorrow.

The Bible is widely perceived to be a description of History. This as a general perception is due probably to the Church's machinations, and it could be either accurate or not, but people view Bible scripture as an attempt to describe what happened and thus either view it as true or false from the scope of historical accuracy.

In this context, whenever you propose the status of the book as being an Allegory for what happened rather than a literal description, you are in effect saying "Okay, it paints a nice picture with some useful application". This is more than asserting that it is true or false; this is asserting that it has an arbitrary historical relevance. In other words, whether or not it describes history (or things that "really happened") is not as important as the ideas we can pull out of the narrative by means of metaphorical analysis.

Whenever it is implied that rigid historical accuracy is not an important part of the Christian faith, many will feel somewhat hurt; especially those who are... somewhat advanced in age (whose pasts are particularly rich and that may perhaps have been the highlights of their lives). People can feel a deep emotional connection to their own personal histories, and to tell someone that what lies in the past does not in relative terms matter can be sometimes rather tactless. For Christians, this is even more so, as the revelatory experience and the proposed sacrifice of Christ are both key turning points in their lives. As a direct result, many Christians collectively posesses a fiercely reactionary streak in regards to anything that might progress into historical skepticism. This often includes the use of allegorical interpretation.

Nicely put. I got you.

But this is my problem...which is why i really wanted a genuine creationist to answer.

I believe in the bible, I am a fundamentalist Christian, and I have no problem accepting allegorical context in the bible. And since you arent a Literal Creationist you cant really come with the answer I am looking for.

But thank you.

True enough, but since creation belief is not a factor in Christian salvation what harm is there in exploration of alternative interpretations to the text?

Ah, so this is something you're allowed to question - good stuff. Careful you don't think any further than that though! I mean if you decided you didn't believe in literal Creationism, fine, but if that by any chance leads you to question why you should believe any of the Bible, you'll be in trouuublllllle...

I'm sorry for the sarcasm - just that my least favourite thing about certain religions is that you aren't allowed to question them. In a battlefield of ideas, it's cheating somewhat.

What biblical justification is there for taking Genisis descriptions and designations of time literally?

Truthfully, as a person who believes in the Bible, I would answer none.

Ah, so this is something you're allowed to question - good stuff. Careful you don't think any further than that though! I mean if you decided you didn't believe in literal Creationism, fine, but if that by any chance leads you to question why you should believe any of the Bible, you'll be in trouuublllllle...

I'm sorry for the sarcasm - just that my least favourite thing about certain religions is that you aren't allowed to question them. In a battlefield of ideas, it's cheating somewhat.

So...do you have point relative to the question?
Or just wanting to voice your dislike for typical facet of religion?

But thanks for pointing out I am questioning a facet of Religion...everyone else surely missed that.

I think most of...those....have been long ago exiled from the aethistic, secular paradise which is Nationstates General.
Aye. Very few hang on.
*Holds the fort down*
Im beleive more of a God willed or God induced evo creationism if that describes it.

Heretic! Tomatoes are an abomination unto His noodley greatness. He is to be anointed only with oils made fragrant with basil. Tomatoes are to be sliced asunder and cast upon a baking desolate plain of crust. Repent lest thou share their fate.

Like most of the rest of the slack jawwed feebs who jibber spam on these boards, I must inform that only Lunatic Goofballs is funny and or witty. You sir are no Lunatic Goofballs. So please spare my thread yor presence until your IQ hits at least 50.

Perhaps, but one would think the Bible would have mentioned Moses being chased by velociraptors. :p

"Gah! Umm...uh...uh...shitshitshitshit...gottadistractthem...HEY! LOOK! BIG STONE TABLETS!"

*THUNK*

And that's why they had to keep the ten commandments in the Ark of the Covenant from then on.

Seriously though. Hey Smunkee? As a reasonable christian, could you please tell me about what percent of noncrazies take Revelations seriously? Do you yourself take Revelations seriously?

"Gah! Umm...uh...uh...shitshitshitshit...gottadistractthem...HEY! LOOK! BIG STONE TABLETS!"

*THUNK*

And that's why they had to keep the ten commandments in the Ark of the Covenant from then on.

Seriously though. Hey Smunkee? As a reasonable christian, could you please tell me about what percent of noncrazies take Revelations seriously? Do you yourself take Revelations seriously?
Revelations is by far the BEST book in the bible. Its open to many different interperetations and ideas. You can take it literally or figuratively.

Heretic! Tomatoes are an abomination unto His noodley greatness. He is to be anointed only with oils made fragrant with basil. Tomatoes are to be sliced asunder and cast upon a baking desolate plain of crust. Repent lest thou share their fate.
How can you be of such little faith? All human endeavour occurs only by the gift of the touch of his noodley appendage. There is nothing we can offer onto him that he does not himself desire! The offering of it self is what is needed, and for it we shall be rewarded in heaven with great eruptions of yeasty beverage.

Can I get a rAmen here?

I see my answer got ignored and people no longer believe in serious debate.

I see my answer got ignored and people no longer believe in serious debate.

That is why if you want a serious dicussion about religion and avoid the silliness of the forums, and the trolls you should TG him. Otherwise your post will be lost between the noodly appendage, and the dinosaur jokes. Religious dicussions on this forum seems to bring out the worst. It is sad, but an unfortunate fact on NS.

That is why if you want a serious dicussion about religion and avoid the silliness of the forums, and the trolls you should TG him. Otherwise your post will be lost between the noodly appendage, and the dinosaur jokes. Religious dicussions on this forum seems to bring out the worst. It is sad, but an unfortunate fact on NS.
Hey, I made my point about why allegorical interpretations of scripture are rejected. I think I'm entitled to a bit of silliness. Quack.

Hey, I made my point about why allegorical interpretations of scripture are rejected. I think I'm entitled to a bit of silliness. Quack.

I never said you weren't, nor did I name anyone :) I am all for having fun in threads, I was just answering LancasterCounty on why no one was responding to his post. Nothing more.

Truthfully, as a person who believes in the Bible, I would answer none.

I apologize I wasnt ignoring you.
I agree with you so there wasnt anything for me to say.

I don't understand Creationists really. I mean, you say the Earth was created in 6 days with god resting on the 7th. Now, from my point of view, i don't see how that is possible. Could the whole "6 days" thing be a metaphore of some sort? Could each of these "days" be the symbolism for something even greater than what we can comprehend?

Maybe 6 Days is a metaphore for 6 Million Years. Is this possible? I sure as hell think so.

My curiosity is always in what is meant by "rest." One would imagine an omnipotent being wouldn't need to rest, so I always assume it just means "do nothing for a 'day'." Dunno if I'm right, though.

Why was a heliocentric system such a hard pill to swallow? This has little if anything to do with the bible or an individual person's faith. It's all about a clerical elite still clinging to the tattered scraps of an epistemological monopoly that the church had in the middle ages.

Seriously though. Hey Smunkee? As a reasonable christian, could you please tell me about what percent of noncrazies take Revelations seriously? Do you yourself take Revelations seriously?
I don't have any stats, I do wonder what exactly you mean by "take seriously" though.

Seriously though. Hey Smunkee? As a reasonable christian, could you please tell me about what percent of noncrazies take Revelations seriously? Do you yourself take Revelations seriously?

Revelation= Big book of symbols to relay hope to christians that are facing persecution.

Revelation= Big book of symbols to relay hope to christians that are facing persecution.

Though I am not a "crazy" I do take the book of Revelation seriously.

Though I am not a "crazy" I do take the book of Revelation seriously.

:rolleyes:

You have to be kidding me. Usually I am not one to ridicule beliefs, but its silly to take Revelations literally. I mean, giant locusts with armor and horses with fire coming out of their mouths? Hah!

:rolleyes:

You have to be kidding me. Usually I am not one to ridicule beliefs, but its silly to take Revelations literally. I mean, giant locusts with armor and horses with fire coming out of their mouths? Hah!

So why are you ridiculing my beliefs if you do not ridicule beliefs?

So why are you ridiculing my beliefs if you do not ridicule beliefs?

Well, mainly because I used to believe the same way. Then I went through and realize it was symbolic, not literal.

Well, mainly because I used to believe the same way. Then I went through and realize it was symbolic, not literal.

Well yes...there is symbolism in it. Have not denied it but I do still believe in the book of revelation.

Well, mainly because I used to believe the same way. Then I went through and realize it was symbolic, not literal.

What you failed to realize however was that your realization about the Apocalypse of John was a personal realization of your own perception and not a factual realization of the collective human mind.

Next in Lancaster's post he said "Though I am not a "crazy" I do take the book of Revelation seriously."

You reading his statement take for you wanted to see and not what was said " Usually I am not one to ridicule beliefs, but its silly to take Revelations literally. "
I would also like the EyeRoll smiley is especially indicative of someone who doesnt revel in ridicule.

I am saddened by the fact you take your opinion on a book of the bible or anything for that matter and act as if it is a gospel.
You voiced your opinion on a Book of the Bible.
So if it is "silly" to take revelations seriously...what part of the Bible is not silly to take literally? Since it would be those parts you wouldnt ridicule someone for taking seriously?

So I would like your official seal on what parts of the Bible you think should be taken seriously and literally...as Lancaster put it "Seriously" and as you interpreted his words "Literally".

The problem with evolution for those who believe in the Bible is not that it disproves God, it merely shows a provable way to explain us without the need to involve any God.

If God is not necessary to explain creation, then what need of Him for anything at all.

The problem with evolution is not that it disproves God, it merely shows that a God did not need to be involved.

If God is not needed in creation, then what need of Him for anything at all.

The problem with that statement is that no where does evolution exclude the hand of a Divine Creator. If you believe it does you clearly know nothing about the theory of evolution because theology is not part of it at all.

This is my point, expressed in the negative.
Here is someone i assume to be an Athiest.
Who claims Evolution disproves a need for a creator. This defaces science, science does no such thing--no where in science.

And no where is there anyhting contradictory in the bible to evolutionary theory if we apply the allegorical theory.
If allegory is applied then Genesis is indeed the perfect allegory for evolution...one could USE Genesis to explain evolution to children.

And for the record evolution is not a proven fact it is a theory...so no it doesnt show a provable anything...it just makes a lot of sense.

There is still the issue about about spntaneous creation of life which has never been duplicated under any circumstances...not even a bio-genesis of a single celled organism.

snip

Read the post, I do not say evolution excludes or disproves a Divine Creator, it's simply that it doesn't require one.

Difference between fact and theory - link (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html)- it's not just a theory

Life (http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html)

Read the post, I do not say evolution excludes or disproves a Divine Creator, it's simply that it doesn't require one.

Sorry bout that.


Difference between fact and theory - link (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html)- it's not just a theory

Ummm, Evolution is a theory.
It remains unproven.
If you want to parse words then fine,
I quote your source "However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution."..."Well evolution is a theory."

Life (http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html)
This has nothing to do with evolution...it proves that life has not been even remotely close to being created even on single celled level...and meteorites are not evolution. They would require you to explain where what they were carrying came from...so none answer. Saying "they came from falling rocks we think"...is no more sceintific then "God said so", unless you can explain where the rocks came form and how they got what they got.

Sorry bout that.

No problems

Ummm, Evolution is a theory.
It remains unproven.
If you want to parse words then fine,
I quote your source "However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution."..."Well evolution is a theory."

Read the disclaimer - There are some readers who are not anti-evolutionist but still claim that evolution is "only" a theory which can't be proven. This group needs to distinguish between the fact that evolution occurs and the theory of the mechanism of evolution.

This has nothing to do with evolution...it proves that life has not been even remotely close to being created even on single celled level...and meteorites are not evolution. They would require you to explain where what they were carrying came from...so none answer. Saying "they came from falling rocks we think"...is no more sceintific then "God said so", unless you can explain where the rocks came form and how they got what they got

It doesn't say that amino acids come from meteorites, it states that they've also been found on meteorites, simply to show that they're extremely resilient under far harsher environments than earth. This shows that for life to come about on earth is no large stretch of the imagination - we've yet to prove exactly how but there's no shortage of scientists working that out.

It has everything to do with evolution.

No problems



Read the disclaimer - There are some readers who are not anti-evolutionist but still claim that evolution is "only" a theory which can't be proven. This group needs to distinguish between the fact that evolution occurs and the theory of the mechanism of evolution.


Didnt see that there.
tis late.


It doesn't say that amino acids come from meteorites, it states that they've also been found on meteorites, simply to show that they're extremely resilient under far harsher environments than earth. This shows that for life to come about on earth is no large stretch of the imagination - we've yet to prove exactly how but there's no shortage of scientists working that out.

It has everything to do with evolution.

...I didnt think that was where you were headed. I thought it was in response to the bio-genesis problem of evolution I didnt realize you were simply refering to the resilience of life.
Life finds away.
But, indeed there is nothing to demonstrate actual creation of life outside of breeding. The very first life. The rung "1" on the ladder if you will.

But, I am now placing my opinions into things.

We agree.
Evolution makes sense...indeed in basic adpation of life it is proven to be fact.
Even if the full picture remains theoretical.

I assume then we agree that the Bible does not directly exclude the possibilty of Evolution, and Evolution does not exclude the possibilty of of a Divine "push" if you will.

Rather when accepted as being a facet of human understanding...they can indeed be quite complimentary.

That last one is for me.

Sorry bout that.


Ummm, Evolution is a theory.
It remains unproven.
If you want to parse words then fine,
I quote your source "However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution."..."Well evolution is a theory."


Evolution in and of itself is scientific fact, actually. We have observed it occur.

The Theory of Evolution attempts to explain how and why it happens.

And I do believe you are woefully ignorant of what a scientific theory attempts to do, or even what it is.


This has nothing to do with evolution...it proves that life has not been even remotely close to being created even on single celled level...and meteorites are not evolution. They would require you to explain where what they were carrying came from...so none answer. Saying "they came from falling rocks we think"...is no more sceintific then "God said so", unless you can explain where the rocks came form and how they got what they got.

Oy vey. How life began has no bearing, whatsoever, as far as the Theory of Evolution is concerned. The Theory of Evolution only explains how and why life changes. Not how it began. Debunking abiogenesis does nothing for evolution.

Seriously, this isn't even a good try. It's freshmen(High School Freshmen, not College) level biology.

Edit: On second look, I notice what you were trying to claim. Sorry for that. I'm still leaving this up in case any hardcore creationists get any bright ideas.

The point is that evolution simply doesn't require God for it to work.

I'm really answering to why this upsets those who believe in the creation, which is that if God is not needed for the creation of man, then He's not needed period.

If the very genesis of the Bible is wrong, then the entire Bible is open to interpretation. If that's the case then we can say nothing about God at all.

This rather undermines the basis of any church.

EDIT: Sleep well :)

Pony up.

I have a question for Creationists, a rather long winded one. It is on the matter of Biblical justification for certain things and while i am open to getting slammed for what I think I dont want to bother posting my opinion to be forced to listen to the Anti-religious(minority) around who just like to blather pointlessly about the stupidity of religion.

I do however have bone to pick with Creationism, and I am sincerely hoping there is indeed someone here who can earnestly represent that particular group.

So if you are a Creationist(In the Christian Fundamentalist sense--for clearification) please step up and have a dialogue with me for a tic or two.

If I cant find any...I will give it a day bump the thread and place my question for people in general to discuss...though it will be pointless without the opposition's point of veiw.

EDIT:
Since there are indeed interested parties.

I am Believer.
I believe in Jesus Christ is the son of God, that he died on the cross as a blood sacrifice for the sins of the world.
I believe he is the Messiah.
I believe in the trinity.

I am believer who submits himself to the bible, as best as I can...and I often fall short.

There is the qualifier.
Now, on the matter of creation.
In genisis we are all familiar witht he six days of work and the seventh day of rest.

I would like to know why this is taken literally when the bible clearly states man can not know Gods time.

Or to clearify.
I believe that the Big Bang, is perfectly acceptable theory to walk hand in hand with genisis---first there was the void.

I also believe that genisis is practically describing evolution.
the sea, the earth, the crawling, the larger animals, then finally--Man form the earth. From the dirt.
Evolution doesnt even contradict a First Man First Woman theory.

So, what I want to know why in the creation of earht and man are the scientific theories of the Big Bang, and Evolution so tabboo? SO wrong?

Why are not the Seven Days alagory, or man being fashioned from dirt alagory...if truly genisis was delivered in a vision how could a man of the period hope to describe the information he was imparting?

Why is it that for a Perfect All powerful God Evolution such a complex mechanism? Surely designing evolution would be but an after thought for an Almighty God?

And if in the blink of an eye you were to be shown the Evolutionary process through a spiritual vision...how else would you describe it then "Man came from dirt"?

And if creation is indeed at the hand of God(which I believe) they doesnt it make sense that it has taken man a thousand generations to even scratch the surface of the process involved?

And be even less certain of the creation of the universe?

Simply, why are evolution and the big bang veiwed as heresy when clearly they are perfectly well within the power of God to inact?

What biblical justification is there for taking Genisis descriptions and designations of time literally?

I believe in creationism, though I also believe in evolution. I don't really understand how anyone can not given the evidence.

I believe in creationism, though I also believe in evolution. I don't really understand how anyone can not given the evidence.

What aspect of creationism do you believe in?

The point is that evolution simply doesn't require God for it to work.

I'm really answering to why this upsets those who believe in the creation, which is that if God is not needed for the creation of man, then He's not needed period.

If the very genesis of the Bible is wrong, then the entire Bible is open to interpretation. If that's the case then we can say nothing about God at all.

This rather undermines the basis of any church.The entire Bible is already open to interpretation. And the very genesis of the Bible is of course 'wrong', since it is a poor copy of many much older traditions, that have only later been streamlined to fit (more or less) into the Jewish belief system.
Anyways, belief always says something about the believer only, but not about the issue of belief (e.g. god). Whenever someone starts a sentence with "I believe..." (in a religious context) you can safely ignore the rest of the sentence.

I want some clarification here;

Are you playing 'Devil's Advocate', or trolling to get a rise out of people?

Or do you HONESTLY believe in creationism, including the idea that the Earth, indeed the universe was created 6,000 years ago?

Oh my mistake for not giving any further clarification. Yes I am a creationist and choose to believe in the literal biblical translation. I go with the bible, because why not?

I find that todays science is based on so much theory that requires so much assumptions on how the universe works or works, that I see their "fact" as little more than a rambling story of an old man in reality. To me both Genesis and the Big Bang theory have as much credence to move on.


Strange in no part of my question did I ask anyone what they found laughable, typical of your reputation I can expect you to be a verbose ass.

I simply accept science as seeking fact, I trust sceintific theory. I also accept that it is flawed an subject to change.

Whether you think I'm an ass or not is not the point here, the point is that the Big Bang theory is hardly fact, indeed far from it. Forty years of research to explain fourteen billion years of universal evolution? Indeed you accept it as a theory, but my point here is, that why accept the Big Bang, rather than Genesis when most require a lot of faith to believe they happened?


See Above.

Quite.

I dont know of any individual theory that presumes the absolute factual nature of the Big Bang or of Evolution.

I have however heard innumerable arguements from Literal Creationists that they are totally wrong.

Tell pooular culture that the Big Bang and Evolution are incorrect. The objective scientist will agree with you, however most shall not out of principle. How science should work as you pointed out above and how it is today is very debatable.

In my opinion we have a far better understanding of the universe theen 2000years ago, or 3000 years, or even 500 years ago.
So yes.

I disagree. Our understanding still equates to a child looking upon a build your own theme park kit with a wrench and told to start building.

There is no Biblical justification for this literal translation of the Genesis creation.

Really why? Three days between the death and resurrection. Esther three days of fasting. God made the world in six days and rested on the seventh. The Israeli army marched around Jericho seven times at sunrise each day. The bible is very specific when it comes to time.

Now sinne we both believe in Jesus, and believe he was the sun of God, was he laid to rest in the tomb and then discovered three billion years later, two weeks later, or perhaps, three days?

I dont really see how you figure my current belief is that we came from nothing. What is Y-O-U-R belief on where man originated from? Simply for frame of reference.

Christian, non-denominational, currently preparing to go into ministry.


Just say you dont know, or dont understand the question.
The "I know, but I'm not saying" is rather mundane.

Well, I shouldn't have to say, it's rather obvious. :)

True enough, but since creation belief is not a factor in Christian salvation what harm is there in exploration of alternative interpretations tothe text?

Oh theres no harm, however, some people see it as a contradiction to the rest of the bible in itself. If Genesis is just a giant metaphor, what's stopping the Exodus, the plagues, even Jesus on the cross. Well I'm getting a tad carried away, but people see it that way.

No, it causes no doubts what so ever. The biblical canon has little to with modern scientific theory, especially the Old Testament canon. That is if you are using the word canonicity as it should be used.

Well for fundamentalist Christians, who believe in six day creation, scientific theory contradicts their theory which goes hand in hand with religion. It does contradict the bible to them, and then causes doubts on the whole chain of who wrote what. Well if Genesis is wrong, then so must Exodus and Leviticus etc etc etc.

Yeah, I have.
Daily.
And the bible is very clear that one cannot know God's time.

It is and I agree with you. But God frequently works in our time frame.

Therefore those six days are man's time, the two are =/= so what makes the Creation Story of Genesis any less allegorical then any other allegory in the bible?

Oh my well all I can say is that it is down to personal belief and faith, and that for what you believe you should pray and simply ask God for the answer. However the fact that the translation is in days, is the hook here. But the point well one of the points of the thread was, why do some Christians choose to believe in the literal translation of Genesis. I put that 1) We see that the other theories really have no basis today, and are just gigantic guestimations really.
2) It casts other books of the bible into doubt in what they really mean. Or, if they choose not to accept literal or metaphorical translation, their actual validity.

I find that todays science is based on so much theory that requires so much assumptions on how the universe works or works, that I see their "fact" as little more than a rambling story of an old man in reality.Science is not based on theory at all. It is primarily based on observation. And a theory is not what you seem to think it is. A theory is not just a fancy idea someone has, it is rather a complex model (created form a deep understanding of the matter at issue) that wraps up observed phenomena and offers coherent explanations. In addition most theories have already collected lots and lots of evidence to confirm their respective statements. And scientific assumptions are not made based on belief. They are made based on the pieces of knowledge one already has. Test scenarios, if you will.

Science is not based on theory at all. It is primarily based on observation. And a theory is not what you seem to think it is. A theory is not just a fancy idea someone has, it is rather a complex model (created form a deep understanding of the matter at issue) that wraps up observed phenomena and offers coherent explanations. In addition most theories have already collected lots and lots of evidence to confirm their respective statements. And scientific assumptions are not made based on belief. They are made based on the pieces of knowledge one already has. Test scenarios, if you will.

In fact, it isn't a theory until it has quite a bit of evidence to back it up. Saying that something is "just a theory" is about the same as sayinhg he's "just the pope".

In fact, it isn't a theory until it has quite a bit of evidence to back it up. Saying that something is "just a theory" is about the same as saying he's "just the pope".??

To me, creationists can't accept evolution because they are afraid that it means god had no hand in it and that we're just the survivor of countless mutations.

It would make them feel that humans are less important in the eyes of god and to them that's like being dumped by a girl/boy friend. It would shatter their belief.

So instead of objectively looking at what both sides say and then making a decission, they put their fingers in their ears and go "lalalalala I cant hear you lalalala"

Now I'm really putting my neck on the chopping block... I am, as some of you might know, a creationist. I'm not even going to try explaining myself here because I know I'll probably make some kind of mistake and end up being looked upon like the effigy-burning creationists in Inherit the Wind. Any forum arguments where evolutionists are arguing with creationists inevitably end up like this:

Belief 1: ‘Can’t you see what I’m talking about?’

Belief 2: ‘No, I can’t. Don’t you see how wrong you are?’

Belief 1: ‘No, I’m not wrong. It’s obvious that I’m right.’

Belief 2: ‘No, it’s not obvious.’

And so on. So I'm not even going to bother. If you want evidence against this 'progressive creationism' and evolution in general then www.answersingenesis.org has got plenty, if it bothers you that much read what they have to say. If you can't control your foaming at the mouth long enough to read it then stop picking fights with creationists.

To me, creationists can't accept evolution because they are afraid that it means god had no hand in it and that we're just the survivor of countless mutations.

It would make them feel that humans are less important in the eyes of god and to them that's like being dumped by a girl/boy friend. It would shatter their belief.

So instead of objectively looking at what both sides say and then making a decission, they put their fingers in their ears and go "lalalalala I cant hear you lalalala"Humans are not important. Only stupid religions tell them that they are.

Now I'm really putting my neck on the chopping block... I am, as some of you might know, a creationist. I'm not even going to try explaining myself here because I know I'll probably make some kind of mistake and end up being looked upon like the effigy-burning creationists in Inherit the Wind. Any forum arguments where evolutionists are arguing with creationists inevitably end up like this:

Belief 1: ‘Can’t you see what I’m talking about?’

Belief 2: ‘No, I can’t. Don’t you see how wrong you are?’

Belief 1: ‘No, I’m not wrong. It’s obvious that I’m right.’

Belief 2: ‘No, it’s not obvious.’

And so on. So I'm not even going to bother. If you want evidence against this 'progressive creationism' and evolution in general then www.answersingenesis.org has got plenty, if it bothers you that much read what they have to say. If you can't control your foaming at the mouth long enough to read it then stop picking fights with creationists.Creationism is just a lack of education, an approach of superficiality. Creationists attack things they cannot grasp, that's all.

Any forum arguments where evolutionists are arguing with creationists inevitably end up like this:

Belief 1: ‘Can’t you see what I’m talking about?’

Belief 2: ‘No, I can’t. Don’t you see how wrong you are?’

Belief 1: ‘No, I’m not wrong. It’s obvious that I’m right.’

Belief 2: ‘No, it’s not obvious.’

No, we can see what you're talking about. We just don't agree with it.

And so on. So I'm not even going to bother. If you want evidence against this 'progressive creationism' and evolution in general then www.answersingenesis.org has got plenty, if it bothers you that much read what they have to say. If you can't control your foaming at the mouth long enough to read it then stop picking fights with creationists.

From your website:

The Ark easily had room for the dinosaurs (as you can see in other articles in this issue). First, the Ark was the size of a huge cargo ship (at least 450 ft [137 m] long). Second, there weren’t many different kinds of dinosaurs (only about 50 “kinds”). Third, God most likely brought the smaller juvenile dinosaurs, not the aging adults, because they would be better suited for the voyage and the responsibilities of reproducing rapidly after the Flood.

Yet...

Recently, one of our associates sat down with a highly respected world-class Hebrew scholar and asked him this question: ‘If you started with the Bible alone, without considering any outside influences whatsoever, could you ever come up with millions or billions of years of history for the Earth and universe?’ The answer from this scholar? ‘Absolutely not!’

Let’s be honest. Take out your Bible and look through it. You can’t find any hint at all for millions or billions of years.

There's no mention of any dinosaurs in the Bible either, not one - why is he having to justify that there were any dinosaurs to start with? Given the Bible, dinosaurs should not exist.

He may answer that there are fossils but...

However, the reason they don’t believe God created in six literal days is because they are convinced from so-called ‘science’ that the world is billions of years old. In other words, they are admitting that they start outside the Bible to (re)interpret the Words of Scripture.

Since science alone posits dinosaurs, which is only 'so-called', and they're outside the Bible, dinosaurs should not exist and therefore need no justification.

That's just to start...

No, we can see what you're talking about. We just don't agree with it.



From your website:



Yet...



There's no mention of any dinosaurs in the Bible either, not one - why is he having to justify that there were any dinosaurs to start with? Given the Bible, dinosaurs should not exist.

He may answer that there are fossils but...



Since science alone posits dinosaurs, which is only 'so-called', and they're outside the Bible, dinosaurs should not exist and therefore need no justification.

That's just to start...

You only think that the bible doesn't mention dinosaurs because that's how modern man has interpreted it. In fact, it does mention what sounds very much like dinosaurs, notably the creature called the 'behemoth'.

Job 40:15-19 "Look at the Behemoth, which I made along with you; which feeds on grass like an ox. What strength he has in his loins, what power of the muscles in his belly! His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-knit. His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like rods of iron. He ranks first among the works of God"

The point is that nowhere in the bible denies the existence of dinosaurs, but there is plenty that denies the millions-of-years explanation.

You only think that the bible doesn't mention dinosaurs because that's how modern man has interpreted it. In fact, it does mention what sounds very much like dinosaurs, notably the creature called the 'behemoth'.

Job 40:15-19 "Look at the Behemoth, which I made along with you; which feeds on grass like an ox. What strength he has in his loins, what power of the muscles in his belly! His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-knit. His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like rods of iron. He ranks first among the works of God"

The point is that nowhere in the bible denies the existence of dinosaurs, but there is plenty that denies the millions-of-years explanation.

What, the elephant?

EDIT: Seems bible interpretation think it more likely a hippopotamus

21 Under the lotus plants he lies,
hidden among the reeds in the marsh.

22 The lotuses conceal him in their shadow;
the poplars by the stream surround him.

23 When the river rages, he is not alarmed;
he is secure, though the Jordan should surge against his mouth.

What, the elephant?

"His tail sways like a cedar"? I think not.

And while I'm on the subject of bible verses, here's an interesting one to chew over, Romans 1:21-23:

"For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles."

Uncanny, don't you think?

And while I'm on the subject of bible verses, here's an interesting one to chew over, Romans 1:21-23:

"For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles."

Uncanny, don't you think?
Yes, it's uncanny to see the authors of the Bible write about how bad it is when people refuse to accept the model of the world advocated in the Bible...

It reminds me of Dr. Phil's "uncanny" predictions that people who don't buy his books will end up miserable and alone.

"His tail sways like a cedar"? I think not.

And while I'm on the subject of bible verses, here's an interesting one to chew over, Romans 1:21-23:

"For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles."

Uncanny, don't you think?Are you trying to change subject?

Yes, it's uncanny to see the authors of the Bible write about how bad it is when people refuse to accept the model of the world advocated in the Bible...

It reminds me of Dr. Phil's "uncanny" predictions that people who don't buy his books will end up miserable and alone.

are you suggesting that a bunch of 21st century creationists wrote the bible?:rolleyes: Or are you saying that romans 1 isn't actually in the bible, it's just something creationists say?

are you suggesting that a bunch of 21st century creationists wrote the bible?:rolleyes: Or are you saying that romans 1 isn't actually in the bible, it's just something creationists say?
Huh? No, I was saying that the people who wrote the Bible had a vested interest in convincing people.

Plenty of people write books that say anybody who doesn't listen to them is foolish. So? Yes, the Bible says it's foolish to question their model of reality. So? Dr. Phil says the same thing about people who don't believe in his form of mumbo-jumbo.

In my experience, anybody who would mock you for questioning and seeking wisdom is a bullshit artist. There's probably a very good reason that they're afraid of you questioning and seeking meaning elsewhere...they probably suspect that you'll find it.

Are you trying to change subject?
Of course.

When confronted with obvious flaws in one's arguments, the "Christian" thing to do is to immediately try to change the subject and divert attention from one's failings.

Are you trying to change subject?

Not at all. Just throwing in some food for thought. Besides, what is the point of debating with people who will never, ever change their minds, at least not based on anything said in some obscure internet forum?

I wouldn't change my mind on the origins of the universe based on the NS general forum, that's for sure, so why should I think you'd be dumb enough to?

Not at all. Just throwing in some food for thought. Besides, what is the point of debating with people who will never, ever change their minds, at least not based on anything said in some obscure internet forum?

I wouldn't change my mind on the origins of the universe based on the NS general forum, that's for sure, so why should I think you'd be dumb enough to?

Why would changing your mind, in the light of evidence, be 'dumb'?

See - this is why they call 'faith', blind.

Not at all. Just throwing in some food for thought. Besides, what is the point of debating with people who will never, ever change their minds, at least not based on anything said in some obscure internet forum?

I wouldn't change my mind on the origins of the universe based on the NS general forum, that's for sure, so why should I think you'd be dumb enough to?
This is a classic case of projection.

You really think that I would change my mind on this topic simply because of what somebody SAYS?

Fuck no.

I change my mind because of the evidence they present.

So seriously, if you have EVIDENCE for your stance, present it! I will give it full consideration. And I promise I will be respectful as I do so. You can quote this post and make me look like a jackass if I'm not.

But remember, evidence must be FOR your stance. Presenting evidence that there are holes in evolutionary explanations is not evidence. Quoting the Bible is not evidence. It has to be evidence FOR CREATIONISM.

Really and truly, I don't simply "believe" in evolutionary theory. It's not something I take on faith. I actually test the principles of evolutionary biology in the lab on a regular basis. I'm paid to test them. I have a vested interest in questioning existing biological theories. Indeed, if I could actually disprove any arm of evolutionary biology, the personal rewards for me would be immense! I would be the scientist equivalent of a rock star.

No, the reason I reject Creationism and support the evolutionary model of the universe is because I have never seen any evidence whatsoever presented for Creationism, and I've seen evidence for evolutionary theory that is quite compelling. It's really an uneven battle. On one side, credible evidence. On the other side, no evidence at all. So please, even things up! Provide evidence!

Science = Proof without certianty
D-

Science does not "prove." Science can disprove a hypothesis, but you cannot prove one. You can only support it.

Religion = Certianty without proof

Science = Proof without certianty

You only think that the bible doesn't mention dinosaurs because that's how modern man has interpreted it. In fact, it does mention what sounds very much like dinosaurs, notably the creature called the 'behemoth'.

Job 40:15-19 "Look at the Behemoth, which I made along with you; which feeds on grass like an ox. What strength he has in his loins, what power of the muscles in his belly! His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-knit. His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like rods of iron. He ranks first among the works of God"

The point is that nowhere in the bible denies the existence of dinosaurs, but there is plenty that denies the millions-of-years explanation.

Sounds more like a robot to me. Bender in the bible - kiss my shiny metal ass.

Why would the biblical God have created the world in 6 days, if he could easily have done it in one...?

Union rules

"His tail sways like a cedar"? I think not.


How is your Hebrew?

The Hebrew says "chaphets zanab 'erez giyd pachad sarag"

chaphets = he moves, or bends down
zanab = tail, end, or stump
'erez = cedar tree, cedar wood, cedar timber, or ritual cedar for purifications.
giyd = sinew
pachad = thigh
sarag = to be intertwined, or to intertwine oneself. The tense suggest 'to be intertwined'.

So - what can we draw from the native tongue?

Either - the animal has an immobile tail (it moves like cedar wood... i.e. not much)

Or - the animal has a tail that moves slowly or over a limited range, like a swaying cedar tree.

Or - the animal has a tail that is either resistant to movement, or moves very strongly... i.e. it 'bends' like cedar.

It might also be worth pointing out, some people have suggested that the Behemoth might be an elephant for the simple reason that the 'tail that moveth like cedar' could be an elephants trunk.

Context suggests that Job is talking about the hippopotamus when he says 'Behemoth', and that 'Leviathan' is a crocodile. Neither of those are dinosaurs.

Why would the biblical God have created the world in 6 days, if he could easily have done it in one...?

Of course.

When confronted with obvious flaws in one's arguments, the "Christian" thing to do is to immediately try to change the subject and divert attention from one's failings.

And I suppose no evolutionist is guilty of diverting attention away from their failings? Oh no, of course not, how could I ever come to that conclusion?

I'd like to think that people here would at least be allowed to speak for themselves rather than have the opposing view answer for them. Oh well, it's late, I want to sleep, so you lot can keep parrotting away the standard anti-creation rhetoric without my rude interruptions.

And I suppose no evolutionist is guilty of diverting attention away from their failings? Oh no, of course not, how could I ever come to that conclusion?


Of course, people from all sides of every debate might be guilty of diverting attention away from their failings.

Unfortunately, the entire Creationist platform can be summed up by that description.

Random musings on life the universe and everything...

Evolution:

First of all, what we have observed in evolution is one sub-type of Turtle becoming another sub-type of turtle. One bird becoming a slightly different bird, one insect... etc, etc, etc...

The question is where has ever in any recorded history animal of one type gave birth to an animal of a different type? If you read genesis one, in regards to Day 6 when animals and other things the phrase "after their own kind" was used in regards to reproduction. So in other-words a Hippo will produce another Hippo, the Hippo could be slightly different it could be larger or smaller in a number of areas but it is still a hippo.

One "kind" of animal has never been recorded to turn into another "kind" of animal. While I certainly except Evolution in terms of relatively minor changes within this "kind", There is still major doubts over any "major" changes in psyiology.

---

In terms of allegories, we've got to look at the context of the passage, how does the bible itself present Genesis 1? Well, firstly Genesis 1 could be reveled directly to someone from God as no human was around to see it. We know that God's word has inherit power, from the words of Jesus in the boat "Be Still" and it was

So I suppose my question is, Why not? What reasons do you have to say that "day" is not a literal day?

Genesis 2, from it's context and certainly it presents itself is treated as a historical book the people in the know are re-counting what happened particulaily on the sixth day. And it meshes with the Genesis 1 account.

(as for the issue about Humanity and Beasts, God hadn't finished creating Humanity until he had created Eve, which was after the created the beast of the field. So God both did literally create humanity last in this sense as well as having humanity as the pinnacle of his creation.)

Once again this is just my opinion an is here for people to think about if they so wish.

And I suppose no evolutionist is guilty of diverting attention away from their failings? Oh no, of course not, how could I ever come to that conclusion?

If all the evolutionists jumped off a cliff, would you jump too?

I don't believe that I should use the lowest common denominator as my personal standard of conduct. I'm sure your God would appreciate if you held yourself to a better standard, too, instead of pointing at other people and saying "They did it first!!!"

In case you didn't pick up on it, that post of mine was sarcastic (that's why "Christian" was in scare quotes). I actually don't think the Christian faith teaches the kind of behavior I was referring to. It's just that some people who CALL themselves Christian act in very slimy ways, even though Jesus wouldn't be particularly fond of what they're doing. They violate the precepts of their own stated faith. That's just lame.


I'd like to think that people here would at least be allowed to speak for themselves rather than have the opposing view answer for them. Oh well, it's late, I want to sleep, so you lot can keep parrotting away the standard anti-creation rhetoric without my rude interruptions.
In other words, you refuse to present any evidence for your side, and would prefer to simply insult everybody who has challenged your flawed world view?

Disappointing. Unsurprising, of course, but disappointing.

And if you listen to several people, you would think that it is a proven fact and you are nuts if you disagree with them. I should know. Ran into them at school.

This post could refer to people on either side of the arguement. There are people who act as though the Bible and everything in it is 100% right, 100% of the time. There are people who act like the theory of evolution, in its current incarnation, is 100% right, 100% of the time. These people are all wrong.

Ummm, Evolution is a theory.
It remains unproven.
If you want to parse words then fine,
I quote your source "However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution."..."Well evolution is a theory."

And if you listen to several people, you would think that it is a proven fact and you are nuts if you disagree with them. I should know. Ran into them at school.

Whenever someone starts a sentence with "I believe..." (in a religious context) you can safely ignore the rest of the sentence.

Why should we ignore the rest of the sentence?

And I suppose no evolutionist is guilty of diverting attention away from their failings?Exactly, because there is no such thing as evolutionism. Evolution is no "theory" that could have alternative versions. Evolution is a process in nature, and humans are trying to describe it. Evolution is not someone's invention.

To me, creationists can't accept evolution because they are afraid that it means god had no hand in it and that we're just the survivor of countless mutations.

For most, yes. Though I am a creationist, that does not mean that I do not believe in Evolution. Do I believe in it? In truth, I have not made up my mind one way or the other.

It would make them feel that humans are less important in the eyes of god and to them that's like being dumped by a girl/boy friend. It would shatter their belief.

Nice of you to speak for all of us creationists.

So instead of objectively looking at what both sides say and then making a decission, they put their fingers in their ears and go "lalalalala I cant hear you lalalala"

Some yes, others no.

And I suppose no evolutionist is guilty of diverting attention away from their failings? Oh no, of course not, how could I ever come to that conclusion?

Please show me evidence of one doing so.

I always find it amusing when someone in any of the right's schools of thought seeks to attack a position by waving around their own.

"Evolutionists must be unscientific and ignorant. Everyone is. How could anyone be enlightened and scientific when we fundamentalists are so ignorant and unscientific?"

"John Kerry can't be a real war hero. He must be making it up that his commanders said that he served "exemplary valor." No one has ever called any of todays Republican politicians brave or "exemplary" of anything good. It's impossible that John Kerry would be."

"Liberals are intolerant bigots too. They won't even tolerate fundamentalist's intolerant bigotry. How intolerant is that?"

Humans are not important. Only stupid religions tell them that they are.

Oh brother.

Bazalonia;12582785']Random musings on life the universe and everything...

Evolution:

First of all, what we have observed in evolution is one sub-type of Turtle becoming another sub-type of turtle. One bird becoming a slightly different bird, one insect... etc, etc, etc...

The question is where has ever in any recorded history animal of one type gave birth to an animal of a different type? If you read genesis one, in regards to Day 6 when animals and other things the phrase "after their own kind" was used in regards to reproduction. So in other-words a Hippo will produce another Hippo, the Hippo could be slightly different it could be larger or smaller in a number of areas but it is still a hippo.


And how big, or how small, or how different, does it get before you stop calling it a hippo?

Bazalonia;12582785']
So I suppose my question is, Why not? What reasons do you have to say that "day" is not a literal day?


The fact the 'day' is not what it says in the Hebrew.

Creationism is just a lack of education, an approach of superficiality. Creationists attack things they cannot grasp, that's all.

Do you get off bashing other people's beliefs? I am a creationist and I am educated. That blows what you are saying here to Kingdom Come.

Why should we ignore the rest of the sentence?Well, if I asked you something about god, and you answered "I believe that god is so and so..." then you are not telling me anything about god, but only something about yourself.

This post could refer to people on either side of the arguement. There are people who act as though the Bible and everything in it is 100% right, 100% of the time. There are people who act like the theory of evolution, in its current incarnation, is 100% right, 100% of the time. These people are all wrong.

I would tend to agree with you.

Well, if I asked you something about god, and you answered "I believe that god is so and so..." then you are not telling me anything about god, but only something about yourself.

And that is grounds to ignore the rest of the sentence? So if an attorney asks you a question on the stand and the witness says I believe so then the attorney and everyone else should ignore the answer?

And that is grounds to ignore the rest of the sentence? So if an attorney asks you a question on the stand and the witness says I believe so then the attorney and everyone else should ignore the answer?

They should certainly not take it as fact.

If the attorney asks you if you can see the killer in the room, he doesn't want "I believe it was that guy over there", he wants "yes" or "no".

"I believe" is opinion.

And that is grounds to ignore the rest of the sentence? So if an attorney asks you a question on the stand and the witness says I believe so then the attorney and everyone else should ignore the answer?I am not sure if an attorney is supposed to ask any questions concerning opinions about god.

And that is grounds to ignore the rest of the sentence? So if an attorney asks you a question on the stand and the witness says I believe so then the attorney and everyone else should ignore the answer?

I'm not a lawyer, but if you started an answer with "I belive", you'd be speculating, and the opposing lawyer would object since witnesses aren't supposed to speculate.

They should certainly not take it as fact.

If the attorney asks you if you can see the killer in the room, he doesn't want "I believe it was that guy over there", he wants "yes" or "no".

"I believe" is opinion.

Agreed but since the person is under oath...

I am not sure if an attorney is supposed to ask any questions concerning opinions about god.

Hey for once we agree that they can not unless it is relevent to the case.

Agreed but since the person is under oath...And? An opinion under oath is different from an opinion without oath? Surely not.
And a creationist's opinions about god are insubstantial with or without oaths. That is because they are not based on anything except the religious drooling of the biblical authors and redactors.

And how big, or how small, or how different, does it get before you stop calling it a hippo?

I would personally argue, as a person who believes that evolution is on the right track to explaining this sort of stuff, that at the point where the new-hippo can no longer breed with the original hippo species, it has become a unique species. Of course, if I'm not mistaken, dogs and wolves are held to be two different species of the same genus but can still interbreed, so I might be off. I'm not a biologist and biology is one of my least favorite scientific subjects (for reasons having to do with the fact that I despise rote memorization, not for reasons having to do with believing it all to be a load of crock.)

The fact the 'day' is not what it says in the Hebrew.

Does 'day' in the original text actually relate to an arbitrary unit of time?

Edit: I meant doesn't.

Wow so there are people here that do actualy belive that the world was created in 6 days?

Welcome to America...oh wait you've been here longer than I have :D.
What's the Sikh take on Creation?

Wow so there are people here that do actualy belive that the world was created in 6 days?

Of course, if I'm not mistaken, dogs and wolves are held to be two different species of the same genus but can still interbreed, so I might be off.

Maybe they dont produce offspring which can themselves reproduce.

Edit : On second thoughts googling should have been done before i posted that

Does 'day' in the original text actually relate to an arbitrary unit of time?In the Hewbrew text it says 'yom', which means 'day'. I am not sure what other meaning yom could have.
But which 'original' text? The Septuagint?

In the Hewbrew text it says 'yom', which means 'day'. I am not sure what other meaning yom could have.
But which 'original' text? The Septuagint?

No I mean I had heard that in the original Hebrew 'yom' meant an arbitrary unit of time, not necessarily one day. I guess I was wrong.

And? An opinion under oath is different from an opinion without oath? Surely not.
And a creationist's opinions about god are insubstantial with or without oaths. That is because they are not based on anything except the religious drooling of the biblical authors and redactors.

Again, do you get satisfaction by bashing people's faiths and beliefs?

Of course, if I'm not mistaken, dogs and wolves are held to be two different species of the same genus but can still interbreed, so I might be off.Dogs were bred from wolves by humans. Which btw would have been entirely impossible without the mechanisms of evolution.

Again, do you get satisfaction by bashing people's faiths and beliefs?

Would it make him wrong if he did?

Dogs were bred from wolves by humans. Which btw would have been entirely impossible without the mechanisms of evolution.

Can you prove that?

Agreed but since the person is under oath...

Being 'under oath' means nothing.

First: People can lie... even under oath. Creationists can lie, if they wish - because the bible clearly illustrates that lying 'for god' is not only acceptable, but to be commended.

Second: Whether or not you are under oath, you are not omniscient. If, under oath, I say "the moon is made of green cheese", what can we safely assume that the moon is made of?

Again, do you get satisfaction by bashing people's faiths and beliefs?Even if I did, these faiths and beliefs would still remain insubstantial. And we are not talking about me but about creationism.Can you prove that?Prove what? That selection actually works?

Even if I did, these faiths and beliefs would still remain insubstantial. And we are not talking about me but about creationism.

Yes but that does not give you carte blanch to attack people's beliefs.

Prove what? That selection actually works?

Prove that breeding a dog and a wolf could not be down with selection!

Being 'under oath' means nothing.

First: People can lie... even under oath. Creationists can lie, if they wish - because the bible clearly illustrates that lying 'for god' is not only acceptable, but to be commended.

Second: Whether or not you are under oath, you are not omniscient. If, under oath, I say "the moon is made of green cheese", what can we safely assume that the moon is made of?green cheese? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pseudoscience/Green_Cheese_Model_of_Lunar_Composition) :eek:

Yes but that does not give you carte blanch to attack people's beliefs.Why not? Because disagreement with a belief is not allowed? Or because you say so?

Prove that breeding a dog and a wolf could not be down with selection!What?

Yes but that does not give you carte blanch to attack people's beliefs.

Heh yeah but freedom of speach does.

Creationists insist on a literal interpretation of the Bible and ban the teaching of Evolution from their schools.

But if the muslims institute the sharia, and take the Coran literally, then they are dangerous fundamentalists.

Reason no longer matters, right? :headbang:

You head me.

I think you need to read what it was you said

I would personally argue, as a person who believes that evolution is on the right track to explaining this sort of stuff, that at the point where the new-hippo can no longer breed with the original hippo species, it has become a unique species. Of course, if I'm not mistaken, dogs and wolves are held to be two different species of the same genus but can still interbreed, so I might be off. I'm not a biologist and biology is one of my least favorite scientific subjects (for reasons having to do with the fact that I despise rote memorization, not for reasons having to do with believing it all to be a load of crock.)


In purely scientific terms, I believe the dog/wolf thing is about sub-species. The species would be 'canis', and any canid would belong to that 'species'. (If I recall my bioligy correctly).

The theoretical ancestors of canid, felid and ursid would be the miacid, I think, and each 'species' theoretically became a 'species' once it could no longer successfully interbreed with the miacid species, or one of the other post-miacids.

So - while dogs, cats and bears share a common ancestor - they are different 'species' because they cannot produce viable offspring.


Does 'day' in the original text actually relate to an arbitrary unit of time?

Edit: I meant doesn't.

'yowm' is the Hebrew phrase. It can mean day - but that is not it's only meaning. It can also mean: time, year, day (as opposed to night), day (24 hour period), a working day, a day's journey, days, lifetime, period (general), year, today, yesterday, tomorrow...

Saying it 'means' day, is like saying that 'bird' means 'eagle'.

It is also worth noting - it is not unusual for Biblical scripture to use 'day' metaphorically, especially for certain references - like the 'day is a thousand years' thing. (As an extra note - 'a thousand' of anything in the Hebrew scripture, is basically like saying uncountable or infinite... so the Genesis 'day' could refer to a period of time so long as to be beyond human conception).

Why not? Because disagreement with a belief is not allowed? Or because you say so?

I do not care if you disagree or not. It is improper decorum to bash someone beacuse they disagree with you.

What?

You head me.

Prove that breeding a dog and a wolf could not be down with selection!

You've missed the point entirely. The assertion wasn't about breeding a dog and a wolf, it was about selectively breeding a specific set of genetic markers from a line of wolves to create the domesticated canis lupus familiaris we have today.

Also: on further study of the situation, it turns out that both dogs and wolves fall under the same genus AND species, canis lupus, with dogs gaining the subspecies familiaris, much like modern man is listed as having the subspecies sapiens (homo sapiens sapiens). So they're the same species, which explains the interbreeding.

In the Hewbrew text it says 'yom', which means 'day'. I am not sure what other meaning yom could have.
But which 'original' text? The Septuagint?

Bolded for emphasis.

Heh yeah but freedom of spe[e]ch does.

Corrected your spelling :)

And there you are right but in a debate, it is bad decorum and by default makes whatever you say irrelevent.

In purely scientific terms, I believe the dog/wolf thing is about sub-species. The species would be 'canis', and any canid would belong to that 'species'. (If I recall my bioligy correctly).

The theoretical ancestors of canid, felid and ursid would be the miacid, I think, and each 'species' theoretically became a 'species' once it could no longer successfully interbreed with the miacid species, or one of the other post-miacids.

So - while dogs, cats and bears share a common ancestor - they are different 'species' because they cannot produce viable offspring.

Spot on. As you can see from my latest post above this one, I went and looked it up, and felt fairly foolish. Thanks for clarifying.

'yowm' is the Hebrew phrase. It can mean day - but that is not it's only meaning. It can also mean: time, year, day (as opposed to night), day (24 hour period), a working day, a day's journey, days, lifetime, period (general), year, today, yesterday, tomorrow...

Saying it 'means' day, is like saying that 'bird' means 'eagle'.

It is also worth noting - it is not unusual for Biblical scripture to use 'day' metaphorically, especially for certain references - like the 'day is a thousand years' thing. (As an extra note - 'a thousand' of anything in the Hebrew scripture, is basically like saying uncountable or infinite... so the Genesis 'day' could refer to a period of time so long as to be beyond human conception).

Interesting. And confusing.

Corrected your spelling :)

And there you are right but in a debate, it is bad decorum and by default makes whatever you say irrelevent.

Bwahahah since when did any dabate go on here? Surly this is the shouting place! Debate, you are funny, I like you!;)

Science is not based on theory at all. It is primarily based on observation. And a theory is not what you seem to think it is. A theory is not just a fancy idea someone has, it is rather a complex model (created form a deep understanding of the matter at issue) that wraps up observed phenomena and offers coherent explanations. In addition most theories have already collected lots and lots of evidence to confirm their respective statements. And scientific assumptions are not made based on belief. They are made based on the pieces of knowledge one already has. Test scenarios, if you will.

If you believe we have enough information and understanding to form accurate theories as to the formation of the universe that is up to you. I disagree.

Though, these theories have transcended science and become a matter of belief for large swathes of the population.

I do not care if you disagree or not. It is improper decorum to bash someone beacuse they disagree with you.I bash the things they believe in with delight, not the people. Although I of course have doubts about the mental sanity of folks who do believe in certain stuff.

You head me.I don't give head. And I just don't understand your English.

Bolded for emphasis.So what could it mean?

Spot on. As you can see from my latest post above this one, I went and looked it up, and felt fairly foolish. Thanks for clarifying.


Perhaps I should have gone and looked it up, and posted it. :) I tend to end up with posts that are neither precise nor concise.

I'm glad the meaning got through, though. :)


Interesting. And confusing.

Confusing, yes. English is a very technical language, like most 'modern' languages. Hebrew, on the other hand, has many layers of meaning, even within a single word, or character within a word. Add to that, it's historical use is very 'poetic'.

It's a big problem when dealing with bible literalists, because few Christians have ever even looked at the Hebrew - and so are content to read a technical dissection which takes a 'word-for-word' approach.

If we were really going to be entirely rigourous about analysis of the Hebrew text, even just the first verse of genesis would take a couple of pages to 'translate'.

So what could it mean?

See above in response posted to that 'bad god' fellow.

If you believe we have enough information and understanding to form accurate theories as to the formation of the universe that is up to you. I disagree.

Though, these theories have transcended science and become a matter of belief for large swathes of the population.

It really depends on where you draw the line between accurate theory and hodgepodge. There's significant observational evidence that the Big Bang Theory is the correct theory on the formation of the universe.

I agree, though this isn't a flaw with science, but with faith. And I don't mean faith in religion or faith in god, but the penchant for random Joe Bumfucks to believe in something unwaveringly and mindlessly without truly understanding anything about it.

Almost like a religion in and of itself :)

Some people treat science that way. That simply shows they don't understand science.

If you believe we have enough information and understanding to form accurate theories as to the formation of the universe that is up to you. I disagree.

*nods in agreement*

Though, these theories have transcended science and become a matter of belief for large swathes of the population.

Almost like a religion in and of itself :)

If you believe we have enough information and understanding to form accurate theories as to the formation of the universe that is up to you. I disagree.


Okay. We don't have enough evidence to 'know' anything for certain, but we have a lot of well-supported theories.

Does that mean we can be certain of how the universe was formed? No - of course not. But our lack of certainty doesn't make 'god dun it' any more correct, either.

I bash the things they believe in with delight, not the people. Although I of course have doubts about the mental sanity of folks who do believe in certain stuff.

No wonder you have so much hate.

I don't give head. And I just don't understand your English.

Which is amazing as you seem to have a nice grasp of the English Language. What is the matter? Can not back up what you stated because the proof is in the thread that you are wrong?

See above in response posted to that 'bad god' fellow.I've read it. Very confusing. Is yom used in all of those meanings in the biblical texts?
And the bad god would be deus malus, deus malum is more something like the apple god... ;)

Some people treat science that way. That simply shows they don't understand science.

No but they understand humanity and what the human element of science is turning the field into.

Take a step back, a deep breath and look upon science as to what it should be, and what it now is.

Confusing, yes. English is a very technical language, like most 'modern' languages. Hebrew, on the other hand, has many layers of meaning, even within a single word, or character within a word. Add to that, it's historical use is very 'poetic'.

It's a big problem when dealing with bible literalists, because few Christians have ever even looked at the Hebrew - and so are content to read a technical dissection which takes a 'word-for-word' approach.

If we were really going to be entirely rigourous about analysis of the Hebrew text, even just the first verse of genesis would take a couple of pages to 'translate'.

I know where you're coming from on this. In Gujarati, the word for tomorrow and yesterday are identical. "Kal" (anglicized) can mean either one of the two, and the actual meaning usually has to be discerned in context. Every now and then you come across a sentence where the context is a bit murky, and can't tell whether you're talking about something that already happened or something that will happen.

I've read it. Very confusing. Is yom used in all of those meanings in the biblical texts?
And the bad god would be deus malus, deus malum is more something like the apple god... ;)

Impossible. I hate Apple. Maybe I should rename my self Deus Malus Malum. The Bad Apple God?

Also, my grasp of Latin is about as good as my grasp of Sanskrit (seriously).

No but they understand humanity and what the human element of science is turning the field into.

Take a step back, a deep breath and look upon science as to what it should be, and what it now is.

Scientists do not weave mysticism around science. We do not say we provide all the answers, that we know all, and that we can take you to a comet on its way towards the sun if you'd just drink the Kool Aide.
Scientists do not present their findings in a thick veil of mystery. They present, if anything, too much bloody information (having actually read scientific papers) and present it in a "This is what happens, this is what it looks like, this is our theory on why, this is the math to support that theory, no go and test it yourself," sort of way. And when I say "go and test it yourself," I'm not saying they're asking Joe Blowhard the Mechanic to test it, I'm saying they're telling other people in the field to test it, which they do. And once it's been tested and confirmed continuously, well, you have a new theory for the media to drool over if it's in a hot field.

No wonder you have so much hate.What hate?

Which is amazing as you seem to have a nice grasp of the English Language. What is the matter? Can not back up what you stated because the proof is in the thread that you are wrong? You wrote the following:
"Prove that breeding a dog and a wolf could not be down with selection!"
I have no idea what you are saying there.
Dogs are wolves that were domesticated and have been split up into breeds through selection (taking advantage of natural changes in genome). According to the anti-evolution faction a change of genome is impossible. A population of wolves would always remain a population of wolves, regardless of circumstances and number of passing generations.

I've read it. Very confusing. Is yom used in all of those meanings in the biblical texts?
And the bad god would be deus malus, deus malum is more something like the apple god... ;)

I was looking at the legal term "Malum prohibitum" (wrong, because prohibited) for my cue.

And, yes - 'yowm' is used for all of those meaning within scripture. We could probably expand the list considerably if we wanted to go looking for other (non-scriptural) ways.

What hate?

I see I am talking to a brick wall

You wrote the following:
"Prove that breeding a dog and a wolf could not be down with selection!"
I have no idea what you are saying there.

You need that expalined to you?

No but they understand humanity and what the human element of science is turning the field into.

Take a step back, a deep breath and look upon science as to what it should be, and what it now is.

I'm a scientist. I observe the scientific method, and allow that we will, in all probability, never come close to knowing 'everything'. That is what 'it is now'.

What you are talking about is nothing to do with 'science'... it is to do with non-scientists misunderstanding what science is.

I see I am talking to a brick wallNo. Just to someone whose time in school and university wasn't wasted.

You need that expalined to you?1. expalined is not an English word.
2. The quoted sentence does not have any meaning. Neither in itself nor in the context of what I wrote before.

Ok, so I have read all 10 pages of theis topic. I take the bible as fact. I also think that Evolution is BS.

If you have a empty box and tape it up with nothing in it. What is going to happen? Nothing. You throw a broken watch in the air, Is it going to fix itself? No.

There is a line in a movie that says it all "The easiet explaination tends to be the right one", but if you are like me you take why we are here on faith, not scientist theroy. So, say what you will, but I believe the Bible. I DO NOT believe we were made from APES.

I do not attend a church. I just sit at home and read my bible, so the theroy of me being told to believe or else is mute. Also, for the one who wants proof that God is real or that he created the Earth in 6 days. Look around you. The proof is all around you. I see it every day, and God has personally touched my life. Well thats it, so say what you will.

You need that expalined to you

I do as well. Maybe you have a different definition of the word 'down' round your way but that sentence makes no sense.

Ok, so I have read all 10 pages of theis topic. I take the bible as fact. I also think that Evolution is BS.

If you have a empty box and tape it up with nothing in it. What is going to happen? Nothing. You throw a broken watch in the air, Is it going to fix itself? No.

There is a line in a movie that says it all "The easiet explaination tends to be the right one", but if you are like me you take why we are here on faith, not scientist theroy. So, say what you will, but I believe the Bible. I DO NOT believe we were made from APES.

I do not attend a church. I just sit at home and read my bible, so the theroy of me being told to believe or else is mute. Also, for the one who wants proof that God is real or that he created the Earth in 6 days. Look around you. The proof is all around you. I see it every day, and God has personally touched my life. Well thats it, so say what you will.What makes you believe in the Bible? And have you read the Bible at all?

Ok, so I have read all 10 pages of theis topic. I take the bible as fact. I also think that Evolution is BS.

If you have a empty box and tape it up with nothing in it. What is going to happen? Nothing. You throw a broken watch in the air, Is it going to fix itself? No.

There is a line in a movie that says it all "The easiet explaination tends to be the right one", but if you are like me you take why we are here on faith, not scientist theroy. So, say what you will, but I believe the Bible. I DO NOT believe we were made from APES.

I do not attend a church. I just sit at home and read my bible, so the theroy of me being told to believe or else is mute. Also, for the one who wants proof that God is real or that he created the Earth in 6 days. Look around you. The proof is all around you. I see it every day, and God has personally touched my life. Well thats it, so say what you will.

The Bible is only one scripture among thousands.

The evidence you see for 'god' is the same evidence for Zeus and Allah.

What makes your creation myth any more reliable than any other?


Personally, based on observation, that Japanese one about some god shitting the world into existence seems pretty sound.

:rolleyes:

You have to be kidding me. Usually I am not one to ridicule beliefs, but its silly to take Revelations literally. I mean, giant locusts with armor and horses with fire coming out of their mouths? Hah!

since when does taking a book seriously mean taking it literally?

I take Revelation seriously, I don't take it literally......well, sorta, I think there is going to be the big throw down when everything falls apart, just I think a lot of the stuff in there symbolizes other things......the whole Bible is rife with symbolic prophecy, from Genesis to Revelation, not understanding that the whole thing is one big story is where a lot of Christians go down the path of "I believe what I want and discard the rest" that causes all sorts of problems.

Personally, based on observation, that Japanese one about some god shitting the world into existence seems pretty sound.And it would explain a lot... :eek: :)

Ok, so I have read all 10 pages of theis topic. I take the bible as fact. I also think that Evolution is BS.

If you have a empty box and tape it up with nothing in it. What is going to happen? Nothing. You throw a broken watch in the air, Is it going to fix itself? No.
What point are you trying to make here?

There is a line in a movie that says it all "The easiet explaination tends to be the right one",
That's Occam's Razor
but if you are like me you take why we are here on faith, not scientist theroy. So, say what you will, but I believe the Bible. I DO NOT believe we were made from APES.
We were not made from apes, we share a common ancestor with them. Don't make me get Morbo in here.


I do not attend a church. I just sit at home and read my bible, so the theroy of me being told to believe or else is mute.
I tihnk you mean moot, but I understand what you mean, though not really why you say it[/quote]
Also, for the one who wants proof that God is real or that he created the Earth in 6 days. Look around you. The proof is all around you. I see it every day, and God has personally touched my life. Well thats it, so say what you will.

There is proof all around me that God took exactly 6 days, exactly 144 hours, to create all of existence?

Dude, what are you smoking?

Ok, so I have read all 10 pages of theis topic. I take the bible as fact. I also think that Evolution is BS.

If you have a empty box and tape it up with nothing in it. What is going to happen? Nothing. You throw a broken watch in the air, Is it going to fix itself? No.

There is a line in a movie that says it all "The easiet explaination tends to be the right one", but if you are like me you take why we are here on faith, not scientist theroy. So, say what you will, but I believe the Bible. I DO NOT believe we were made from APES.

I do not attend a church. I just sit at home and read my bible, so the theroy of me being told to believe or else is mute. Also, for the one who wants proof that God is real or that he created the Earth in 6 days. Look around you. The proof is all around you. I see it every day, and God has personally touched my life. Well thats it, so say what you will.


Very funny. Fine puppetry

I believe he stated that he has read the Bible.So did he or not? See what I meant? I did not ask for your belief, but for what he has done.
Thanks for proving my point.

And if you listen to several people, you would think that it is a proven fact and you are nuts if you disagree with them. I should know. Ran into them at school.
There are lots of ignorant people in the world. Anybody who tells you that evolution is a "proven fact" is just as ignorant as a person who tells you it's "just a theory." People confuse the colloquial meanings of terms with their meanings in the scientific context. It's often an honest mistake. But it's still a mistake.

I believe he stated that he has read the Bible.

The argument could be made that, if all you ever read are translations, you've never really read 'the Bible'.

And, to be honest... I know an awful lot of Christians that have never read the whole book, cover-to-cover... even in English.

What makes you believe in the Bible? And have you read the Bible at all?

I believe he stated that he has read the Bible.

Again, do you get satisfaction by bashing people's faiths and beliefs?
Speaking for myself, it depends on which beliefs and faiths we're talking about.

Do I get joy out of, for instance, bashing a parent's faith that their dead child is in heaven? Fuck no. That's a very sad situation, and there's no satisfaction for me in making a grieving parent feel worse.

Do I get joy out of bashing the beliefs of racists who take it on faith that black people are barely a step above monkeys? Damn right I do. Do I enjoy bashing the "faith" of people who think that the Bible provides sound justification for their belief that heterosexual divorce is OK while homosexual marriage is not? Damn right I do.

You see where I'm going with this, I hope.

since when does taking a book seriously mean taking it literally?

I take Revelation seriously, I don't take it literally......well, sorta, I think there is going to be the big throw down when everything falls apart, just I think a lot of the stuff in there symbolizes other things......the whole Bible is rife with symbolic prophecy, from Genesis to Revelation, not understanding that the whole thing is one big story is where a lot of Christians go down the path of "I believe what I want and discard the rest" that causes all sorts of problems.

That is indeed a true statement.

Here's a link to your standard 6K'er (http://www.answersingenesis.org/). Good luck!

Humans are not important. Only stupid religions tell them that they are.
That's not entirely true.

Humans, like all life on this planet, are "important" in a variety of biological ways. It's like how snails are very important in some ecosystems. Humans, also, have our role in the biological world. In that sense, we have importance.

But it's true, science does not offer the anthropocentric view of the universe that most religion does. Science will not tell you that humans are the high point of Creation. It will not tell you that the world was created for humans. It won't tell you that there is a magical omnipotent being who cares about YOU, personally.

Frankly, I think it's pretty immature for somebody to claim that they can't find value or meaning in the universe unless they get to be at the center of it. :D

Speaking for myself, it depends on which beliefs and faiths we're talking about.

Do I get joy out of, for instance, bashing a parent's faith that their dead child is in heaven? Fuck no. That's a very sad situation, and there's no satisfaction for me in making a grieving parent feel worse.

Do I get joy out of bashing the beliefs of racists who take it on faith that black people are barely a step above monkeys? Damn right I do. Do I enjoy bashing the "faith" of people who think that the Bible provides sound justification for their belief that heterosexual divorce is OK while homosexual marriage is not? Damn right I do.

You see where I'm going with this, I hope.

I see where you are going, I just don't understand what creationism has anything to do with it.....I mean as long as they aren't trying to pull theocracy or control the science curriculum in school, why do you really care? I mean can't you leave people alone to have their beliefs as long as it's not directly affecting you (gay rights aside because that is directly affecting millions of people and deserves some major attention)

I see where you are going, I just don't understand what creationism has anything to do with it.....I mean as long as they aren't trying to pull theocracy or control the science curriculum in school, why do you really care? I mean can't you leave people alone to have their beliefs as long as it's not directly affecting you (gay rights aside because that is directly affecting millions of people and deserves some major attention)

Should your local preacher be compelled to preach half his sermons on teachings from the Koran? That's the big thing that has people up in arms - 'creationists' are trying to "control the science curriculum in school".

The argument could be made that, if all you ever read are translations, you've never really read 'the Bible'.Oh please, as if it really mattered in what language one reads the bible. Since there is no original text, everything is up to interpretation anyways (although you could of course consider the Septuagint as the original text, as it was the first assembly and streamlining of biblical texts into one 'work').

I see where you are going, I just don't understand what creationism has anything to do with it.....I mean as long as they aren't trying to pull theocracy or control the science curriculum in school, why do you really care? I mean can't you leave people alone to have their beliefs as long as it's not directly affecting you (gay rights aside because that is directly affecting millions of people and deserves some major attention)

Well said Smunkeeville. Well said indeed.

Oh please, as if it really mattered in what language one reads the bible. Since there is no original text, everything is up to interpretation anyways (although you could of course consider the Septuagint as the original text, as it was the first assembly and streamlining of biblical texts into one 'work').

If the scripture is divinely inspiried, it was given in three languages - Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. If you don't read it in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek... you are just reading someone else's interpretation of the inspired word.

Even if the scripture is not divinely inspired, the core texts were still not originally written in English.

That's not entirely true.

Humans, like all life on this planet, are "important" in a variety of biological ways. It's like how snails are very important in some ecosystems. Humans, also, have our role in the biological world. In that sense, we have importance.

But it's true, science does not offer the anthropocentric view of the universe that most religion does. Science will not tell you that humans are the high point of Creation. It will not tell you that the world was created for humans. It won't tell you that there is a magical omnipotent being who cares about YOU, personally. "Importance" is a strange concept, isn't it?

Frankly, I think it's pretty immature for somebody to claim that they can't find value or meaning in the universe unless they get to be at the center of it. Then the abrahamic religions are forms of organized immaturity ;)

So did he or not? See what I meant? I did not ask for your belief, but for what he has done.
Thanks for proving my point.

I just sit at home and read my bible

I see reading comprehension is not what it used to be.

I see where you are going, I just don't understand what creationism has anything to do with it.....I mean as long as they aren't trying to pull theocracy or control the science curriculum in school, why do you really care?

Short answer: I don't.

I talk about a lot of things that I don't deeply care about. I'll talk to you for hours about why capri pants are pure evil, but I actually don't particularly care what other people choose to wear.

The thing is, when somebody stands up and says that there is as much evidence for Creationism as there is for evolutionary theory, that is a direct personal insult against me and every other scientist in my field. They are lying, and they are trivializing my years of work and the lifetimes of work of those who have come before me.

When somebody insists that we should give "equal consideration" to the random guesses of people who read some ancient fiction, they are insulting all the lifetimes of hard work put in by all the scientists who actually do the hard, dirty, frequently thankless tasks involved in real science. People who assert that Creationism is as much a theory as evolution are not only liars, they're insulting liars. They are asking that we allow lazy people who don't do any work at all to be given the same respect as people who dedicate their lives to testing, re-testing, and scrutinizing data that has been collected through painstaking work.

When people say things that are flat-out untrue about evolutionary theory, I correct them. Perhaps they won't be prepared to let go of their misconceptions, but at least I can stop other people from thinking that their ignorant view is an accurate reflection of reality.

And when somebody chooses to publicly insult me, I stand up to them. When somebody chooses to lie publicly about me or my work, I stand up to them. I make sure that their lies are not allowed to stand alone and unchallenged in public discourse.


I mean can't you leave people alone to have their beliefs as long as it's not directly affecting you (gay rights aside because that is directly affecting millions of people and deserves some major attention)
In situations where their beliefs are not directly impacting my life, yes. Unfortunately, that is not the case 99% of the time when dealing with Creationists.

Well said Smunkeeville. Well said indeed.Didn't you just want to explain how to breed dogs out of wolves without using mechanisms of evolution?

Should your local preacher be compelled to preach half his sermons on teachings from the Koran? That's the big thing that has people up in arms - 'creationists' are trying to "control the science curriculum in school".

And as a creationist, this may shock people, they should not be trying to control the science curriculum.

And as a creationist, this may shock people, they should not be trying to control the science curriculum.

Damn straight. But they do try, and that makes the question of whether Christian Creationism (or it's mildly disguised puppet, Intelligent Design) is supported by evidence a hot-button issue.

As it was explained in this thread, they are part of the same group and thus can (without any use of evolution) breed with wolves.That wasn't the question at all. The question was how humans could breed dogs out of wolves. How humans took wolves into their homes and several tenthousand years ended up with dogs.

I see reading comprehension is not what it used to be."I just sit at home and read my bible" could mean that he just opens it and re-reads Gen 1 over and over again.

Didn't you just want to explain how to breed dogs out of wolves without using mechanisms of evolution?

As it was explained in this thread, they are part of the same group and thus can (without any use of evolution) breed with wolves.

I'm a scientist. I observe the scientific method, and allow that we will, in all probability, never come close to knowing 'everything'. That is what 'it is now'.

What you are talking about is nothing to do with 'science'... it is to do with non-scientists misunderstanding what science is.

What field?

"I just sit at home and read my bible" could mean that he just opens it and re-reads Gen 1 over and over again.

Only in your mnd. I read my bible all the time and I read more than Genesis.

If the scripture is divinely inspiried, it was given in three languages - Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. If you don't read it in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek... you are just reading someone else's interpretation of the inspired word.

Even if the scripture is not divinely inspired, the core texts were still not originally written in English.

that's actually pretty true......really true......absolutely true.

I am currently going back through Paul's letters, and I am not finding much of what I thought was there, although I am finding a lot of misogyny in a lot of the old Greek and Roman philosophy, so I am starting to wonder if "dear translators" had gone through and added their own spin, seeing as they were most likely educated in the grand philosophy of the day....
.
what if Paul was a feminist and all the translators just didn't like it and switched stuff around?:eek: (maybe not that far, but this is an interesting exercise anyway)

that's actually pretty true......really true......absolutely true.

I am currently going back through Paul's letters, and I am not finding much of what I thought was there, although I am finding a lot of misogyny in a lot of the old Greek and Roman philosophy, so I am starting to wonder if "dear translators" had gone through and added their own spin, seeing as they were most likely educated in the grand philosophy of the day....
.
what if Paul was a feminist and all the translators just didn't like it and switched stuff around?:eek: (maybe not that far, but this is an interesting exercise anyway)

The big problem with being a historical figure whose writings are carried on down the years after your death is that you have no say in the editorial process. Especially when the histories about the figure him/herself undergo an editorial screening down generations.

For all we know, Paul was Paulina :eek:

Only in your mnd. I read my bible all the time and I read more than Genesis.Are you Marvocia?

Or what if Paul like to be Paula on the weekends and was really self-hating? Which is why I say that we shouldn't trust any scripture that doesn't include pictures.
This post is made of win. Please publish more books, post haste.

What field?

Which is my field? I'm basically a Chemist... my work is mainly concerned with analytical and environmental chemistry - but my main interests are actually organic and quantum.

Which is my field? I'm basically a Chemist... my work is mainly concerned with analytical and environmental chemistry - but my main interests are actually organic and quantum.

Quantum chemistry? I've never heard of that. Sounds interesting. I thankfully took two semesters of chem and never looked back.

Physics is my cup of chai *sips*.

that's actually pretty true......really true......absolutely true.

I am currently going back through Paul's letters, and I am not finding much of what I thought was there, although I am finding a lot of misogyny in a lot of the old Greek and Roman philosophy, so I am starting to wonder if "dear translators" had gone through and added their own spin, seeing as they were most likely educated in the grand philosophy of the day....
.
what if Paul was a feminist and all the translators just didn't like it and switched stuff around?:eek: (maybe not that far, but this is an interesting exercise anyway)

Or what if Paul like to be Paula on the weekends and was really self-hating? Which is why I say that we shouldn't trust any scripture that doesn't include pictures.

If the scripture is divinely inspiried, it was given in three languages - Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. If you don't read it in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek... you are just reading someone else's interpretation of the inspired word.

Even if the scripture is not divinely inspired, the core texts were still not originally written in English.And?

Or what if Paul like to be Paula on the weekends and was really self-hating? Which is why I say that we shouldn't trust any scripture that doesn't include pictures.

Beat you to it.

As it was explained in this thread, they are part of the same group and thus can (without any use of evolution) breed with wolves.
Evolution has nothing to do with wolves and dogs being able to interbreed and nobody ever claimed it did. If they did they were wrong.
http://www.pbones.com/images/blobimages/20061129morbo.gif
Evolution does not work that way!
Only in your mnd. I read my bible all the time and I read more than Genesis.
So? That doesn't mean the poster in question does the same as you.

that's actually pretty true......really true......absolutely true.

I am currently going back through Paul's letters, and I am not finding much of what I thought was there, although I am finding a lot of misogyny in a lot of the old Greek and Roman philosophy, so I am starting to wonder if "dear translators" had gone through and added their own spin, seeing as they were most likely educated in the grand philosophy of the day....
.
what if Paul was a feminist and all the translators just didn't like it and switched stuff around?:eek: (maybe not that far, but this is an interesting exercise anyway)

I don't know about Paul's politics too much... I find him hard to reconcile with the other scripture anyway, as you know.

But, there is clear evidence of 'editorial' work in other places. Like - all the times 'nephesh' is used for animals, but never translated into English. (Nephesh is what we translate as "soul"... and which we tend to consider very much a 'human' thing.)

from what I am beginning to understand Paul used words that meant one thing instead of other words that meant another, but people translated it like it said the second word anyway......it was like he went out of his way to not say what people of the times would have, and it didn't get translated that way.

This is, sadly, an inherent problem with language.

I'm so glad Hinduism isn't so god damned preachy once you've settled the dietary constraints.

The big problem with being a historical figure whose writings are carried on down the years after your death is that you have no say in the editorial process. Especially when the histories about the figure him/herself undergo an editorial screening down generations.

For all we know, Paul was Paulina :eek:
from what I am beginning to understand Paul used words that meant one thing instead of other words that meant another, but people translated it like it said the second word anyway......it was like he went out of his way to not say what people of the times would have, and it didn't get translated that way.

Or what if Paul like to be Paula on the weekends and was really self-hating? Which is why I say that we shouldn't trust any scripture that doesn't include pictures.

I am trudging through old languages and stuff right now, I don't know if I would notice that much, just interesting parallels between Plato, and Paul that don't seem to have true scriptural backing.

Are you Marvocia?

And I will turn the question around.

Evolution has nothing to do with wolves and dogs being able to interbreed and nobody ever claimed it did. If they did they were wrong.

you are going to have to take that up with local troll UB.

Damn straight. But they do try, and that makes the question of whether Christian Creationism (or it's mildly disguised puppet, Intelligent Design) is supported by evidence a hot-button issue.

That is indeed true. *sighs*

And?

What more do you need? Inspired or not, the book 'The Bible' wasn't written in English.

It's like me telling you you've never really read "Les Liaisons dangereuses" (or Dangerous Liaisons) if you've not read the version by Pierre Choderlos de Laclos. You might know the rough story, but have totally missed the significance.

The big problem with being a historical figure whose writings are carried on down the years after your death is that you have no say in the editorial process. Especially when the histories about the figure him/herself undergo an editorial screening down generations.

For all we know, Paul was Paulina :eek:

Time warp. I saw my post when yours was not yet there. Don't steal my thunder, young punk.

First fo all, I would like to state that there is no proof for evolution, and if there is you can give me a post on my nation and not in this forum, as I hardly read the forums anymore.


believe that the Big Bang, is perfectly acceptable theory to walk hand in hand with genisis---first there was the void.

First off, there is no big bang. Seriously, evolution does NOT -nor does the big bang theory- explain wehre we came from. Second, how did EVERYTHING turn into an infinite decimal region and then explode? That is not science and therefore requires faith, thus it is a religios view.

Why is it that for a Perfect All powerful God Evolution [is?] such a complex mechanism? Surely designing evolution would be but an after thought for an Almighty God?

Yes, however evolution requires death, not life. If creationism is a religion of life, then why would an all powerful god require practice and death to get what he could have made in the first place? Would he then NOT be worth worshipping?

And if in the blink of an eye you were to be shown the Evolutionary process through a spiritual vision...how else would you describe it then "Man came from dirt"?

Well, I believe God made us from dirt, and you guys believe that dirt made man... is that not odd?

And if creation is indeed at the hand of God(which I believe) they doesnt it make sense that it has taken man a thousand generations to even scratch the surface of the process involved?

Err, clearify?

And be even less certain of the creation of the universe?

Same.

Simply, why are evolution and the big bang veiwed as heresy when clearly they are perfectly well within the power of God to inact?

Let me put it this way, one is a religion that is supported with my tax dollars that has absolutely no proof, while the other has proof, if there is none... and is not supported with everyones money.

Send your message to Indoslavokia or Bobsvile if you want.

Here's something that annoys me:

In all the discussions we have about Creationism vs. Evolution, there will inevitably be somebody who mentions all the kids at their high school who insist that evolution is a fact or something along those lines.

SO WHAT?!

Yes, non-scientists frequently misinterpret science. This doesn't make them bad people. It's understandable, because a lot of science is complicated and confusing. That's why most scientists have to go to school for quite a while before they really have the tools they need to do science. (Believe me, we don't stay in grad school for 10 years because of the pay.)

If you want to know about science, talk to a scientist. If a non-scientist tells you something about science, check their sources first.

If somebody's aunt tells you that her doctor told her that drinking vinegar cures cancer, are you actually going to then insist that medical science says vinegar cures cancer? Of course not! So why do people do this when it comes to evolutionary biology?!

Look, I really like science. I am probably the loudest nerd on NS General. If you want to talk about science, let's do it! I will talk nerdy to you all night long, baby!

Time warp. I saw my post when yours was not yet there. Don't steal my thunder, young punk.

Bah, mine precedes yours. I'll fight you for it.

from what I am beginning to understand Paul used words that meant one thing instead of other words that meant another, but people translated it like it said the second word anyway......it was like he went out of his way to not say what people of the times would have, and it didn't get translated that way.


A good (or bad) example is Pauls use of the word 'arsenkoites'. It doesn't appear anywhere else, and isn't even in other, older (non-biblical) texts. So - Paul coined the phrase.

Looking at it etymologically, it would mean 'men' of 'unrestrained sexual activity'... so - libertines, sex maniacs, hedonists, just plain promiscuous, maybe.

And yet, the English texts always translate it as 'homosexual'...

First fo all, I would like to state that there is no proof for evolution, and if there is you can give me a post on my nation and not in this forum, as I hardly read the forums anymore.


believe that the Big Bang, is perfectly acceptable theory to walk hand in hand with genisis---first there was the void.

First off, there is no big bang. Seriously, evolution does NOT -nor does the big bang theory- explain wehre we came from. Second, how did EVERYTHING turn into an infinite decimal region and then explode? That is not science and therefore requires faith, thus it is a religios view.

Why is it that for a Perfect All powerful God Evolution [is?] such a complex mechanism? Surely designing evolution would be but an after thought for an Almighty God?

Yes, however evolution requires death, not life. If creationism is a religion of life, then why would an all powerful god require practice and death to get what he could have made in the first place? Would he then NOT be worth worshipping?

And if in the blink of an eye you were to be shown the Evolutionary process through a spiritual vision...how else would you describe it then "Man came from dirt"?

Well, I believe God made us from dirt, and you guys believe that dirt made man... is that not odd?

And if creation is indeed at the hand of God(which I believe) they doesnt it make sense that it has taken man a thousand generations to even scratch the surface of the process involved?

Err, clearify?

And be even less certain of the creation of the universe?

Same.

Simply, why are evolution and the big bang veiwed as heresy when clearly they are perfectly well within the power of God to inact?

Let me put it this way, one is a religion that is supported with my tax dollars that has absolutely no proof, while the other has proof, if there is none... and is not supported with everyones money.

Send your message to Indoslavokia or Bobsvile if you want.

I hope to god English isn't your first language.

What more do you need? Inspired or not, the book 'The Bible' wasn't written in English.

It's like me telling you you've never really read "Les Liaisons dangereuses" (or Dangerous Liaisons) if you've not read the version by Pierre Choderlos de Laclos. You might know the rough story, but have totally missed the significance.You really shouldn't dwell too much on the Hebrew or Greek wording. The changes introduced by translations are not changing the overall meaning sufficiently that I would throw out the text on that grounds. In the English translation there is a god creating the world, a flood, a man who builds an ark, a king who builds a tower at Eridu (Babel), a man who travels from Mesopotamia to Canaan and gives his wife to the pharaoh, and a man who becomes vizier of Egypt, and so on. Are all those stories not in the Greek or Hebrew texts?

I think one of the main problems Christians (myself included) have with accepting evolution as a viable explanation for all living things is that evolution involves death. Millions - even billions - of years would have to pass by for the evolution from single-celled organisms to humanity to occur. And obviously, living creatures would die in that span of time.

However, the Bible is clear that death was a result of Adam's sin, not a naturally occuring phenomenon. If that's the case, then any talk of death before humanity would be seen as undermining (what I see to be) the Bible's main message of humanity's redemption by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

*post snipped to keep the length to a minimum*
I find this very interesting, particularly the bit I've bolded. I'm going to have to chew on that for a bit, but thanks for sharing your insight!

First fo all, I would like to state that there is no proof for evolution, and if there is you can give me a post on my nation and not in this forum, as I hardly read the forums anymore.

You are correct, there is no "proof" for evolution. There is evidence which supports the current incarnation of the theory of evolution.

And I tried to read past there but it just made no sense to me.

For what it's worth, here's my two cents - but first, a little background on me:

- I am a Christian
- I do believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis
- some (not all) might consider me a "fundamentalist" because I take the Bible seriously
- I am educated, currently going for my grad degree and teaching certification
- I believe the Big Bang Theory has merit (more on that below)

With that said:

I think one of the main problems Christians (myself included) have with accepting evolution as a viable explanation for all living things is that evolution involves death. Millions - even billions - of years would have to pass by for the evolution from single-celled organisms to humanity to occur. And obviously, living creatures would die in that span of time.

However, the Bible is clear that death was a result of Adam's sin, not a naturally occuring phenomenon. If that's the case, then any talk of death before humanity would be seen as undermining (what I see to be) the Bible's main message of humanity's redemption by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

"OK," one might argue, "so Christians believe death started with Adam. Why couldn't all those animals have stayed alive for the billions of years before humanity evolved?" But then this of course defies logic. That many animals, over that many years, would simply overcrowd the entire Earth. Some Christians (including myself) believe the human population started with two created people approximately 6,000 years ago. And in 6,000 years, we're already at more than 6 billion people on Earth. That's WITH death in place. If we've got that many people in that little time - taking death into account - then if we went down the path of "nothing died for the billions of years leading up to man", then the number of animals from just one species would be astronomical, to say nothing of the multitudes of other species on the Earth.

I said above I'd provide more on the Big Bang below; well, here are my thoughts:

When it comes to the Big Bang, you'll find many more Christians open-minded to the idea, because the Big Bang doesn't undermine Christianity's beliefs on sin - beliefs which are central to the Christian faith as the Bible lays it out.

If you take a look at Genesis 1, it says about the first day of creation in verses 3 and 4: "And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness." And yet, we read in verses 16 and 17 that He doesn't create the sun and the moon until the fourth day: "God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good." What I'm getting at here is that, according to the text, the original light and the light provided by the sun are two different things. In this sense, the Big Bang provides a theoretical explanation for that first act of creation by God; both involve light, and both kicked off the start of the universe. I'm not sure how God goes about doing things, but the Big Bang certainly provides as good an explanation as any as to how God did this particular thing.

You really shouldn't dwell too much on the Hebrew or Greek wording. The changes introduced by translations are not changing the overall meaning sufficiently that I would throw out the text on that grounds. In the English translation there is a god creating the world, a flood, a man who builds an ark, a king who builds a tower at Eridu (Babel), a man who travels from Mesopotamia to Canaan and gives his wife to the pharaoh, and a man who becomes vizier of Egypt, and so on. Are all those stories not in the Greek or Hebrew texts?

And "Titanic" is a film about a ship that sinks.

Sometimes the subtext is more important than the text. And translations or adaptations often miss that. (A classic example would be the horrible abortion of "Starship Troopers" that completely misses the point of Heinlein's text).

believe that the Big Bang, is perfectly acceptable theory to walk hand in hand with genisis---first there was the void.

Actually, to be really accurate here, first there was the "We have honestly no idea what the hell this is." This is because, we have honestly no idea what the hell existed before our universe came into being.

First off, there is no big bang. Seriously, evolution does NOT -nor does the big bang theory- explain wehre we came from. Second, how did EVERYTHING turn into an infinite decimal region and then explode? That is not science and therefore requires faith, thus it is a religios view.

Big Bang is something of a misnomer. What is a more realistic labeling is "Rapid expansion of energy outward from a single point to create the finite and expanding boundaries of the universe, during which several stages of energy state change resulted in the forms of matter we are familiar with today." But that doesn't sound nearly as cool as "The Big Bang."

Why is it that for a Perfect All powerful God Evolution [is?] such a complex mechanism? Surely designing evolution would be but an after thought for an Almighty God?

Irrelevant. Just because an omnipotent deity, for instance, Bramha, could do something, it doesn't mean he did do that thing. Brahma could easily also have directed us to have this conversation by the subtle hand of that almighty being. However, to suggest that that has any relevance to this discussion is, well, ludicrous.

Yes, however evolution requires death, not life. If creationism is a religion of life, then why would an all powerful god require practice and death to get what he could have made in the first place? Would he then NOT be worth worshipping?

This is a completely unsupported paragraph that as no relevance to the discussion. And also makes no sense whatsoever.

And if in the blink of an eye you were to be shown the Evolutionary process through a spiritual vision...how else would you describe it then "Man came from dirt"?

Depends, really, on your definition of dirt, and your definition of "came from." More properly, man came from a common ancestor he shares with the other large primates, and in fact a common genetic ancestor is necessarily shared by all living things somewhere down the line. Also, inorganic matter doesn't necessarily mean dirt.

Well, I believe God made us from dirt, and you guys believe that dirt made man... is that not odd?

Once again, no. Dirt didn't swirl together in some random evolutionary storm and create man as he is now. It was a lengthy, multi-million year process that resulted in what we are today. To suggest that this and the "God shat us" theory of Creation are in some way equivalent is, yes, ludicrous.

And if creation is indeed at the hand of God(which I believe) they doesnt it make sense that it has taken man a thousand generations to even scratch the surface of the process involved?

Err, clearify?

And be even less certain of the creation of the universe?

Same.

Simply, why are evolution and the big bang veiwed as heresy when clearly they are perfectly well within the power of God to inact?

Once again, just because something is within Brahma's power, doesn't necessarily mean he did it. In fact, FSM could just as easily have done it.

Let me put it this way, one is a religion that is supported with my tax dollars that has absolutely no proof, while the other has proof, if there is none... and is not supported with everyones money.

Send your message to Indoslavokia or Bobsvile if you want.

Science is hardly a religion. Evolution has a considerable amount of evidence (though your definition of proof doesn't probably include something as mundane as evidence) to support it.

Creationism, on the other hand, has a single, musty book and a whole lot of witty remarks and ideas from people down the years to "support" it.

Gee, wonder which one I'm going to go with.

And, as an aside, just a question for a somewhat jolt forum noob:

How are people quoting me before my post has shown up on the thread? I see it all the time - what's going on?
It's referred to around here as the "time warp" phenomenon. It's some kind of forum glitch.

And, as an aside, just a question for a somewhat jolt forum noob:

How are people quoting me before my post has shown up on the thread? I see it all the time - what's going on?

With that asked, back to the topic at hand.

For what it's worth, here's my two cents - but first, a little background on me:

- I am a Christian
- I do believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis
- some (not all) might consider me a "fundamentalist" because I take the Bible seriously
- I am educated, currently going for my grad degree and teaching certification
- I believe the Big Bang Theory has merit (more on that below)

With that said:

I think one of the main problems Christians (myself included) have with accepting evolution as a viable explanation for all living things is that evolution involves death. Millions - even billions - of years would have to pass by for the evolution from single-celled organisms to humanity to occur. And obviously, living creatures would die in that span of time.

However, the Bible is clear that death was a result of Adam's sin, not a naturally occuring phenomenon. If that's the case, then any talk of death before humanity would be seen as undermining (what I see to be) the Bible's main message of humanity's redemption by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

"OK," one might argue, "so Christians believe death started with Adam. Why couldn't all those animals have stayed alive for the billions of years before humanity evolved?" But then this of course defies logic. That many animals, over that many years, would simply overcrowd the entire Earth. Some Christians (including myself) believe the human population started with two created people approximately 6,000 years ago. And in 6,000 years, we're already at more than 6 billion people on Earth. That's WITH death in place. If we've got that many people in that little time - taking death into account - then if we went down the path of "nothing died for the billions of years leading up to man", then the number of animals from just one species would be astronomical, to say nothing of the multitudes of other species on the Earth.

I said above I'd provide more on the Big Bang below; well, here are my thoughts:

When it comes to the Big Bang, you'll find many more Christians open-minded to the idea, because the Big Bang doesn't undermine Christianity's beliefs on sin - beliefs which are central to the Christian faith as the Bible lays it out.

If you take a look at Genesis 1, it says about the first day of creation in verses 3 and 4: "And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness." And yet, we read in verses 16 and 17 that He doesn't create the sun and the moon until the fourth day: "God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good." What I'm getting at here is that, according to the text, the original light and the light provided by the sun are two different things. In this sense, the Big Bang provides a theoretical explanation for that first act of creation by God; both involve light, and both kicked off the start of the universe. I'm not sure how God goes about doing things, but the Big Bang certainly provides as good an explanation as any as to how God did this particular thing.

Wouldn't Adam have been something akin to Angel or demi-god, anyway? (I mean, looking at his 'punishments', like having to work, and eat, and die)

If Adam is Angelic and eternal, there is no conflict between the two ideas unless you assume Adam immediately started fathering (mortal, human) children. I'm not sure the scripture ever explicitly states how long the interval was between Adam getting 'busted' in the garden, and the actual 'fall from grace'. (There could be millions of years between Genesis 3:21 and Genesis 3:22).

And, as an aside, just a question for a somewhat jolt forum noob:

How are people quoting me before my post has shown up on the thread? I see it all the time - what's going on?

With that asked, back to the topic at hand.
Short answer: Witchcraft

Long answer: There are 4 different jolt servers, and their times are slightly out of sync. As such I can quote you, but my post will have a timestamp earlier than yours(as I'm on a different server), so it will appear before yours on the page.

And, as an aside, just a question for a somewhat jolt forum noob:

How are people quoting me before my post has shown up on the thread? I see it all the time - what's going on?

With that asked, back to the topic at hand.

Witchcraft

And "Titanic" is a film about a ship that sinks.Yes, it is. And? Is there more to it? Are there versions of the story where the ship doesn't sink?

Sometimes the subtext is more important than the text. And translations or adaptations often miss that.Do you have any examples where the subtext changes the meaning of the text in the Bible considerably? And where the translation messes up the text? (OT)

To suggest that this and the "God shat us" theory of Creation are in some way equivalent is, yes, ludicrous.


Hey, now... don't diss the 'god shat us' argument.

Time warp isn't just a song from Rocky Horror Picture Show. We are on different servers and the server times don't always match up.

+1 Kudos Points for references to Tim Curry in drag.

I think one of the main problems Christians (myself included) have with accepting evolution as a viable explanation for all living things is that evolution involves death.

And yes, I know that at first glance this sentence is completely paradoxical/oxymoronic/contradictory in nature, so I'll reword it so it makes more sense:

"...accepting evolution as a viable explanation for all creatures is that the evolutionary process (in the context of billions of years) inherently involves generations and generations of creatures dying off."

Hope that clears things up.

And, as an aside, just a question for a somewhat jolt forum noob:

How are people quoting me before my post has shown up on the thread? I see it all the time - what's going on?

With that asked, back to the topic at hand.

Time warp isn't just a song from Rocky Horror Picture Show. We are on different servers and the server times don't always match up.

Hey, now... don't diss the 'god shat us' argument.

Sorry, I was getting a little heated as I was writing that. I hate long posts, especially when it's long posts of me responding to some crackpot.

Yes, it is. And? Is there more to it?


Yes.


Are there versions of the story where the ship doesn't sink?


Not yet. One day, there might be.


Do you have any examples where the subtext changes the meaning of the text in the Bible considerably? And where the translation messes up the text? (OT)

A little late to be asking that question, now.

And yes, I know that at first glance this sentence is completely paradoxical/oxymoronic/contradictory in nature, so I'll reword it so it makes more sense:

"...accepting evolution as a viable explanation for all creatures is that the evolutionary process (in the context of billions of years) inherently involves generations and generations of creatures dying off."

Hope that clears things up.

I thought the original wording was equally clear. I understand your difficulty if you consider the story of Adam and Eve to be literal. I am a Christian and don't.

Sorry, I was getting a little heated as I was writing that. I hate long posts, especially when it's long posts of me responding to some crackpot.

You have my commendation - I tried to respond to that post and (while I wasn't going to phrase anything as 'crackpot') I gave up - since I just couldn't make enough sense of it to build a coherent response.

I quite like the Japanese 'god shat the world' story. I also like the Egyptian one that has our little female deity masturbating our male deity until he ejaculates everything into existence. I like creativity in my creationism :D

Yes, it is. And? Is there more to it? Are there versions of the story where the ship doesn't sink?

Do you have any examples where the subtext changes the meaning of the text in the Bible considerably? And where the translation messes up the text? (OT)

Certainly. And he's given you dozens of cases. Some in this thread. And you know personally of dozens more. Closing your eyes is not the same as shutting off the lights.

We've had this discussion before and every time you act like it's all new.

"Last night I went out and had some drinks." We're speaking the same language. Tell me what my quote means?

I'm holding back a Guiliani reference as well. That will make three references to men in drag.

Three? I've only caught one, thus far.

*Ears pricked up*

+1 Kudos Points for references to Tim Curry in drag.

I'm holding back a Guiliani reference as well. That will make three references to men in drag.

Wouldn't Adam have been something akin to Angel or demi-god, anyway? (I mean, looking at his 'punishments', like having to work, and eat, and die)

If Adam is Angelic and eternal, there is no conflict between the two ideas unless you assume Adam immediately started fathering (mortal, human) children. I'm not sure the scripture ever explicitly states how long the interval was between Adam getting 'busted' in the garden, and the actual 'fall from grace'. (There could be millions of years between Genesis 3:21 and Genesis 3:22).

While those are both possibilities, I would also say that both those ideas are straying quite a bit from what most, if not all, mainstream Christian denominations believe. What I mean by that is, perhaps there's a denomination out there who does believe one or both of the points you brought up; but they would certainly be considered a tiny minority in the arena of Christianity.

While those are both possibilities, I would also say that both those ideas are straying quite a bit from what most, if not all, mainstream Christian denominations believe. What I mean by that is, perhaps there's a denomination out there who does believe one or both of the points you brought up; but they would certainly be considered a tiny minority in the arena of Christianity.

Doesn't make me wrong, though, right?

After all - all of our modern non-Catholic Christian denominations started out as being perceived as "straying quite a bit" and being "considered a tiny minority". And, our Catholic church enjoyed the same status only a millenium or so earlier.


Also - I have to say - since it is never specified in the text, isn't the whole 'dating the Earth' thing fatally flawed? Is not the assumption that Adam was immediately outcast, dangerously close to 'tradition' rather than 'scripture'?

PS: Witchcraft and a Rocky Horror Picture Show reference...both delightfully hilarious answers. :D

A+

Yes.What exactly?

Not yet. One day, there might be.God bless Hollywood.

A little late to be asking that question, now.Why? Because my understanding of the biblical story is completely wrong because I didn't read it all in Greek or Hebrew? The Israelites were in fact Arawak? And they didn't come to Canaan but to Cuba?
How does translation really mess up the biblical stories? Or is it just messing up interpretation because translation is a kind of interpretation already?

What exactly?


Is the film about a 'ship that sinks'... or is a snking ship just the framework in which a story is told?

I had a thought. I was watching a bit of footage on 9/11, and there is fire and crashy stuff, and burnination all around.

At a top window, a couple seems to hang indecisive for a few moments... watching the flames below them. Then it looks like they reach out and hold hands, and leap out into the ether. They fall, hands held, until they disappear from view. We can probably assume they didn't survive.

9/11 was 'what happened'. The 'stories' were people dying. People afraid to die, people afraid to lose each other. People deciding if they had to die, they were going to make it on their own terms, dying hand-in-hand with a loved one, rather than burning.

The film of "Titanic", though largely fictional, is more accurate than mere 'fact' can ever be. Because of the 'story'.


Why? Because my understanding of the biblical story is completely wrong because I didn't read it all in Greek or Hebrew? The Israelites were in fact Arawak? And they didn't come to Canaan but to Cuba?
How does translation really mess up the biblical stories? Or is it just messing up interpretation because translation is a kind of interpretation already?

Too late now, because you have decided there is no significance. And - maybe, for you, there is none.

What exactly?

God bless Hollywood.

Why? Because my understanding of the biblical story is completely wrong because I didn't read it all in Greek or Hebrew? The Israelites were in fact Arawak? And they didn't come to Canaan but to Cuba?
How does translation really mess up the biblical stories? Or is it just messing up interpretation because translation is a kind of interpretation already?

You're committing a fatal error, that the only thing that matters is literal events. That only works if taking things as a point by point historical reference is the only way to read the text. It's not and you know it's not. If the MEANING matters more than the specific events, then your attempts to pretend as if all that matters are pretty much worthless.

That's the point of the Titanic reference. Getting the fact that the ship sinks right only matters if your telling a story where that's all you need to get across. If you're telling a complicated and nuanced love story, the fact that ship sinks in every translation really doesn't matter.

You didn't see the "Paula on weekends" reference. I'm going to start putting my jokes in giant text for the reading impaired.

Aside: Give me a call before you head to the airport.

Ah, okay. The Paula thing. Yes. :) I wasn't really thinking of that as 'in drag', but I see what you mean.

Aside: I'll be heading out soon, I have some places to stop en route, and I want to be there HOURS before I need to be. :)

Three? I've only caught one, thus far.

*Ears pricked up*

You didn't see the "Paula on weekends" reference. I'm going to start putting my jokes in giant text for the reading impaired.

Aside: Give me a call before you head to the airport.

You have my commendation - I tried to respond to that post and (while I wasn't going to phrase anything as 'crackpot') I gave up - since I just couldn't make enough sense of it to build a coherent response.

I quite like the Japanese 'god shat the world' story. I also like the Egyptian one that has our little female deity masturbating our male deity until he ejaculates everything into existence. I like creativity in my creationism :D

Puh. It's because in translation they forgot to include that God wiggled His nose.

Here's my creation story - *edited so I don't give away our entire book*

Now that's creative, no?

Doesn't make me wrong, though, right?

After all - all of our modern non-Catholic Christian denominations started out as being perceived as "straying quite a bit" and being "considered a tiny minority". And, our Catholic church enjoyed the same status only a millenium or so earlier.


Also - I have to say - since it is never specified in the text, isn't the whole 'dating the Earth' thing fatally flawed? Is not the assumption that Adam was immediately outcast, dangerously close to 'tradition' rather than 'scripture'?

Of course it doesn't make you wrong, because you're right in at least one aspect: it doesn't specify it in the Genesis text.

However, once you start to go down that path, it's quite a slippery slope; after all, quite a number of things aren't specified in the text. The ten commandments say not to murder, but they say nothing of not being able to punch someone in the face for no reason, although I doubt such an action would be looked upon as innocent and fully obeying the Law. See what I'm getting at?

As for the whole question of dating creation, the Bible does give genealogies, including ages, which helps pinpoint how long it was from Adam and Eve to Abraham to David to Jesus and therefore, helps date humanity. And if you believe in a literal translation of the seven days of creation, well then, it's fairly straightforward to date to within a few years when it happened.

Of course it doesn't make you wrong, because you're right in at least one aspect: it doesn't specify it in the Genesis text.

However, once you start to go down that path, it's quite a slippery slope; after all, quite a number of things aren't specified in the text. The ten commandments say not to murder, but they say nothing of not being able to punch someone in the face for no reason, although I doubt such an action would be looked upon as innocent and fully obeying the Law. See what I'm getting at?

As for the whole question of dating creation, the Bible does give genealogies, including ages, which helps pinpoint how long it was from Adam and Eve to Abraham to David to Jesus and therefore, helps date humanity. And if you believe in a literal translation of the seven days of creation, well then, it's fairly straightforward to date to within a few years when it happened.

Why? Let's start simple. How long was it between when Adam was created and when he had his first child?