Where in the Bible does it specify exactly HOW God placed Adam and Eve on earth? Ever source I've queried so far either doesn't know or says it doesn't. So, who's to say he didn't have one celled organisms evolve into Adam and Eve? It certainly doesn't contradict that idea.

Like having today, a one world religion, one world we were born to with only one book, one religion and one god, known throughtout all of human history. But that didn't happened, instead we are born to a world, with conflicting religions, with a human history of thousands of gods, and religions, which have created conflicts, wars, crusades, inquisitions, wich burnings, herectics, etc....

On the other hand, evolution is all about progress thanks to fossils... and new discoveries...for the sake to survive.

Where in the Bible does it specify exactly HOW God placed Adam and Eve on earth? Ever source I've queried so far either doesn't know or says it doesn't. So, who's to say he didn't have one celled organisms evolve into Adam and Eve? It certainly doesn't contradict that idea.


no, but it turns out that when you do some calculations based on how the bible says things happened, you come up with stuff like the earth is only around 6,000 years old and god created the earth in 6 days. scientific evidence directly contradicts this. so then, religious people say, "well they dont mean for you to take that part of the bible literally". however, when it comes to an issue like abortion or homosexuality, religious people start squirting out scriptural quotes all over the place demanding that they be taken literally and seriously. so science remains the same, and religion requires selective interpretation. if science is understood to be correct and the bible be made to correspond with scientific findings, then the bible needs to be interpreted extremely and in a specific way. that begs the question of whether the bible is literal or subject to many different interpretations. if the latter is true, then it is possible to interpret the bible to justify any end whatsoever, and it becomes a meaningless document with no relevance to anyone other than the individual who is interpreting it. yet scientific fact remains something that people can come to consensus about. so if you have to convolute the bible in order to make it agree with science, why dont you just accept science in the first place and forget the bible?

Like having today, a one world religion, one world we were born to with only one book, one religion and one god, known throughtout all of human history. But that didn't happened, instead we are born to a world, with conflicting religions, with a human history of thousands of gods, and religions, which have created conflicts, wars, crusades, inquisitions, wich burnings, herectics, etc....

Hmmmm! nice quote looks very familiar ;)

Godless

Where in the Bible does it specify exactly HOW God placed Adam and Eve on earth? Ever source I've queried so far either doesn't know or says it doesn't. So, who's to say he didn't have one celled organisms evolve into Adam and Eve? It certainly doesn't contradict that idea.- It says Adam was made out of sand or clay and that God breathed life in his nose, then Adam got lonely and God created Eve out of one of Adam's ribs.

Only die-hard litteralists believe this isn't metaphorical, though :p

Where in the Bible does it specify exactly HOW God placed Adam and Eve on earth? Ever source I've queried so far either doesn't know or says it doesn't. So, who's to say he didn't have one celled organisms evolve into Adam and Eve? It certainly doesn't contradict that idea.

The problem with religion is what parts of it do you take literally? Nobody appears to take the slavery parts literally but they take the homosexual ones literally even in modern society.

Moderates and fundies in this respect can not win. Moderates aren't true to their good book and fundies are simply idiots.

So in essence, you really can't reconcile creationism with evolution unless you make another religion that combines it.

Hmmmm! nice quote looks very familiar ;)

Godless
Just a fan. :D

so if you have to convolute the bible in order to make it agree with science, why dont you just accept science in the first place and forget the bible?

In the context of an accurate depiction of natural history, indeed - forget those parts of the bible.

As literature, and as the source of an occasional nugget of wisdom and poetry, it has some value.

I wouldn't toss out Moby Dick just because Melville spent pages and pages defending the idea that a whale is a fish.

In the context of an accurate depiction of natural history, indeed - forget those parts of the bible.

As literature, and as the source of an occasional nugget of wisdom and poetry, it has some value.

I wouldn't toss out Moby Dick just because Melville spent pages and pages defending the idea that a whale is a fish.


yeah, but cherry picking doesnt lend authority to a document or body of literature. if you read genesis, twist the living hell out of it to force it to agree with what is true in terms of modern science, then why cant you just interpret any of it in any way you want? and if you can then interpret it in any way that you want, how can you ever expect to be taken seriously when you quote the bible as a source of moral or factual underpinning for any other idea?
nobody is trying to make laws based on what Melville said in Moby Dick. so tossed out the window or not makes little difference. its a work of fiction and is viewed appropriately.

Dawkins - Religion is a form of child abuse (http://www.sundayherald.com/53427)

yeah, but cherry picking doesnt lend authority to a document or body of literature. if you read genesis, twist the living hell out of it to force it to agree with what is true in terms of modern science, then why cant you just interpret any of it in any way you want? and if you can then interpret it in any way that you want, how can you ever expect to be taken seriously when you quote the bible as a source of moral or factual underpinning for any other idea?
nobody is trying to make laws based on what Melville said in Moby Dick. so tossed out the window or not makes little difference. its a work of fiction and is viewed appropriately.

I don't use the bible as underpinning for any moral or factual ideas myself, I consider it largely a work of fiction with a few historical accuracies, many embellishments, little bits of worth here and there, and a whole lot of idiocy you'd expect from ignorant writers centuries back. Definitely a mixed bag.

Someday I hope that it will be viewed as such by everyone - a collection of stories and writings by ancients - largely irrelevant to us, certainly not of "divine origin", but a literary curiousity with a few sublime passages, some very interesting stories, and some good moral ideas that have to be filtered out from among the many, many bad ones.

I'd rather live in a country full of the kinds of Christians that selectively and liberally interpret the bible than the ones that take it all literally. Hopefully religion will continue to become more humanistic and this particular book will become less and less an unquestionable source of authority, and we will look at it like we look at Homer (but Homer is much more fun to read).

The woman that discovered soft tissue in a t-rex bone is an evangelical Christian who also believes in evolution and a several billion year old Earth.

As literature, and as the source of an occasional nugget of wisdom and poetry, it has some value.


I wouldn't agree to that. You might aswell just read any pamphlet from your local council office to get just as much, if not more, value - and usually printed in just as many languages.

Sure, there's nothing wrong from a historical perspective of viewing a bible in the local museum along with ancient skulls, pottery and dinosaurs - but if it's wisdom and poetry you want, then just visit the local library and pick any one of a gazillion books.

The woman that discovered soft tissue in a t-rex bone is an evangelical Christian who also believes in evolution and a several billion year old Earth.

How can someone who believes in evolution and an old Earth be evangelical? They are supposed to accept the word of the Bible to be absolutely true.

I'd rather live in a country full of the kinds of Christians that selectively and liberally interpret the bible than the ones that take it all literally. Hopefully religion will continue to become more humanistic and this particular book will become less and less an unquestionable source of authority, and we will look at it like we look at Homer (but Homer is much more fun to read).

i would rather live in a country where people treat the bible like it should be treated - as a work of fiction that has lost its relevance to society as anything other than an entertaining bunch of stories.

I wouldn't agree to that. You might aswell just read any pamphlet from your local council office to get just as much, if not more, value - and usually printed in just as many languages.

Sure, there's nothing wrong from a historical perspective of viewing a bible in the local museum along with ancient skulls, pottery and dinosaurs - but if it's wisdom and poetry you want, then just visit the local library and pick any one of a gazillion books.

That' silly - you dismiss it because you subjectively don't care for it. It's fine if you don't like it from a literary standpoint, but your subjective value judgements are just that - subjective opinion.

I don't care for the writing of Faulkner, but I'd never suggest that you might as well read any of the other gazillion American authors. If you like it, read it. If you like reading the Song of Solomon, read it. Just because it comes from a book that has a lot of other problems does not invalidate it's worth as literature.

i would rather live in a country where people treat the bible like it should be treated - as a work of fiction that has lost its relevance to society as anything other than an entertaining bunch of stories.

Me too, but that will not happen in our lifetimes.

That' silly - you dismiss it because you subjectively don't care for it. It's fine if you don't like it from a literary standpoint, but your subjective value judgements are just that - subjective opinion.

I don't care for the writing of Faulkner, but I'd never suggest that you might as well read any of the other gazillion American authors. If you like it, read it. If you like reading the Song of Solomon, read it. Just because it comes from a book that has a lot of other problems does not invalidate it's worth as literature.


actually theres a good bit of speculation that the song of solomon is actually a bastardization of a hymn or poem about Astarte or Ishtar. many scholars believe that it seriously predates biblical writings and was co-opted by christianity (like so many other things) in order to give it similarities to paganism and make it more palatable to potential pagan converts.

How can someone who believes in evolution and an old Earth be evangelical? They are supposed to accept the word of the Bible to be absolutely true.
She said the bible doesn't say exactly how God did it, so evolution could be the mechanism.

actually theres a good bit of speculation that the song of solomon is actually a bastardization of a hymn or poem about Astarte or Ishtar. many scholars believe that it seriously predates biblical writings and was co-opted by christianity (like so many other things) in order to give it similarities to paganism and make it more palatable to potential pagan converts.

That is very interesting, and I wouldn't be surprised if it were the case. But it doesn't alter the fact that it is considered a book of the bible, and there are many others that have literary value. Ecclesiastes and Psalms immediately jump to my mind.

That is very interesting, and I wouldn't be surprised if it were the case. But it doesn't alter the fact that it is considered a book of the bible, and there are many others that have literary value. Ecclesiastes and Psalms immediately jump to my mind.


you know what, this may sound weird but one time when i was on tour and staying in a hotel i tore the entire song of solomon out of the bible in the nightstand drawer and ever since then i carry it around in my wallet with me. its like a love letter, to me its the most non-christian part of the bible and its really got some depth and poetry to it.

^ Cool. I agree, it really seems out of place in the bible.

I feel similarly about Ecclesiastes. I read it all the time. It is so damn dark. And for some reason I'm attracted to dark, brooding, moody things.

The problem with religion is what parts of it do you take literally? Nobody appears to take the slavery parts literally but they take the homosexual ones literally even in modern society.

Moderates and fundies in this respect can not win. Moderates aren't true to their good book and fundies are simply idiots.

So in essence, you really can't reconcile creationism with evolution unless you make another religion that combines it.



Universism, perhaps? (go here if you have no idea what that is) (http://www.religioustolerance.com)

That' silly - you dismiss it because you subjectively don't care for it.

Inaccurate. I think it's great from a historical point of view. My statement merely pointed out that if it's wisdom you want, there are a billion books that would be better read.

It's fine if you don't like it from a literary standpoint, but your subjective value judgements are just that - subjective opinion.

Your opinion of my opinion is fine, but I don't see where I implied my statement was anything other than opinion. I saw several people give their opinions, so I gave mine. The problem is what exactly?

Here I am being scalded by someone's opinion because she objects to me giving my opinion. Bizarre.

Er...right then.

Where in the Bible does it specify exactly HOW God placed Adam and Eve on earth? Ever source I've queried so far either doesn't know or says it doesn't. So, who's to say he didn't have one celled organisms evolve into Adam and Eve? It certainly doesn't contradict that idea.

After Darwin made the theory of evolution popular many Christitan denomination started looking for ways to marry their belief in God with it. Today many religious groups religious groups accept God must have used evolution in some way to create life. It is coupled with the belief tht God preprogramed the universe to self develop and that it eventually produced man. The teaching is called thesit evolution. Others believe that God stepped in occasionaly to guide the process.

Is it compatible with the teachings of the bible? If it were then the bible account of creation would be at best a story, not to be taken litterally. That was not Jesus point of view. At Matt 19:4-6 Jesus refered to that creation as the reason man will leave his parents and stick to his wife as one flesh. he was quoting Genesis Chapter Two.

Telling stories to symbolize is called a metaphor and it is often executed by Jesus. His Disciples frequently asked him to explain his symbolism and he obliged them accordingly to expand there knowledge. The Bible also used symbolism in prophecies for the purpose of warning...and for obscuring "sacred secrets" from those with out the wisdom to comprehend including adversaries to his people on the Earth. However according to John 17:17 God's word is truth. Thus if this is neither a prophetic warning nor an a metaphorical lesson explained and Jesus Christ refered to the event as though historical, not metaphorical...

If Luke aswell traced man's lineage as too history back to one man to verify Jesus Christ's authority as King through the line of David then what point would there be if the story was fictional? (Luke 2:23-38) When did this genealogical list have turned from fact to myth? As a result Jesus would have no claim to being the messiah.

Adding evolution to the equation undermines the Foundation of Faith that a christians should build from the available facts. Evolution and the teachings of Christ are completely incompatible.

After Darwin made the theory of evolution popular many Christitan denomination started looking for ways to marry their belief in God with it. Today many religious groups religious groups accept God must have used evolution in some way to create life. It is coupled with the belief tht God preprogramed the universe to self develop and that it eventually produced man. The teaching is called thesit evolution. Others believe that God stepped in occasionaly to guide the process.

Is it compatible with the teachings of the bible? If it were then the bible account of creation would be at best a story, not to be taken litterally. That was not Jesus point of view. At Matt 19:4-6 Jesus refered to that creation as the reason man will leave his parents and stick to his wife as one flesh. he was quoting Genesis Chapter Two.

Telling stories to symbolize is called a metaphor and it is often executed by Jesus. His Disciples frequently asked him to explain his symbolism and he obliged them accordingly to expand there knowledge. The Bible also used symbolism in prophecies for the purpose of warning...and for obscuring "sacred secrets" from those with out the wisdom to comprehend including adversaries to his people on the Earth. However according to John 17:17 God's word is truth. Thus if this is neither a prophetic warning nor an a metaphorical lesson explained and Jesus Christ refered to the event as though historical, not metaphorical...

If Luke aswell traced man's lineage as too history back to one man to verify Jesus Christ's authority as King through the line of David then what point would there be if the story was fictional? (Luke 2:23-38) When did this genealogical list have turned from fact to myth? As a result Jesus would have no claim to being the messiah.

Adding evolution to the equation undermines the Foundation of Faith that a christians should build from the available facts. Evolution and the teachings of Christ are completely incompatible.

That's your problem, chum. Of course evolution undermines faith in the bible because we are talking belief versus empirically supported knowledge. THe problem is that thereligious mind, and I use that word loosely, cannot come to terms with reality; hence the need for a biblical comfort blanket.

Let's not overlook the fact that the bible is riddled with contradictions and "mysteries" which are not open to a critical analysis.

You have changed your stance since a recent post in which you said that evolution and the bible could be compatible. Do you remember your claim that, because god rested on the seventh day, it showed his creation was not finished; hence compatibility with evolution. What has changed since then ?

Creationism and evolution can exist side-by-side; for instance, you could say God created the universe, but does not govern it, and rather created a series of laws which do govern it, and over time nature had formed life, and eventually Humanity.

It leads back to the greatest mystery: not the creation of Mankind, but the creation of the Universe.





I have sometimes wondered that, if there is a God, perhaps science is nothing but an illusion; as is the entire world?
Perhaps, should He exist, science would be to fool us of what was before, to give us a different outlook, and to seperate the faithful from the unbelieving.


Of course, this is only a thought; ah well, I shall make no claims 'till I am long and dead.

Creationism and evolution can exist side-by-side; for instance, you could say God created the universe, but does not govern it, and rather created a series of laws which do govern it, and over time nature had formed life, and eventually Humanity.

It leads back to the greatest mystery: not the creation of Mankind, but the creation of the Universe.





I have sometimes wondered that, if there is a God, perhaps science is nothing but an illusion; as is the entire world?
Perhaps, should He exist, science would be to fool us of what was before, to give us a different outlook, and to seperate the faithful from the unbelieving.


Of course, this is only a thought; ah well, I shall make no claims 'till I am long and dead.

Don't leave it too long !

After Darwin made the theory of evolution popular many Christitan denomination started looking for ways to marry their belief in God with it. Today many religious groups religious groups accept God must have used evolution in some way to create life. It is coupled with the belief tht God preprogramed the universe to self develop and that it eventually produced man. The teaching is called thesit evolution. Others believe that God stepped in occasionaly to guide the process.

Is it compatible with the teachings of the bible? If it were then the bible account of creation would be at best a story, not to be taken litterally. That was not Jesus point of view. At Matt 19:4-6 Jesus refered to that creation as the reason man will leave his parents and stick to his wife as one flesh. he was quoting Genesis Chapter Two.

Telling stories to symbolize is called a metaphor and it is often executed by Jesus. His Disciples frequently asked him to explain his symbolism and he obliged them accordingly to expand there knowledge. The Bible also used symbolism in prophecies for the purpose of warning...and for obscuring "sacred secrets" from those with out the wisdom to comprehend including adversaries to his people on the Earth. However according to John 17:17 God's word is truth. Thus if this is neither a prophetic warning nor an a metaphorical lesson explained and Jesus Christ refered to the event as though historical, not metaphorical...

If Luke aswell traced man's lineage as too history back to one man to verify Jesus Christ's authority as King through the line of David then what point would there be if the story was fictional? (Luke 2:23-38) When did this genealogical list have turned from fact to myth? As a result Jesus would have no claim to being the messiah.

Adding evolution to the equation undermines the Foundation of Faith that a christians should build from the available facts. Evolution and the teachings of Christ are completely incompatible.

Do you think it's possible that there were two creation stories?

We know that Jesus was a descendant of David who was a descendant of Adam, and not through Cain.

What was Cain afraid of in this verse(after he killed abel)?

Genesis 4:13

13 And Cain said to the LORD, “My punishment is greater than I can bear!

Which lead to this:

Genesis 4:15

15 And the LORD said to him, “Therefore,[a] whoever kills Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold.” And the LORD set a mark on Cain, lest anyone finding him should kill him.

There seemed to be beings that Cain was afraid of in the "outside" world.

Who were these beings?

I heard it's possible that it was his brothers and sisters but that doesn't make sense to me, and I have an inclination that the world is really old, I mean Jesus didn't oppose that theory.

I believe the genealogy of the Bible is essentially a key stone, if that is false then it is all false, like you have stated.

I agree with you, but is there room for evolution if there are two creation stories?

That's your problem, chum. Of course evolution undermines faith in the bible because we are talking belief versus empirically supported knowledge. THe problem is that thereligious mind, and I use that word loosely, cannot come to terms with reality; hence the need for a biblical comfort blanket.

Let's not overlook the fact that the bible is riddled with contradictions and "mysteries" which are not open to a critical analysis.

You have changed your stance since a recent post in which you said that evolution and the bible could be compatible. Do you remember your claim that, because god rested on the seventh day, it showed his creation was not finished; hence compatibility with evolution. What has changed since then ?

I have no problem, Miles.
You have the problem. This is as much about the empircal as it is about faith. Both are involved.

The "facts" you imply are non existent, myths, if you will, for those that have not applied the appropriate amount of research and wisdom into the issues.

YES...Your memory is good Miles.
I did say God did NOT close out the Seventh Day of Rest of the Creative Days. However you might note he did close out the Sixth Day. In Genesis 2:3 it states specificly God rested from the work of creation.

Further the Bible says...After each task that the creation was good, identifying the task was complete. Evolution is an on going task, there is no completion.

You have a good memory, Miles, What you lack is a full comprehension.
I can not claim to have a complete comprehenion Myles but I allow myself to be corrected if the bible gives some other indication that these events are not true and accurate. However it does not. It leads me to the conclusion that evolution IS completely incompatible with the Bible.

Do you think it's possible that there were two creation stories?

We know that Jesus was a descendant of David who was a descendant of Adam, and not through Cain.

What was Cain afraid of in this verse(after he killed abel)?

Genesis 4:13

13 And Cain said to the LORD, “My punishment is greater than I can bear!

Which lead to this:

Genesis 4:15

15 And the LORD said to him, “Therefore,[a] whoever kills Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold.” And the LORD set a mark on Cain, lest anyone finding him should kill him.

There seemed to be beings that Cain was afraid of in the "outside" world.

Who were these beings?

I heard it's possible that it was his brothers and sisters but that doesn't make sense to me, and I have an inclination that the world is really old, I mean Jesus didn't oppose that theory.

I believe the genealogy of the Bible is essentially a key stone, if that is false then it is all false, like you have stated.

I agree with you, but is there room for evolution if there are two creation stories?

I briefly did some research on this. But I want to do a little more.
What I've seen is that this refers to the First recorded murder, this seems to be a warning and perhaps...the FIRST warning to mankind not to take vengence and retribution for the loss of loved ones. That judgement belong to God alone...but I wish to see what else i could find.

How much biblical research is needed and how can you know you are wise. The bible has been studied for the last two thousand years and what we have is hundreds of interpretations as evidenced by disparate sects. I assume the wisdom is needed to know whose judgement to accept. Meantime there are millions of Muslims and Jews whose views must be taken into account.

I briefly did some research on this. But I want to do a little more.
What I've seen is that this refers to the First recorded murder, this seems to be a warning and perhaps...the FIRST warning to mankind not to take vengence and retribution for the loss of loved ones. That judgement belong to God alone...but I wish to see what else i could find.

What we have to bear in mind is context. Genesis 1 is like poetry, Genesis 2 is not(Adam is a historic figure). The lesson Cain learned did not create a commandment he literally killed his brother, so that isn't meant to be only a lesson (Moses got the commandments) it is meant to be history (if you think about how important genealogies are).

How much biblical research is needed and how can you know you are wise. The bible has been studied for the last two thousand years and what we have is hundreds of interpretations as evidenced by disparate sects. I assume the wisdom is needed to know whose judgement to accept. Meantime there are millions of Muslims and Jews whose views must be taken into account.


The Jewish (obviously) and Islamic (perhaps obvious too) creation accounts are very similar to the Christian one, no conflict.

The bible has been studied for the last two thousand years and what we have is hundreds of interpretations as evidenced by disparate sects.

...hundreds?

Hardly.

Adding evolution to the equation undermines the Foundation of Faith that a christians should build from the available facts. Evolution and the teachings of Christ are completely incompatible.

How can we be sure they are facts?
What if the original teachings of Christ were changed to suit the needs of the authors? How can we be sure they didn't embellish the 'teachings" or just outright lie in their accounts?
After all, the NT does stress the sinfull nature of man. Why should these unknown authors be exempt from this line of thinking?
Evolution appears to have massive amounts of available evidence. A six thousand year old earth appears to have .....zero evidence.

...hundreds?

Hardly.

Your right....it's more like millions as everyone has their own take on it according to their own personal bias.
My experience with Christians is almost everyone sees it slightly differently...not all of course...but most.

How can we be sure they are facts?
What if the original teachings of Christ were changed to suit the needs of the authors? How can we be sure they didn't embellish the 'teachings" or just outright lie in their accounts?
After all, the NT does stress the sinfull nature of man. Why should these unknown authors be exempt from this line of thinking?
Evolution appears to have massive amounts of available evidence. A six thousand year old earth appears to have .....zero evidence.

The only empirical evidence science has for evolution is micro evolution which has somehow transformed into a theory that everyone accepts because they can see a virus transform.

Do you know how many human like skulls have been found that apparently fit the non existent fossil record? Did you know that the fossil record is based on the geological column and vice versa? Did you research the Cambrian explosion?

Multiple viewpoints are to be expected, because people are different. There's loads of (largely pointless) rivalries in bio sci regarding evolution also - used to be the old adaptationist-neutralist schools fighting - but a variety of opinion is normal. Not millions, but a variety. There are really only a few different programs, of course.

Where in the Bible does it specify exactly HOW God placed Adam and Eve on earth? Ever source I've queried so far either doesn't know or says it doesn't. So, who's to say he didn't have one celled organisms evolve into Adam and Eve? It certainly doesn't contradict that idea.That's true but not the whole story. You see, it is true that humans evolved from single cells but our souls are from another distant galaxy. Our souls were transported here in DC-8 like planes on order of Xenu the intergalactic warlord and put in a volcano where nuclear bombs were set off then our souls floated over to the proto humans and THAT'S how we became humans.



Also note, evolution is a process predicated on death of the weakest. What a horrible way to make an organism - painfully killing billions of generations. Sick if you think about it. Only a mad man would ever do such a thing.

The only empirical evidence science has for evolution is micro evolution which has somehow transformed into a theory that everyone accepts because they can see a virus transform.

Do you know how many human like skulls have been found that apparently fit the non existent fossil record? Did you know that the fossil record is based on the geological column and vice versa? Did you research the Cambrian explosion?

My knowledge of earthly evolution is rather limited I will admit,but from what I have studied the available evidence supports it.Otherwise the majority of the scientific community would reject it...which they do not.
I am more up to speed on the evolution of the entire cosmos itself.

The facts at this point in time do indeed support that the universe and the earth are billions of years old. Exactly HOW evolution occurrs is the question.

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

Quite. I vote for: naturalistically.

My knowledge of earthly evolution is rather limited I will admit,but from what I have studied the available evidence supports it.Otherwise the majority of the scientific community would reject it...which they do not.
I am more up to speed on the evolution of the entire cosmos itself.

The facts at this point in time do indeed support that the universe and the earth are billions of years old. Exactly HOW evolution occurrs is the question.

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

Did you know that not one star birth has been observed, yet hundreds of them dying has?

Did you know that not one star birth has been observed, yet hundreds of them dying has?
Oh really? What constitutes a star birth?

Oh really? What constitutes a star birth?


What constitutes a human birth?

What constitutes a human birth?
Delivery from a human womb. Now, why not answer my question and tell me why you think that stellar births have not been observed?

Because they haven't been observed.

Because they haven't been observed.

Then you don't know what constitutes a stellar birth. They are observed all over the galaxy.

Then you don't know what constitutes a stellar birth. They are observed all over the galaxy.

Really, I'll not take your mathematical calculations as an answer(or clouds of dust).

Really, I'll not take your mathematical calculations as an answer(or clouds of dust).
Fine.

Stellar birth occurrs over the period of time from the sputtering initiation of fusion reactions in the core to the first visible light (that may take hundreds of thousands of years to propagate from the core to the surface).

All stages in the process of stellar birth have been observed, from the deep infrared glow within stellar cocoons, to the first blaze of light driving away the surrounding gas and dust.

Ok?

The only empirical evidence science has for evolution is micro evolution

Only when using the extremely shoddy theistic version of what the terms mean. I'd suggest you stop getting your science lessons from a christian apologetics website.

Did you know that not one star birth has been observed, yet hundreds of them dying has?

That has something to do with how we observe them. Dying stars going supernova make a huge outburst of light and other kinds of radiation.

Fine.

Stellar birth occurrs over the period of time from the sputtering initiation of fusion reactions in the core to the first visible light (that may take hundreds of thousands of years to propagate from the core to the surface).

All stages in the process of stellar birth have been observed, from the deep infrared glow within stellar cocoons, to the first blaze of light driving away the surrounding gas and dust.

Ok?

Hundreds of thousands of years, hmmm, and you believe it because someone tells you so. Fair enough.

Have scientists become prophets?

Only when using the extremely shoddy theistic version of what the terms mean. I'd suggest you stop getting your science lessons from a christian apologetics website.

I suggest you actually learn something if that is what you're here to do.

That has something to do with how we observe them. Dying stars going supernova make a huge outburst of light and other kinds of radiation.


Aye.

Hundreds of thousands of years, hmmm, and you believe it because someone tells you so. Fair enough.

Have scientists become prophets?
Ok. So you wear your ignorance like a badge of honor. That's fine. It takes very little effort to disparage the factual discoveries made by scientists, especially when you're a lazy theist.

Ask yourself how we might know that something takes thousands or hundreds of thousands of years. Then, when you've completely dismissed the scientific results of the last several hundred years with a snide comment or two, ask yourself how you know any damn thing that you claim to know about - whatever it is you think you "believe".

Ok. So you wear your ignorance like a badge of honor. That's fine. It takes very little effort to disparage the factual discoveries made by scientists, especially when you're a lazy theist.

Ask yourself how we might know that something takes thousands or hundreds of thousands of years. Then, when you've completely dismissed the scientific results of the last several hundred years with a snide comment or two, ask yourself how you know any damn thing that you claim to know about - whatever it is you think you "believe".

The "It takes thousands of years" spouted by scientists is the equivalent of a theist saying "God did it".

You obviously have great respect for men who seemingly have great intellect, I do not.

In this day and age it is only logical to say that no one has seen a birth of a star, because they haven't, if you think otherwise then you are deluded.

The "It takes thousands of years" spouted by scientists is the equivalent of a theist saying "God did it".

You obviously have great respect for men who seemingly have great intellect, I do not.

In this day and age it is only logical to say that no one has seen a birth of a star, because they haven't, if you think otherwise then you are deluded.
There's this thing called a "telescope" you see. It was invented awhile back.

Nevermind. You're clearly an ignorant nutjob with an agenda.

This is funny though:

You obviously have great respect for men who seemingly have great intellect, I do not.

So you're a self admitted man of ignorance and blindness. Good for you.

I have a questin for you: Why do you believe in stars?

There's this thing called a "telescope" you see. It was invented awhile back.

Nevermind. You're clearly an ignorant nutjob with an agenda.

This is funny though:



So you're a self admitted man of ignorance and blindness. Good for you.

I actually have an Nexstar80 telescope, it doesn't prove anything for me, maybe you have a *special* telescope.

I think you're getting mixed up with me and you.

I don't believe in stars.

I actually have an Nexstar80 telescope, it doesn't prove anything for me, maybe you have a *special* telescope.

I think you're getting mixed up with me and you.
Good little scope.

So, how do you learn anything?

I don't believe in stars.
Really? This should be good...

Have scientists become prophets?

They always were.

GT model with auto calibration.

So, where is the next star birth superluminal?

Genesis chapter two Now the stranger thing is that the serpant was the product of evolution and the father of cain. So dont let the effeminate one tell you differant he believes in adam and steve
*************
M*W: Sounds as if you are homophobic. In any event, you're full of fundamentalist crapola. Obviously, you haven't done any historical reading. You are totally offensive to homosexuals, of which I am NOT, but you are! You have no basis to believe that the "serpent" et al. was "effeminate," but if you do, that is also a strike on your theory. You are confusing Hawwa (Eve) with the serpent. They are one and the same. Obviously, you are a woman hater, and if you are, youi will never hear the last of me. Do your research before you post here. You are a total loser!!!

So, where is the next star birth superluminal?
Don't dodge the questions dave. You said you don't believe in stars. This is more interesting than anything you've said so far. Please expand on this.

No scientist worth their salt would claim to be prophets.

Don't dodge the questions dave. You said you don't believe in stars. This is more interesting than anything you've said so far. Please expand on this.

Okay.

I KNOW they exist, is this a surprise to you?

Okay.

I KNOW they exist, is this a surprise to you?

Yes. Yes it is. So they exist. What are they, if you don't mind helping me out here?

*Grabs a bowl of popcorn*

:D

:yawn:

Hrm.. this is taking too long.
Got to catch some sleep.. I'll check back tomorrow to have a laugh.
See ya Super ;)

Nighty night.

pass the popcorn please :)

I think this intermission has gone on too long. Either he's gone to bed, or he chickened out on a simple question. Meh... I gotta go too...

I don't believe in stars.

The sun IS a star..G2V yellow dwarf main sequence star.
Next time you see the sun in the sky...you can feel free to not believe in it.;)

How can we be sure they are facts?
What if the original teachings of Christ were changed to suit the needs of the authors? How can we be sure they didn't embellish the 'teachings" or just outright lie in their accounts?
After all, the NT does stress the sinfull nature of man. Why should these unknown authors be exempt from this line of thinking?
Evolution appears to have massive amounts of available evidence. A six thousand year old earth appears to have .....zero evidence.

That's a whole other arguement that has been in repeated more times than I care to recall. This question stems from after this question is answered or at leasted trusted.

How much biblical research is needed and how can you know you are wise. The bible has been studied for the last two thousand years and what we have is hundreds of interpretations as evidenced by disparate sects. I assume the wisdom is needed to know whose judgement to accept. Meantime there are millions of Muslims and Jews whose views must be taken into account.

No reasearch can be complete untill you discover or are given full disclosure. But you can attempt to embrace an understanding in order to appreciate the different side. I believe wisdom comes from knowing both sides of the fence. It doesn't require you to become one with the other side but wisdom does seek understanding. As long as one resist understanding they can not claim to be wise in my thinking.

What we have to bear in mind is context. Genesis 1 is like poetry, Genesis 2 is not(Adam is a historic figure). The lesson Cain learned did not create a commandment he literally killed his brother, so that isn't meant to be only a lesson (Moses got the commandments) it is meant to be history (if you think about how important genealogies are).

Genesis 4:15 mentions seven times (meaning complete) that anyone killing Cain would suffer vengence or divine justice. it continues to say that God "set up a sign for Cain in order that no one finding him should strike him. With that Cain went away from the face of jehovah and took up reisdence in the land of Fugitiveness to the east of E'den."

Later Cain had a child, Enoch, who had children, La'mech, who inturn had children.
La'mech composed a song song aobut his grand father.

"Hear my voice, you wives of La'mech: Give ear to my saying: A man I have killed for wounding me, Yes, a yound man for giving me a blow.
If seven times Cain is to be avenged, Then La'mech seventy times and seven."

La'mech says 70+7
Which is of course 77.

Two. The number two frequently appears in a legal setting. Agreement in the accounts of two witnesses adds to the force of the testimony. Two witnesses, or even three, were required to establish a matter before the judges. This principle is also followed in the Christian congregation.

Some examples of Two:
(De 17:6; 19:15; Mt 18:16; 2Co 13:1; 1Ti 5:19; Heb 10:28) God adhered to this principle in presenting his Son to the people as mankind’s Savior. Jesus said: “In your own Law it is written, ‘The witness of two men is true.’ I am one that bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me.”—Joh 8:17,*18.

La'mech's song was saying one of two things.
"If I kill a man for attacking me...If Cain would be avenged completely then I would be avenged (judicially or lawfully) or you verified as my killer.

The repatition of something two times in bible writings is duality and often refrences something in rulership or establishing something as verified and true.

I can find no clue as too this being another creation point.
That seems to fall in line with Abel and Cain being a product of Adam and Eve as well as confirmed by lineages throughout the holly writings like that of Lukes.

There were no other races of humankind—no family of humans predating man, or having a separate origin, as some have conjectured in trying to answer the question about the origin of Cain’s wife. The statement of Adam and the name Eve itself preclude this. For the Bible says: “After this [after God’s passing of sentence] Adam called his wife’s name Eve [meaning “living”], because she had to become the mother of everyone living.”—Gen. 3:20.

The inevitable conclusion is, then, that Cain married one of his sisters

The Bible statement, in Acts 17:26, that “[God] made out of one man every nation of men, to dwell upon the entire surface of the earth” is acknowledged by John Peter Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, a work that considers the arguments of a great number of scholars in an analytical and explanatory discussion of the Bible, says on page 191...

“That the Scriptures neither know nor will know of pre-Adamites . . . nor of various primitive aboriginal races, appears not only from Genesis i. and ii., but also from the consistent presumption and assertion of the entire Holy Writ; for example, Matt. xix.4; Acts xvii.26; 1 Cor. xv.47. . . . The original unity of the human race coincides with the doctrine of the unity of the fall of man in Adam, and the unity of the redemption in Christ. . . . The greatest naturalists have mostly declared themselves against the originality of different human races . . . in regard to the alleged fruitfulness of sexual combinations among the various races, the proof of such fruitfulness is justly pronounced one of the strongest proofs of unity. . . . The autochthonic theory [that living things (in this case humans) were formed or occurred in the places where they were found] [can]not deny the fact that the origin of the various types of men points back to a common home in Asia.”


Essentialy it is resolving the issue by aligning two different understandings.
Origin of MAN and the Saving of Man, two seperate events. If their were two differnt creations then that would mean that there was also two different original sins and that Jesus was sent to Earth as God's representative to die for both lines. However...

Romans 5:12
That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned—

I think there is more...I could have gone further but I think this is enough, this can be crossed refrenced some other ways through key words in the scriptures you provided.

So, where is the next star birth superluminal?

I don't believe in stars.

Okay.

I KNOW they exist, is this a surprise to you?

:m::m::m:


Roooooooooooooooooooooooooooll another one.... just like the other one...

Why is it so goddamned hard to get a simple, common sense, logical response from some people?

Where in the Bible does it specify exactly HOW God placed Adam and Eve on earth? Ever source I've queried so far either doesn't know or says it doesn't. So, who's to say he didn't have one celled organisms evolve into Adam and Eve? It certainly doesn't contradict that idea.

Why would you believe that? There's only one reason, because you want to.

Yes. Yes it is. So they exist. What are they, if you don't mind helping me out here?

A large self-luminous heavenly body.

Why did you ask this?

The sun IS a star..G2V yellow dwarf main sequence star.
Next time you see the sun in the sky...you can feel free to not believe in it.;)

I choose to use the word "know", which covers believe but it has an element of further certainty.

Try reading my posts before you try to make me look silly.

I suggest you actually learn something if that is what you're here to do.

Interesting. Is this the time where we compare 'sizes'? Do tell me my good man, where exactly have you gleaned your understanding of 'evolution' from?

[QUOTE=Saquist;1804875]That's a whole other arguement that has been in repeated more times than I care to recall. This question stems from after this question is answered or at leasted trusted.

Why the need for trust ? Is it the absence of facts and why should we trust a number of disparates documents written in various labguages, much of the writing done a long time after the events it describes. Much of the bible relies on oral tradition which is known to be unsatisfactory when it comes to matters of detail. There is also the consideration that the authors were concerned to put across a point of view which supported their beliefs,

Also, why should god use this one document to reveal himself to a small number of people while apparently ignoring others.


No reasearch can be complete untill you discover or are given full disclosure. But you can attempt to embrace an understanding in order to appreciate the different side. I believe wisdom comes from knowing both sides of the fence. It doesn't require you to become one with the other side but wisdom does seek understanding. As long as one resist understanding they can not claim to be wise in my thinking.


We all seek understanding. Some of us however require our beliefs to underpinned by empirical evidence. What you call research would better be described as making the bible fit your meaning. Don't take my word for it; chexk it out with any of the numerous sects which have a different take on things.


Genesis 4:15 mentions seven times (meaning complete) that anyone killing Cain would suffer vengence or divine justice. it continues to say that God "set up a sign for Cain in order that no one finding him should strike him. With that Cain went away from the face of jehovah and took up reisdence in the land of Fugitiveness to the east of E'den."

How do you know that seven times means complete ? And what evidence have you to show that genesis is any more than mythology, given the state of human knowledge at the time it was written. Consider also that there are numerous creation myths and tell us why your version is the right one.




Later Cain had a child, Enoch, who had children, La'mech, who inturn had children.
La'mech composed a song song aobut his grand father.

"Hear my voice, you wives of La'mech: Give ear to my saying: A man I have killed for wounding me, Yes, a yound man for giving me a blow.
If seven times Cain is to be avenged, Then La'mech seventy times and seven."

All very poetic but what guarantees of truth are there ? To say that children had children is stating a fact of life. How do you know Enoch existed. Have you evidence to support your belief that he did ?

La'mech says 70+7
Which is of course 77.

That 70 +7 = 77 is no great revelation. So is 72 + 5 and so on. So what's the point of stating this unless you have a prior belief that 7 has a particular significance. Have you never come across books on numerology in which numbers are juggled in such a way as to mean whatever the author wishes them to mean. Numbers can have any significance we wish to attach to them and cannot, therefore, be regarded as reliable evidence for the veracity of the bible. Remarkably, Joshua marched around Jericho seven times seven. Does this mean that 49 ( 7x7 ) has a special significance . Or might it be meant to convey 7+7 =14.

As has been mentioned previously, details of the construction of Noah's ark give a wrong result for pi. Do you claim that the value of pi has changed since Noah's time.
Two. The number two frequently appears in a legal setting. Agreement in the accounts of two witnesses adds to the force of the testimony. Two witnesses, or even three, were required to establish a matter before the judges. This principle is also followed in the Christian congregation.

Again we have another number with your personal interpretation placed upon it. Agreement of 27 witnesses would have served better to establish a matter before the judges.

Some examples of Two:
(De 17:6; 19:15; Mt 18:16; 2Co 13:1; 1Ti 5:19; Heb 10:28) God adhered to this principle in presenting his Son to the people as mankind’s Savior. Jesus said: “In your own Law it is written, ‘The witness of two men is true.’ I am one that bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me.”—Joh 8:17,*18.

This is not an example of two as you claim; it's an example of one man claiming knowledge of the existence of another based on his word alone. By your own token, this makes the testimony weak.


So, here again, we have an example of how numbers can be used to suit an argument. It's not very convincing , unless you want it to be. Maybe more research and wisdom is needed.

"If I kill a man for attacking me...If Cain would be avenged completely then I would be avenged (judicially or lawfully) or you verified as my killer.

I cannot for the life of me understand the significance of a man saying one of two things insofar as the veracity of the bible is concerned. Had he said one of three possible things , you would have claimed significance for 3. One the other hand, as he only said one thing, maybe 1 should be significant.



The repatition of something two times in bible writings is duality and often refrences something in rulership or establishing something as verified and true.


I can find no clue as too this being another creation point.
That seems to fall in line with Abel and Cain being a product of Adam and Eve as well as confirmed by lineages throughout the holly writings like that of Lukes.

Have you looked beyond the bible ? There is other knowledge available to those who wish to learn.

There were no other races of humankind—no family of humans predating man, or having a separate origin, as some have conjectured in trying to answer the question about the origin of Cain’s wife. The statement of Adam and the name Eve itself preclude this. For the Bible says: “After this [after God’s passing of sentence] Adam called his wife’s name Eve [meaning “living”], because she had to become the mother of everyone living.”—Gen. 3:20.

Yet again, you are using a circular argument. It explains nothing

The inevitable conclusion is, then, that Cain married one of his sisters

You have not shown that there is an inevitable conclusion. You have not even shown that Cain existed.

The Bible statement, in Acts 17:26, that “[God] made out of one man every nation of men, to dwell upon the entire surface of the earth” is acknowledged by John Peter Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, a work that considers the arguments of a great number of scholars in an analytical and explanatory discussion of the Bible, says on page 191...

More circularity. How much of what these scholars claim is based on knoledge external to the bible. ? You are simply talking of men analysing the bible to arrive at what they regard as a satisfactory conclusion. How many addressed the basic question of why we should believe the bible in the first place.











“That the Scriptures neither know nor will know of pre-Adamites . . . nor of various primitive aboriginal races, appears not only from Genesis i. and ii., but also from the consistent presumption and assertion of the entire Holy Writ; for example, Matt. xix.4; Acts xvii.26; 1 Cor. xv.47. . . . The original unity of the human race coincides with the doctrine of the unity of the fall of man in Adam, and the unity of the redemption in Christ. . . . The greatest naturalists have mostly declared themselves against the originality of different human races . . . in regard to the alleged fruitfulness of sexual combinations among the various races, the proof of such fruitfulness is justly pronounced one of the strongest proofs of unity. . . . The autochthonic theory [that living things (in this case humans) were formed or occurred in the places where they were found] [can]not deny the fact that the origin of the various types of men points back to a common home in Asia.”


Essentialy it is resolving the issue by aligning two different understandings.
Origin of MAN and the Saving of Man, two seperate events. If their were two differnt creations then that would mean that there was also two different original sins and that Jesus was sent to Earth as God's representative to die for both lines. However...

Romans 5:12
That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned—

I think there is more...I could have gone further but I think this is enough, this can be crossed refrenced some other ways through key words in the scriptures you provided.


Your entire argument is circular because you quote the bible to support the bible. You have, therefore, said nothing that will convince anyone other than those who already share your views. Perhaps if you supply some external evidence to support your views, you may get a more sympathetic hearing

Genesis 4:15 mentions seven times (meaning complete) that anyone killing Cain would suffer vengence or divine justice. it continues to say that God "set up a sign for Cain in order that no one finding him should strike him. With that Cain went away from the face of jehovah and took up reisdence in the land of Fugitiveness to the east of E'den."

Later Cain had a child, Enoch, who had children, La'mech, who inturn had children.
La'mech composed a song song aobut his grand father.

"Hear my voice, you wives of La'mech: Give ear to my saying: A man I have killed for wounding me, Yes, a yound man for giving me a blow.
If seven times Cain is to be avenged, Then La'mech seventy times and seven."

La'mech says 70+7
Which is of course 77.

Two. The number two frequently appears in a legal setting. Agreement in the accounts of two witnesses adds to the force of the testimony. Two witnesses, or even three, were required to establish a matter before the judges. This principle is also followed in the Christian congregation.

Some examples of Two:
(De 17:6; 19:15; Mt 18:16; 2Co 13:1; 1Ti 5:19; Heb 10:28) God adhered to this principle in presenting his Son to the people as mankind’s Savior. Jesus said: “In your own Law it is written, ‘The witness of two men is true.’ I am one that bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me.”—Joh 8:17,*18.

La'mech's song was saying one of two things.
"If I kill a man for attacking me...If Cain would be avenged completely then I would be avenged (judicially or lawfully) or you verified as my killer.

The repatition of something two times in bible writings is duality and often refrences something in rulership or establishing something as verified and true.


I don't understand why you're telling me the above. I stated that the murder by Cain was both a lesson and history.


I can find no clue as too this being another creation point.
That seems to fall in line with Abel and Cain being a product of Adam and Eve as well as confirmed by lineages throughout the holly writings like that of Lukes.

There were no other races of humankind—no family of humans predating man, or having a separate origin, as some have conjectured in trying to answer the question about the origin of Cain’s wife. The statement of Adam and the name Eve itself preclude this. For the Bible says: “After this [after God’s passing of sentence] Adam called his wife’s name Eve [meaning “living”], because she had to become the mother of everyone living.”—Gen. 3:20.

The inevitable conclusion is, then, that Cain married one of his sisters



How do you interpret these two seperate accounts?

Genesis 1:27
27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Genesis 2:7
7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.


Romans 5:12
That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned—


This verse basically eliminates the possibility of evolution, I'm not depending on one verse though to explain away the possibility.

I choose to use the word "know", which covers believe but it has an element of further certainty.

Try reading my posts before you try to make me look silly.

I did read your posts and I don't need to make you look silly as you are doing a splendid job of that yourself.

Obviously, you are a woman hater, and if you are, youi will never hear the last of me. Do your research before you post here. You are a total loser!!!

Unfortunately MW there are many that love the Old Testament patriarchs attitude toward women. Take evangelists like John McArthur for instance. I checked out his website..he is against womens rights,animal rights, enviromental causes...that pretty much sums it up.

Too bad Xena the warrior princess wasn't around back then to kick some of their butts.;)

I don't understand why you're telling me the above. I stated that the murder by Cain was both a lesson and history.



How do you interpret these two seperate accounts?

Genesis 1:27
27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Genesis 2:7
7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.



This verse basically eliminates the possibility of evolution, I'm not depending on one verse though to explain away the possibility.

Glad you have 2 verses. That makes genesis twice as true. Well done .

So, where is the next star birth superluminal?

Interesting, and related, recent article:

http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn13581?DCMP=NLC-nletter&nsref=dn13581

Glad you have 2 verses. That makes genesis twice as true. Well done .

What do you hope to gain by making snide remarks?

If you want a giggle I would recommend the Simpsons.

I don't understand why you're telling me the above. I stated that the murder by Cain was both a lesson and history.

How do you interpret these two seperate accounts?

Genesis 1:27
27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Genesis 2:7
7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

This verse basically eliminates the possibility of evolution, I'm not depending on one verse though to explain away the possibility.


How can you possibly know it's actual history ?

Agreed.

How can you possibly know it's actual history ?

It is "biblical" history, but considering we were talking within the context of the Bible I didn't feel a need to specify that.

It is "biblical" history, but considering we were talking within the context of the Bible I didn't feel a need to specify that.

I will agree to biblical history in that the story itself is part of history. There is however not a single shred of evidence that these events actually took place.

I will agree to biblical history in that the story itself is part of history. There is however not a single shred of evidence that these events actually took place.

In Cain and Abel's case I seriously doubt that any evidence will pop up.

So agreed.

What do you hope to gain by making snide remarks?

If you want a giggle I would recommend the Simpsons.

Snide remarks ? An effort to shock you into the 21st century. An outside chance but worth a try.

Why should anyone believe the bible as opposed to one of the many other sdcriptures, or none at all ?

Why the need for trust ? Is it the absence of facts and why should we trust a number of disparates documents written in various labguages, much of the writing done a long time after the events it describes. Much of the bible relies on oral tradition which is known to be unsatisfactory when it comes to matters of detail. There is also the consideration that the authors were concerned to put across a point of view which supported their beliefs,

Trust is given when someone has proved themselves trustworthy.
Speculation is what is excercised when one does not have all the facts.

Also, why should god use this one document to reveal himself to a small number of people while apparently ignoring others.

How many documents are necessary. There are 66 canon documents all to the people he approves of. They are available to everyone, everyone simply choses to ignore them.


We all seek understanding. Some of us however require our beliefs to underpinned by empirical evidence. What you call research would better be described as making the bible fit your meaning. Don't take my word for it; chexk it out with any of the numerous sects which have a different take on things.

Why does your predjudice always come into play?
If you think your understanding of my knowledge is superior why are you making inquiries. Obviously there is a knowledge which you lack, or your goals are not intuitive.


Genesis 4:15 mentions seven times (meaning complete) that anyone killing Cain would suffer vengence or divine justice. it continues to say that God "set up a sign for Cain in order that no one finding him should strike him. With that Cain went away from the face of jehovah and took up reisdence in the land of Fugitiveness to the east of E'den."

How do you know that seven times means complete ? And what evidence have you to show that genesis is any more than mythology, given the state of human knowledge at the time it was written. Consider also that there are numerous creation myths and tell us why your version is the right one.

Research and context, absence of contradictions.

All very poetic but what guarantees of truth are there ? To say that children had children is stating a fact of life. How do you know Enoch existed. Have you evidence to support your belief that he did ?

Are you ignoring the text from which is being read from or mocking it?

That 70 +7 = 77 is no great revelation. So is 72 + 5 and so on. So what's the point of stating this unless you have a prior belief that 7 has a particular significance. Have you never come across books on numerology in which numbers are juggled in such a way as to mean whatever the author wishes them to mean. Numbers can have any significance we wish to attach to them and cannot, therefore, be regarded as reliable evidence for the veracity of the bible. Remarkably, Joshua marched around Jericho seven times seven. Does this mean that 49 ( 7x7 ) has a special significance . Or might it be meant to convey 7+7 =14.

"Numbers...as veracity of the bible...." If you say so. That is certainly not inline with my thinking. If this is the foundation of your question it is understanable why you make the inquiry.

As has been mentioned previously, details of the construction of Noah's ark give a wrong result for pi. Do you claim that the value of pi has changed since Noah's time.

Do you claim that the Bible establishes the definition of Pi?
You would need to prove that interpretation.

[COLOR="blue"]Again we have another number with your personal interpretation placed upon it. Agreement of 27 witnesses would have served better to establish a matter before the judges.

I suggest looking the scriptures up and reading commentary on the use of numbers to make emphasis in the holy text before you accuse ones of "personal interpretations"


This is not an example of two as you claim; it's an example of one man claiming knowledge of the existence of another based on his word alone. By your own token, this makes the testimony weak.

Then you have a belief.
I am I forced to agree with your one interpretation with out scriptural grounds? I'm afraid not, Miles.


Have you looked beyond the bible ? There is other knowledge available to those who wish to learn.

To what end?

Yet again, you are using a circular argument. It explains nothing
Implicit but not explicit.


You have not shown that there is an inevitable conclusion. You have not even shown that Cain existed.

I have shown the bible relates one man and one woman from the begining.
The conclusion is quite inevietable, Miles.


More circularity. How much of what these scholars claim is based on knoledge external to the bible. ? You are simply talking of men analysing the bible to arrive at what they regard as a satisfactory conclusion. How many addressed the basic question of why we should believe the bible in the first place.

Well I hope you certainly address those questions truthfully as I have.
I however can not cover the whole process but I can stay on topic.
You should do personal research to make you own determination.

Your entire argument is circular because you quote the bible to support the bible. You have, therefore, said nothing that will convince anyone other than those who already share your views. Perhaps if you supply some external evidence to support your views, you may get a more sympathetic hearing

No Dear,Mlies
I quote the bible to apply precesedent to define context on a scripture. The scriptures are not one book. This is a common misconception among the anti bible individuals such as yourself.

Context clues are the hints provided in text, which lead the reader to meanings of words

Using context clues is not circular reasoning to understand a cultural reasoning of these scriptures. It is foundation of reading comprehension which is taught from the earilest reading age. Were you not taught how to draw out context clues?
Where did you learn that context clues were circular reasoning?

According to the Wiki you have also failed to "beg the question" which is the appropriate way reply to a circular argument. You haven't identified or illistrated a circular problem. From what i gather you're accusing the use of context clues and reading comprehension as the basis for you accusation. However I can not find any definition of a logical fallacy which includes using the fundamental skill of reading comprehension as circular reasoning. How did you come to this conclusion Miles?

If you could explicitly out line your thinking before you make an accusation you might be well undertood before you become provocative.

I don't understand why you're telling me the above. I stated that the murder by Cain was both a lesson and history.



How do you interpret these two seperate accounts?

.

Well if we haven't found a mutal understading lets hold off before entertaining another Idea.

The use of the commonly used, two witnesses seem to impy a lawful understanding or verification. This was in answer to your statement of concern as to if this had any judical ramifications such as the Law expresed in Exodus.

Snide remarks ? An effort to shock you into the 21st century. An outside chance but worth a try.

Why should anyone believe the bible as opposed to one of the many other sdcriptures, or none at all ?

I didn't ask you to believe just the Bible...

Well if we haven't found a mutal understading lets hold off before entertaining another Idea.

The use of the commonly used, two witnesses seem to impy a lawful understanding or verification. This was in answer to your statement of concern as to if this had any judical ramifications such as the Law expresed in Exodus.

Do you think that a law existed before Moses?

No scientist worth their salt would claim to be prophets.

A prophecy is just a prediction. Scientists make predictions all the time, and more often than not, they are correct.

A prophecy is just a prediction. Scientists make predictions all the time, and more often than not, they are correct.

Religious prophets on the other hand are wrong more often than not :p

Religious prophets on the other hand are wrong more often than not :p

Can you provide evidence of a biblical prophet being wrong?

Can you provide evidence of a biblical prophet being wrong?

You mean from the bible ? LOL

I said religious prophets, like the ones that foretell the end of the world and stuff.

A prophecy is just a prediction. Scientists make predictions all the time, and more often than not, they are correct.

Has anyone predicted something as amazing as this:

Matthew 24:10-12

10And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.
11And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
12And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/400226.stm

Has anyone predicted something as amazing as this:

Matthew 24:10-12

10And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.
11And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
12And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/400226.stm

I hope you're not being serious...

You mean from the bible ? LOL

I said religious prophets, like the ones that foretell the end of the world and stuff.

So the prophets in the Bible weren't religious?

I hope you're not being serious...

It is exactly as what Jesus predicted, 40k people. Who else predicted this madness?

So the prophets in the Bible weren't religious?

Come on.. :rolleyes:

It is exactly as what Jesus predicted, 40k people. Who else predicted this madness?

What kind of prediction is that ? It's even worse than a horoscope.. :shrug:

What kind of prediction is that ? It's even worse than a horoscope.. :shrug:

It's actually an extremely accurate prediction.

It's actually an extremely accurate prediction.

Ok, I'm not taking you serious anymore if you're going to hold on to that..
That is about the most general prophecy I ever heard. I bet people of all ages can find something in there..

Can you provide evidence of a biblical prophet being wrong?
Can you provide evidence of one being right?

Can you provide evidence of one being right?

Of course he can, he takes the bible itself as evidence of its contents..

Edit: Welcome to SciForums btw :)

Ok, I'm not taking you serious anymore if you're going to hold on to that..
That is about the most general prophecy I ever heard. I bet people of all ages can find something in there..


Let me spell it out for you:

1) Jesus said many would claim to be the Messiah
2) Year 2k+ Many do

It is not generalized it is just something you cannot refute.

Let me spell it out for you:

1) Jesus said many would claim to be the Messiah
2) Year 2k+ Many do

It is not generalized it is just something you cannot refute.

Ok see ya :rolleyes:

Let me spell it out for you:

1) Jesus said many would claim to be the Messiah
2) Year 2k+ Many do

It is not generalized it is just something you cannot refute.So what? Many people claimed to be the messiah in his day. I could say that many people will be arrested for selling drugs, does that make me a prophet?

..How can you refute something that vague?

Can you provide evidence of one being right?

Is this a serious question? Because I will have to grab a book to answer it.

Is this a serious question? Because I will have to grab a book to answer it.

Let me guess.. :scratchin: ..the Bible perhaps.. ? :rolleyes:

So what? Many people claimed to be the messiah in his day. I could say that many people will be arrested for selling drugs, does that make me a prophet?

Where is your evidence that many claimed to be a messiah in his day?

..How can you refute something that vague?

How is this vague:

1) Jesus said many would claim to be the Messiah
2) Year 2k+ Many do

Where is your evidence that many claimed to be a messiah in his day?

The damn forum won't let me post links until I have 20 posts.

There's a wikipedia article entitled "List of Messiah Claimants." It's several pages long.

You can start there.

So what? Many people claimed to be the messiah in his day.

Actually is that true?

The damn forum won't let me post links until I have 20 posts.

There's a wikipedia article entitled "List of Messiah Claimants." It's several pages long.

You can start there.

Here you go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_messiah_claimants

How is this vague:

1) Jesus said many would claim to be the Messiah
2) Year 2k+ Many do

.....How is that not vague? because a man said some day people will claim to be something they are not, and people are...it somehow holds water? Really? :rolleyes:

Actually is that true?Yes. I don't even see the person I had in mind in that list. There were MANY messiah claimants in Jesus's day, he was not unique. I'll provide more information when I can find it and when I can post links. I believe Bart Ehrman may make reference to some of them in his books. It may even be true that some of the bible stories are actually about other messiah claimants.

The damn forum won't let me post links until I have 20 posts.

There's a wikipedia article entitled "List of Messiah Claimants." It's several pages long.

You can start there.

All after Jesus my friend, if not I would like to see the supporting evidence.

All after Jesus my friend, if not I would like to see the supporting evidence.As I said, the person I had in mind isn't in that list. For the life of me I can't remember his name, but I will find and provide information about him. He lived in the same era as Jesus, as did a number of the people in that list, despite the fact that you've claimed they were 'all' after his time.

Yes. I don't even see the person I had in mind in that list. There were MANY messiah claimants in Jesus's day, he was not unique. I'll provide more information when I can find it and when I can post links. I believe Bart Ehrman may make reference to some of them in his books. It may even be true that some of the bible stories are actually about other messiah claimants.

I only saw the two on the list but I'll keep my eyes open.

.....How is that not vague? because a man said some day people will claim to be something they are not, and people are...it somehow holds water? Really? :rolleyes:

Messiah = Jesus (In this context)

How many people have claimed to be Jesus?

Many people have claimed to be George Washington etc... but that holds no water in this context.

As I said, the person I had in mind isn't in that list. For the life of me I can't remember his name, but I will find and provide information about him. He lived in the same era as Jesus, as did a number of the people in that list, despite the fact that you've claimed they were 'all' after his time.

So do you believe Jesus existed?

As I said, the person I had in mind isn't in that list. For the life of me I can't remember his name, but I will find and provide information about him. He lived in the same era as Jesus, as did a number of the people in that list, despite the fact that you've claimed they were 'all' after his time.

Brian?

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

Brian?

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

"Can I join your movement?"

(John Cleese)

"FUCK OFF"

lol

Messiah = Jesus (In this context)

How many people have claimed to be Jesus?

Many people have claimed to be George Washington etc... but that holds no water in this context.

Anyone can make a vague predicition that is irefutable:D

Anyone can make a vague predicition that is irefutable:D

Make one, see if it comes true in 2000 years time.

Make one, see if it comes true in 2000 years time.

Okay I predict in 2000 years time men will want to impress women and people will be obsessed with power.:D

Here you go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_messiah_claimants

Do you believe Jesus as a person existed?

And where did Jesus say his prediction would come true in 2000 years time ??

So do you believe Jesus existed?As a human being? That certainly seems likely.

Do you believe Jesus as a person existed?

I believe Jesus is probably, at least in part, based on an actual figure.

Okay I predict in 2000 years time men will want to impress women and people will be obsessed with power.:D

A bit different than saying "people will pretend to be me in 2000 years time" methinks.

I believe Jesus is probably, at least in part, based on an actual figure.

So you think he was mad but actually existed?

A bit different than saying "people will pretend to be me in 2000 years time" methinks.

Where did he say that ?

A bit different than saying "people will pretend to be me in 2000 years time" methinks.

How? if your famous enough people will always want to be you :cool:

So you think he was mad but actually existed?

No.

As a human being? That certainly seems likely.

So it seems likely...

But all your other messiah's are a certainty, prejudice?

How? if your famous enough people will always want to be you :cool:

The thing is, Jesus himself wasn't famous.

Okay I predict in 2000 years time men will want to impress women and people will be obsessed with power.:D

My god..you are the chosen One! all hail Schichishamosheamo..shi.

Just kidin Shichy.

Dave can you answer my question now ?

No.

So you think he talked sense?

My god..you are the chosen One! all hail Schichishamosheamo..shi.

Just kidin Shichy.

:D Bow down before me!

Which messiahs have you in mind ?

So you think he talked sense?

I believe Jesus is probably, at least in part, based on an actual figure.

That's it.

So it seems likely...

But all your other messiah's are a certainty, prejudice?They are, for the most part, at least as likely as Jesus. From what I understand, there's very, very little evidence for Jesus outside of the New Testament. For the most part, however, scholars have concluded not that he didn't exist, but simply that he wasn't particularly well known when he was alive.

I believe Jesus is probably, at least in part, based on an actual figure.

That's it.

Okay :)

Which messiahs have you in mind ?Still hunting for where I read this. I promise I'll deliver eventually, but I have a lot of work to do tonight. Might have to wait until tomorrow.

Which messiahs have you in mind ?

Take your pick:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/400226.stm

Dave, please answer this one:
And where did Jesus say his prediction would come true in 2000 years time ??

Dave, please answer this one:

We aren't talking about dates ie Astrology, Jesus predicted the behaviour of humans thousands of years ahead, he didn't state a date, I mean we didn't get our calendar until 300+AD.

We aren't talking about dates ie Astrology, Jesus predicted the behaviour of humans thousands of years ahead, he didn't state a date, I mean we didn't get our calendar until 300+AD.

So why did Shi had to predict something that would happen in 2000 years ?

He should have been able to predict something that might eventually somewhere in the distant future become true.

Still hunting for where I read this. I promise I'll deliver eventually, but I have a lot of work to do tonight. Might have to wait until tomorrow.

hmmm I often wondered if the Jews still wait for a donkey with the Messiah on it coming through Jerusalem on a Friday afternoon.

So why did Shi had to predict something that would happen in 2000 years ?

He should have been able to predict something that might eventually somewhere in the distant future become true.

I was testing his amazing abilities, if it comes true in 2000 years time then he has matched Jesus.

hmmm I often wondered if the Jews still wait for a donkey with the Messiah on it coming through Jerusalem on a Friday afternoon.I promise not to keep you waiting as long as Jesus has ;)

Jesus never left.

I was testing his amazing abilities, if it comes true in 2000 years time then he has matched Jesus.

NO, he has then outperformed Jesus by a landslide. Jesus's prediction could have taken another 10.000 years to come trough, while Shi named a date.

I was testing his amazing abilities, if it comes true in 2000 years time then he has matched Jesus.

Good luck proving that, and really in 2000 years alot of what I predicted may have been changed in whatever texts it was recored in to make my prediction seem more accurate.

Jesus never left.No shit? Where does he keep his office these days?

Jesus never left.

What ? Because he never arrived ?

Good luck proving that, and really in 2000 years alot of what I predicted may have been changed in whatever texts it was recored in to make my prediction seem more accurate.

Yeah.

What a mess.

Anyway, I was wondering if dave knew nothing more than that stars are self-luminous heavenly bodies? There is a point to my questions that bears directly on creationism vs evolution, but apparently dave is afraid to engage in honest discussion.

No shit? Where does he keep his office these days?

In the spiritual realm.

But this might be alien to you.

What ? Because he never arrived ?

Hmmm You believed he did a minute ago...

What a mess.

Anyway, I was wondering if dave knew nothing more than that stars are self-luminous heavenly bodies? There is a point to my questions that bears directly on creationism vs evolution, but apparently dave is afraid to engage in honest discussion.

What has a description of a star got to do with me avoiding you? If you don't like my wording just say so, instead of acting like a star.

Are you in Australia superluminal?

What has a description of a star got to do with me avoiding you? If you don't like my wording just say so, instead of acting like a star.
Fine. Pretend I'm an interseted, smart child and tell me what a star is.

Are you in Australia superluminal?

Huh? no... I'm in the eastern US. Why?

Fine. Pretend I'm an interseted, smart child and tell me what a star is.

I think my previous answer answers that then.

Or are you a dork?

In which case I will need to spend time trying to translate something into something you can begin to understand.

Huh? no... I'm in the eastern US. Why?

I'm in England so I might fall asleep at some stage.

I think my previous answer answers that then.

Or are you a dork?

In which case I will need to spend time trying to translate something into something you can begin to understand.
Some people think I'm a dork.

And I think you know exactly what I'm after here and are avoiding it like the plague because it will show your entire position to be a lie and a delusion.

Simple really.

So, what are stars made of. How simple a question. Answer please.

Some people think I'm a dork.

And I think you know exactly what I'm after here and are avoiding it like the plague because it will show your entire position to be a lie and a delusion.

Simple really.

So, what are stars made of. How simple a question. Answer please.

My position is on the line? oh shit!

Atoms?

My position is on the line? oh shit!

Atoms?
Very good. What kinds?

So how old is this kid?

Know what? Fuck it. This is more grief than it's worth. You know exactly how we know what we do about nature and the methods we use to determine ages and compositions. You're just a stubborn dick.

Bye.

Evolution & Creationism: Why can't people believe both?
Reply to Thread

We wouldn't have anything to debate about then would we??? :shrug:

Super Star:

First sensible thing you've said.

Asshole.

Do you think that a law existed before Moses?

I have come to that opinion, Yes.
Perhaps nothing as distinctive as a set of LAWS but perhaps an understood moral code. The behavior post Exodus does give every indication that man was ignorant of what was right behavior. After all Cain was dishonest as well as Adam and Eve about they're transgression. That eludes to some sort of knowledge that their actions were misbehavior.