Posted by joeepistole: "his observation that life forms evolve over time..." Yes I'm sure Darwin observed life evolving over the billions of years claimed necessary for evolution to be truth.
Well good for you. However, who claimed billions of years was necessary to prove evolution...to prove life evolves over time? No one, and certainly not Darwin. Evolution doesn't need billions of years, natural selection can occur quite rapidly.
Perhaps you need to read up on the theory of Evolution a little more. For instance, did you know that the only difference (except superficcially) between older hominids and Homo sapiens, lies in the fusion of two chromosomes in early hominids, which produced homo sapiens. http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)
Unless this was said in sarcasm, you are correct. But one does not have to study millions of years in order to understand evolutionary processes. The fossil records speak for themselves. And it is unreasonable to expect to see every single stage of evolution in fossil remains. after billions of years of exposure to decomposition. We are fortunate to find any fossils at all and requires a favorable preservation environment in local conditions.
My problem with such study as this (and therefore biology) is that someone had to die for us to harvest the knowledge. Someone died for a primary autopsy giving us what must be almost all of our knowledge of human biology. Should we live in a world where humans did not pass where do you consider we would be? Immortal illnesses would be rife and the state of humanity on a whole would probably be significantly less. The fact that humans DO pass has given us the knowledge to increase the state of humanity with regard to disease and cure but which we would not need should we NOT pass. It's all relative but stated simply it's fundamentally the same. Humans pass=the knowledge to prolong mortality and increase the living standards of the remaining humans do not pass=without need to prolong mortality etc. The state of the world would be the same regardless (IMO.)
Do not forget that the Bible was written during the Bronze age where there was very little science going on. They should amend the Bible and now show all of the things that science has proven that makes the Bible a very unreliable source for factual information.
The bible is composed of 3 books Torah . Prophets and literature .. The Torah have some Hebrew history . Now tell me which is unreliable ?
Then install VLC media player, an excellent free program which will play almost all formats you can think of. Claiming no access to information is not a valid excuse for ignorance in a debate.
What are you trying with that that is an other opinion . To me, if some one who make such a general statement is wrong or have an objective . What us wrong with literature or prophesy . Are you going to argue that Israel did not existed because it is written in the bible ?
Actually, it includes the 5 books of the Torah or otherwise referred to as the Pentateuch, the history telling of the Israelite's, books of poetic wisdom, and the books of biblical prophets. The veracity of the stories of the Old Testament will probably never be completely known. But, in all likelihood, many of those tales have been greatly embellished and borrowed from other cultures (e.g. men living hundreds of years, Adam & Eve, the flood stories, etc.).
I don't think that is necessary. For one, you will never convince believers they are wrong. For them it's a matter of faith and not rational thought or discourse. Ironically, religion was the science of the Bronze Age and earlier periods. The two were once one. They were attempts by man to explain the many things which could not be explained and in doing so gave our ancestors some sense of security and comfort.
The same can be said about our present knowledge in science . Such as dark energy , dark matter or the universe starting time BB and many other sub atomic particles can you get a few minigrams ?
It seems to me that the only people who dispute the existence of Israel or the right for Israel to exist are other religious people.
There are some philosophical aspects to modern science. But unlike religion, science is much more aggressive and less passive in its methods. Scientific beliefs are stated and then tested and models are developed. If beliefs fail scientific testing, they are tossed or viewed as incomplete and ammended. One generally doesn't test religious precepts in order to validate their veracity as that would violate the principal of faith. http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/philosophy But both religion and science attempt to explain our world and our role in that world.
