Creationism.

[kbate]

Careful, or I'll have to start quoting Leviticus at you.

Been there, lived that, shot the preacher.

 

[Sean]

Been there, lived that, shot the preacher.

But did you shoot the deputy?

 

[eyer]

'nuff said.

Exactly...

...referencing the poster Oscuridad for any reason on this Board other than a sound source of fluff is as significant as relating lipstick to a pig.

 

[kbate]

But did you shoot the deputy?

I won't cop to that.

 

[Sean]

I won't cop to that.

 

[Sean]

Exactly...

...referencing the poster Oscuridad for any reason on this Board other than a sound source of fluff is as significant as relating lipstick to a pig.

Ah, Eeeyore, Eeyore, Eeyore. We know you're upset that everyone laughs at you. Just run with it, bro. You could be the next Hogjack if you embraced it.

 

[phrodeau]

Didn't your god say "thou shalt not kill"?

Well, He also said to stone the apostates among you, and to slaughter your enemies without mercy.

 

[fair_warning]

Ok...your reply to my post covers soooo many topics and issues - I will try and and work my way through them.

There are no dinosaurs now, and there are many fossilized sea creatures that don't exist today. I guess I'm not quite clear on what impact man has had there, and I am of the opinion that biodiversity has been in decline far longer than man being "on the scene". Is it generally understood then that the "fossil record" contains all forms of life that ever existed? Was it then that the dinosaurs and a few plants became extinct, and then when man started building factories and burning coal that things really picked up to where the rate of extinction is now? Which is like what...100 or 150 species per day?

Evolution seems to assert the opposite of what we actually observe. In the past there were a lot of different forms of life that we no longer see today. That decline is still ongoing, and may be increasing or may be steady (man-influenced or not). So my point is that at some time science gave up and religious evolution took over to explain things (an inclination for humans you attest to).

First - I'll revist biodiversity loss. I misunderstood you - you were actually referring to the mass extinctions that have occurred over the past 540 million years (give or take a few mil). Read this: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110302131844.htm. I'm comfortable with sciences explanations - generally some kind of climatic interruption to the functioning of the ecosystem a specific specie(s) lived in.

Even today, for example - a really wet/dry/cold/warm season that affects one species (that happens to be a keystone species) means this species either booms or busts - the effects are then felt throughout the ecosystem. More of one means less of another or a food source for yet another species becomes scarce. (This is a micro view of climate change effects, and I'm not suggesting that one bad winter an extinction makes.)

Another example, from New Zealand - when the Maori arrived there around 1300CE, they hunted the huge Moa (flightless bird, up to 230 kg) to extinction. This in turn meant that the Haast's Eagle (the largest eagle known) had no food source and that too became extinct. There are myriad examples such as these - the domino effect. It happened 1300CE and it happened millions of years ago, the story is always the same - just different players.

Evolution has always been about the survival of the fittest. Natural selection of the fittest and strongest is what evolution is about. Those species whose survival depends on a very narrow set of criteria regarding habitat and food source will always be under threat of extinction unless they can adapt. Species are still evolving - it happens so slowly that it is hard to notice, it's not a spectator sport. Read this: http://www.cracked.com/article_19213_7-animals-that-are-evolving-right-before-our-eyes.html

Science has never 'given up' on evolution, it's that the voice of the religious proponents of creationism have grown louder.

 

[LiFeNdEaTh]

i'm not voting.

 

[box13]

Science has never 'given up' on evolution, it's that the voice of the religious proponents of creationism have grown louder.

But evolution is not the world view of every scientist. Science isn't a priesthood or a political party where there is only one monolithic set of beliefs. I'm sure there are people who subscribe to the idea of evolution, and some who do not. There might even be a majority one way or another. Ridiculing or suppressing someone's beliefs doesn't seem to be in the best interest of free and open inquiry, however it happens, on both sides.

First - I'll revist biodiversity loss. I misunderstood you - you were actually referring to the mass extinctions that have occurred over the past 540 million years (give or take a few mil). Read this: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110302131844.htm. I'm comfortable with sciences explanations - generally some kind of climatic interruption to the functioning of the ecosystem a specific specie(s) lived in.

Even today, for example - a really wet/dry/cold/warm season that affects one species (that happens to be a keystone species) means this species either booms or busts - the effects are then felt throughout the ecosystem. More of one means less of another or a food source for yet another species becomes scarce. (This is a micro view of climate change effects, and I'm not suggesting that one bad winter an extinction makes.)

Another example, from New Zealand - when the Maori arrived there around 1300CE, they hunted the huge Moa (flightless bird, up to 230 kg) to extinction. This in turn meant that the Haast's Eagle (the largest eagle known) had no food source and that too became extinct. There are myriad examples such as these - the domino effect. It happened 1300CE and it happened millions of years ago, the story is always the same - just different players.

Evolution has always been about the survival of the fittest. Natural selection of the fittest and strongest is what evolution is about. Those species whose survival depends on a very narrow set of criteria regarding habitat and food source will always be under threat of extinction unless they can adapt. Species are still evolving - it happens so slowly that it is hard to notice, it's not a spectator sport. Read this: http://www.cracked.com/article_19213_7-animals-that-are-evolving-right-before-our-eyes.html

I'm good with that. I mean, yes there are environmental factors which affect the survivability of a species. Extinctions occur. I'm not sure how to form the philosophical argument at this point, but at some time in the past the net change in "newly evolved" vs. "went extinct" must have been positive instead of negative like it appears it is today. If the trend in extinct species is 150 to 200 per day then, going back thousands or even millions of years their must have been a lot of different living things on the Earth. Perhaps many many billions of different creatures.

Suddenly it occurs to me why environmentalists can get so freaked out about the environment and the likelihood of extinction.

I guess the point I'm trying to move towards is that new species must have emerged far more often in the past than they do today. The "trend line" for emerge / extinct doesn't seem to have much of a chance for meeting at some point in the distance past. If that makes any sense. Something was drastically different "back then" than it is now, and I mean drastically different.

Ok...your reply to my post covers soooo many topics and issues - I will try and and work my way through them.

Don't worry. It was interesting talking. I don't think it'd be an easy task to convince a skeptic coming from one worldview to move to the other. I can't offer to drive you out into the country someplace where we can see G-d's feet and measure them ("Yup, that's G-d's foot alright, a lot of folks don't know this but He wear's a size 14x10^32 shoe"), and I can't be convinced with extinction or even "look there's some adaptation that we'll label really slow evolution over there!" kind of thing.

The dot here . is the size of the Universe before the Big Bang (or maybe many times bigger, according to the theory). Tell me how we got to you.

In any case, I enjoyed talking. Take care.

 

[KRCummings]

But evolution is not the world view of every scientist. Science isn't a priesthood or a political party where there is only one monolithic set of beliefs. I'm sure there are people who subscribe to the idea of evolution, and some who do not. There might even be a majority one way or another. Ridiculing or suppressing someone's beliefs doesn't seem to be in the best interest of free and open inquiry, however it happens, on both sides.

There might be a majority? Are you fucking kidding me? On evolution?

 

[fair_warning]

Ah, there is a wonderful "prize" for believing. Eternal life with Christ.Three tests can be applied to the bible to see if it exhibits characteristics of a divine book that is without error. 1. External evidence 2. Internal evidence 3. Bible prophecy.

External evidence from both archeology and non-Christian writers confirms that the Bible - Both the Old and New Testaments - is a trustwrothy historical document. Archeologist Joseph Free has said that "Archeology has confirmed countless passages which has had been rejected by critics as unhistorical or contrary to known facts." Renowned Jewish Archeologist Nelson Gluek confidently said that "It may be stated categorically that no archeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference."

Examples: Some scolars said that Moses couldn't have written the first five books of the Bible because writing was largely unknown in his day. Then, archeology proved otherwise by the discovery of many other written codes of the periods: the code of Hammurabi, he Lipit-Ishtar code and the laws of Eshnunna.

Another example: Critics used to say that the biblical description of the Hittite Empire was wrong because the Hittite Empire (they thought) didn't even exist? Then archeologists discovered the Hittite Capital in 1906 and discovered that the Hittite's were actually a very vast and prominent civilization. Archeological and linguistic evidence is increaslingly pointing to the 6th century B.C date for the book of Daniel, in spite of many critics who attempt to late-date Daniel and make it a prophecy after the detailed events it predicts.

For the New Testament, Dr. G.R Habernas points out that within 110 years of Christ's crucifixion, approximately eighteen non-Christian sources mention more that "One hundred facts, beliefs, and teachings from the life of Christ and Early Christendom." These Items mention almost every major detail Of Jesus' life, including miracles, the Resurection, and His claims to diety." Sir William Ramsey, one of the greatest archeologists to ever live, demonstrated that Luke made no mistakes in refereces to 32 countries, 54 cities and 9 islands.


The internal evidents test reveals the bibles amazing consistency. The Bible was written by over 40 authors, in 3 languages, on 3 continents, over a span of 1500 years and covers hundreds of controversial subjects, Yet, the authors all spoke with agreement. From Genesis to Revelation, there is one unfolding story--God's redemption of mankind.

Finally prophecy. See Josh McDowells book evidence that demands a verdict. There are hundreds of specific prophecies in the bible that have been literally fullfilled, In some cases centuries after the completion of the Bible. Some prophecies fullfilled by Jesus are Micah 5:2, which revealed where He was born; Isaiah 53 detailing his suffering, work at the cross and ressurection. Psalm 22 is a striking prophecy of his crucifiction.

Lastly. How can we know whether or not the Bible we have today is the same as what was written? The discovery of the Dead Sea Scroll, which date from 200 B.C to AD 68 included a copy of every Old Testament book except for one. Comparison with the texts of a thousand years later shows little or no vatiation and change beetween them.

Is that why you believe - because you think you will have eternal life? as I have said previously in this thread - I don't subscribe to any religion but that has never stopped me from being the best person I can be. I'm an optimist by nature and I like to think that I am yet to live the best days of my life. Every new day brings the promise of something positive in my life. I once read a quote about suicide - this person said they could never commit suicide because they wanted to know what was going to happen the next day. I can relate to that


Now, I'm not entirely sure what the rest of your post is trying to achieve. I'm guessing that you are setting out some 'evidence' as to why the Bible can be taken literally - ie: because you believe it contains no misinformation and is completely accurate on all accounts. If so, have you ever read anything that discredits the Bible or points out the inaccuracies it contains? Here's the thing - you and I are coming at this topic from polemic opposites - I don't spend my time reading about how to be sure of the Bibles contents, and I'm guessing you seldom spend time trying to understand examples of how it got some things wrong.

I believe the Bible is a collection of texts that record either events as the various authors experienced them or were recounted to them at some later date. I also believe, that with any historical record you must be discerning with the information it might contain. Asking yourself - Who said this, when and why did they say it. Then, with our current knowledge about culture and context we sometimes have to 'filter' the information to have a really good grip on what was going on thousands of years ago.

 

[phrodeau]

Genesis 1:11-13 Plants were created on the third day.
Genesis 1:27-31 Humans were created on the sixth day.
Genesis 2:4-9 Adam was created before any plants.

Genesis 1:24-26 Animals were created, then men and women.
Genesis 2:18-22 Adam was first, then the animals, then Eve.

 

[LadyKandi]

Divided

I guess I can say that I believe that we were created by a superior being(s). But thats just my theory that I believe and its part of a belief system. A belief system is nothing more that ideas based off of faith, so bascially religion. You can't have any solid tangible evidence to support it which is why it is a belief.
A knowledge system, which is what science is, is nothing more that a system based on tangible material to study the world. Like evolution: fossil records and natural selection.
I guess all I'm trying to get across here is that you can have a belief system (religion) and a knowledge system (science) but you can never mix the two.

So I believe a God created the earth, but I also know that life goes on through evolution.

 

[Tryharder62]

Genesis 1:11-13 Plants were created on the third day.
Genesis 1:27-31 Humans were created on the sixth day.
Genesis 2:4-9 Adam was created before any plants.

Genesis 1:24-26 Animals were created, then men and women.
Genesis 2:18-22 Adam was first, then the animals, then Eve.

The Hebrew words that "made" and "formed" are translated from are two completely different words with two completely different definitions. The term "made" is translated from Hebrew word #6212 which basically means to prepare and the word "formed" is translated from the Hebrew Word #3335 which means to form, fashion or frame. In other words God prepared every living thing in Genesis 1 and brought them to physical form in Genesis 2.

God told us, in his own words that made and formed are two seperate and distinct events.

Isaiah 44:2 Thus Saith the Lord, that made thee and formed thee from the womb.

Isaiah 45:18 For thus Saith the Lord that created the heavens, God himself that formed the earth and made it.

 

[phrodeau]

The Hebrew words that "made" and "formed" are translated from are two completely different words with two completely different definitions. The term "made" is translated from Hebrew word #6212 which basically means to prepare and the word "formed" is translated from the Hebrew Word #3335 which means to form, fashion or frame. In other words God prepared every living thing in Genesis 1 and brought them to physical form in Genesis 2.

God told us, in his own words that made and formed are two seperate and distinct events.

Isaiah 44:2 Thus Saith the Lord, that made thee and formed thee from the womb.

Isaiah 45:18 For thus Saith the Lord that created the heavens, God himself that formed the earth and made it.

So, will those verses be corrected in subsequent translations?

 

[Tryharder62]

Fairwarning, as always, I enjoy our debate. You asked if eternal life was why I believe and yes it is one reason. I do believe John 3:16 That God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whoever believes in him shall not Parish but have everlasting life.

I didn't have a strong faith background growing up. I had a rough childhood. I questioned the thought of a loving God. It was finally in College that I became a Christian. I pretty much came to the conclusion that I was trying to be God. Trying to have things line up the way I would want them. Life isn't like that. I was fucking up bad. At a particularly low point I just said "God, I give up. I can't do this. Maybe you can help me."

I wish I could say that life has been a bed of roses since then. It hasn't. But when you accept Christ as your savior he sends the holy spirit to work in you and with you. These are things I don't normally bring up in this type of debate because I only have the evidence of one changed life. Mine.

I fully recognise the amazingly wonderful people who live fantastic lives without the same belief that I do. You for instance.

I was giving evidence to why the bible can be accepted literally. I do look at as many views as possible. With my position I have to look at what people are saying against it. I have to find out if it is true. If it is false I need to be able to explain why. I must have misunderstood you, I hope I did that - instead of looking at facts you filter it though the culture of our times? Clarify please.

 

[Tryharder62]

So, will those verses be corrected in subsequent translations?

No, they are fine now. You used the word created. Not in the translations I have.

LOL, I do so love your brain though. Just go back to the original Hebrew!

 

[phrodeau]

No, they are fine now. You used the word created. Not in the translations I have.

LOL, I do so love your brain though. Just go back to the original Hebrew!

What is the creation timeline, then? Did God create everything in six days, or did He come back after His weekend to finish the job?

Oh, maybe He has to keep patching up the firmament every time it lets some rain out.

 

[Sean]

No, they are fine now. You used the word created. Not in the translations I have.

LOL, I do so love your brain though. Just go back to the original Hebrew!

The translation you have? There are a billion translations of The Bible, each one different. How do you know which one to take literally?

 

[Tryharder62]

What is the creation timeline, then? Did God create everything in six days, or did He come back after His weekend to finish the job?

Oh, maybe He has to keep patching up the firmament every time it lets some rain out.

No he "made" or prepared eveything in 6 days.

 

[Tryharder62]

The translation you have? There are a billion translations of The Bible, each one different. How do you know which one to take literally?

You are so, so right. I did say the translations I have because I have more than one but certainly not a billion. lol I agree with you. It is just like any book that has been translated over time and to different languages. People have translated it to language of the day for many cultures. Like with any book you need to go back to the original. I trust that it is literal.

 

[Sean]

You are so, so right. I did say the translations I have because I have more than one but certainly not a billion. lol I agree with you. It is just like any book that has been translated over time and to different languages. People have translated it to language of the day for many cultures. Like with any book you need to go back to the original. I trust that it is literal.

So you take your orders from the Dead Sea Scrolls, then? Seeing as they're the closest thing we have to an original?

 

[Tryharder62]

So you take your orders from the Dead Sea Scrolls, then? Seeing as they're the closest thing we have to an original?

Not all of them. I believe in the Hebrew Bible texts as literal word of God not the Apocryphal and Sectarian manuscripts. I feel there is valuable information in the other documents though.

 

[hogjack]

God created Earth and the heavens approximately 4,000 years ago.

Any scientist who cannot acknowledge it has had their heart hardened almost beyond redemption. Almost!