Evolution and What Is Science

[TJones]

This is because you don't understand it. And, as you've demonstrated, if you don't understand something, you've got to explain it with the most preposterous tale possible of ghosts and demons and invisible beings. Forget what makes sense, your fanciful though illogical tales are more entertaining.

Do you understand the process of fossilization? Do you know how slim the odds are that any organic matter will transmute into rock? Probably less than a millionth, a billionth even, of all possible life has survived with a fossil representative. Had all life that has ever existed been the same life that existed at the beginning of time, then the Earth wouldn't be big enough to hold everything.

You do realize you're arguing against something you have absolutely no understanding of? How can you argue against it if you've never taken the time to familiarize yourself with its most basic principles? The principles of natural selection would never lead to a dog turning into a tree or an insect turning into a lion. That's some sort of goofy alchemy more at home in the Bible (or an episode of Scooby Doo) than in the very real world as known by science.

I know you like facts, and the fact is that you are in a 12% minority Attica. 88% of the world believes in some sort of religion where there is a "Creator" of all things. http://www.compassion.com/child-advocacy/find-your-voice/quick-facts/religion-quick-facts.htm . But HEY, good news, you are gaining ground because in 2000 it was 96%, so maybe some people are warming up to your idea of no God.

[TheNiche]

I know you like facts, and the fact is that you are in a 12% minority Attica. 88% of the world believes in some sort of religion where there is a "Creator" of all things. http://www.compassion.com/child-advocacy/find-your-voice/quick-facts/religion-quick-facts.htm . But HEY, good news, you are gaining ground because in 2000 it was 96%, so maybe some people are warming up to your idea of no God.

So...the existence of a God is evidenced by popularity? I suppose that the Earth actually was the center of the universe until popularly deemed otherwise?

[20thStDad]

lockmat, I admire your dedication to your beliefs. My only advice is try not to fall into the trap that so many closed-minded (and low IQ) Christians do and think that what is written in the Bible is all there is. The Bible has a teaching purpose, and a little bit of truth, but it's man's word and man's compilation. God never put pen to paper, and according to what the church decided to include in the new testament, neither did Jesus. The creation myth is the biggest fallout of this. It's a myth with a moral, it's not even an attempt at history. I think it got bastardized into it as the catholics persecuted people through the last two millenia. If you believe your God is even close to as awesome as you say, you would be looking at all the science around you and be amazed at what God created. Science is so much more impressive a creation that the moralistic fall from Eden myth.

[lockmat]

Being an animal means we have to be cannibals?

Why not, we are all just animals.

As LTAWACS posited, why was the tree there in the first place? If God is omniscient, wouldn't he have known placing the tree in the reach of retard Adam and retard Eve going to lead to them breaking the rules and damn humanity for the rest of eternity? Again, either your God is a malevolent prick or what you worship is actually Loki and not Odin or the God you worship is a fabricated story intended to explain the universe utilizing the limited means available at the time of the fabrication.

The greatest gift we can give is love. God was giving them the ability to love him, by being obedient to him and not eating of that tree. And to be able to love the perfect God is the greatest gift we can have.

They didn't die though. So... God's now a prick and a liar?

They didn't die? They're not alive today.

I didn't. I never ate that fruit. Don't you think God's being unjust (and more than a tad bit of a prick) for punishing you and I for something we had nothing to do with?

But we have all sinned now. It doesn't even matter what they did. If we were born sinless, we would not live a sinless, perfect life. We are without excuse.

On a long enough timeline, the line between history and mythology blurs. There may be some historical truth in the Bible, but probably not much.

Historically, it's the most accurate book we have. I'd be willing to hear where it is not.

Not good enough. The act itself was committed by the Romans. Rome was the law in Judea, and the Roman governor could have simply said no to the Jewish cries for blood. He didn't, and no amount of hand-wringing absolves them. Either way, Jesus' name isn't found on any of the existing death warrants signed in the region at the time. Perhaps there was no messiah on a cross, and even more, perhaps there wasn't a Jesus.

So prison worker injects someone on death row, the government and our laws are not the ones who actually killed him? If I threaten someone else for their life that if they don't do something I tell them to do, am I not just as responsible? The romans did not want to kill him, they were forced to.

Good job, lockmat. You won an argument nobody was advancing.

As for the rest of your "reasoning", it all just goes to further the point that we don't really know anything. Maybe, on account of that every explanation is uncertain, there shouldn't be any more books. Maybe we should burn them at a Laser Floyd concert. "We don't need no education..." "Leave those kids alone!"

Ok, so I went too far with the hyperbole. But I was trying to represent macro evolution. Apes do not turn into humans.

Why don't you consider skulls (and other bones from our ancestors) from humans and ages "guessed" to be "missing links" (to what) to be serious evidence pointing to our evolutionary history? Do you have evidence to the contrary? What is it?

Because there is no actual proof or evidence that they are "missing links." It's speculation. Does someone have a reference?

You're not doing LSD rite.

But again, why can't god not set the plans in motion for these events to happen? Urban planning in an insane timeline scale.

Because if the garden, adam and eve are true, sin could not have existed millions of years ago, only thousands.

[TheNiche]

Because if the garden, adam and eve are true, sin could not have existed millions of years ago, only thousands.

But we have hard evidence (fossils, bones, whole frozen corpses, etc.) of humans that lived before then. Is that not more credible than what some individual--unknown to history--wrote down on paper?

Frankly, biblical time only works if observable geologic time and |||God's Time||| are inversely and geometrically proportional according to common units of measurement. It's not implausible or even inconceivable; but it does mean that you can't take an English-language Bible literally.

[lockmat]

lockmat, I admire your dedication to your beliefs. My only advice is try not to fall into the trap that so many closed-minded (and low IQ) Christians do and think that what is written in the Bible is all there is. The Bible has a teaching purpose, and a little bit of truth, but it's man's word and man's compilation. God never put pen to paper, and according to what the church decided to include in the new testament, neither did Jesus. The creation myth is the biggest fallout of this. It's a myth with a moral, it's not even an attempt at history. I think it got bastardized into it as the catholics persecuted people through the last two millenia. If you believe your God is even close to as awesome as you say, you would be looking at all the science around you and be amazed at what God created. Science is so much more impressive a creation that the moralistic fall from Eden myth.

God never put pen to paper but the bible, in paraphrase, says that he wrote it through men. The bible is history, but you're right in the fact that it's not a book on history. It's a book that shows us how to be redeemed. Just because the catholics did that does not make it right. They have major flaws in their theology; hence leading them to do that. True theology does not ask or condone their actions. What about all the killings that happen every day, not in the name of God?

I do look at the science around me and am amazed. If I believed in evolution, I would be amazed an disorder and randomness. The thought of the complexity of how our bodies and everything else in this world works together is beyond my comprehension. Also, I just don't see how randomness could have created such beauty.

And the beautiful thing about the "eden myth" is that although man sinned against a perfect God, he sent God the son to die for his enemies, us. We are god's enemies, yet he still sent the perfect God the son to die for us. Would I die for my friend? Would I die for a stranger? Would I die for my enemy? God died for his enemies so we could be reconciled to him. Nobody has ever died for me but him. Nobody has ever paid such a high price for us. That is love. To do something for us we don't deserve. I'm sorry, but "science" and created things cannot compare to such a gift. Through believing in him, we can be friends of God. Guys, I know y'all think I am a fool. The bible says that the world will think God's wisdom is foolish. You think I like being called a fool? Yet I am sharing these things so that y'all can know the same joy and peace that I experience. It is not about being right. Who cares about being right. The penalty for our sins is death; physically and eternally. Without trusting that Jesus Christ, God, came to earth as a man, lived the perfect life we should have, was our substitute in death and came to life again to overcome death, we cannot have peace and eternal life. But to believe we must humble ourselves and not be proud and trust in God like a child trusts his mother. I am sharing these things out of love. I am being made fun of and ridiculed, but I want you guys to know the truth, to trust in the truth, even though our feeble minds cannot understand everything. If we see things from a biblical point of view, from God's point of view, we can see truth. Everyone in this world knows in their hearts that God exists. Romans 2:14 and 15 that i quoted earlier state that for those who do not "believe" in God are suppressing the truth. You know it, you are just suppressing it. You don't want to believe it, but you know it's true. Once again, we must humble ourselves. Pride comes before the fall.

[lockmat]

But we have hard evidence (fossils, bones, whole frozen corpses, etc.) of humans that lived before then. Is that not more credible than what some individual--unknown to history--wrote down on paper?

Frankly, biblical time only works if observable geologic time and |||God's Time||| are inversely and geometrically proportional according to common units of measurement. It's not implausible or even inconceivable; but it does mean that you can't take an English-language Bible literally.

as for the frozen corpses, that fits perfectly into the world flood. the bible had many human authors, not just one, and they all say the same thing.

As for your second paragraph, I am not sure exactly what you're referring to, but that is why for instance, my pastor is highly trained in the biblical languages of greek and hebrew, so when difficult things come up, he's able to understand it better in the original languages.

[TheNiche]

The thought of the complexity of how our bodies and everything else in this world works together is beyond my comprehension.

Do you comprehend God?

[lockmat]

Do you comprehend God?

Only what he has revealed, but some of it I still do not completely comprehend. In our world's thinking, you do not die for your enemy. To us, that makes zero sense.

[TheNiche]

Only what he has revealed, but some of it I still do not completely comprehend. In our world's thinking, you do not die for your enemy. To us, that makes zero sense.

Do you comprehend God? Do you know His origin, the nature of His being, His motive, His purpose, His plan for you in the context of a complex and wondrous universe, His powers to achieve it? No. You cannot. You would (or must) surely perish. So it is written by some nameless individual in a text of self-proclaimed "Truth".

And in the context of your uncertainties regarding the nature of the universe...how likely is your God as opposed to contemporary scientific or cosmological paradigms? Perhaps none are correct; perhaps none are mutually exclusive; perhaps there are multiple truths experienced uniquely or as a hybrid such as we would have difficulty perceiving. Are there not multiple plausible explanations?

Are you certain? Does universal uncertainty warrant that you embrace one plausible explanation above all others?

[lockmat]

Do you comprehend God? Do you know His origin, the nature of His being, His motive, His purpose, His plan for you in the context of a complex and wondrous universe, His powers to achieve it? No. You cannot. You would (or must) surely perish. So it is written by some nameless individual in a text of self-proclaimed "Truth".

And in the context of your uncertainties regarding the nature of the universe...how likely is your God as opposed to contemporary scientific or cosmological paradigms? Perhaps none are correct; perhaps none are mutually exclusive; perhaps there are multiple truths experienced uniquely or as a hybrid such as we would have difficulty perceiving. Are there not multiple plausible explanations?

Are you certain? Does universal uncertainty warrant that you embrace one plausible explanation above all others?

niche, you and most everyone on here are probably much smarter than me, i have no problem admitting that. I am not sure what you're trying to get across to me here. I'll have to think about it and respond later. But what I do know is that I don't have to be smart or understand everything to do 99% of the things I do in this world. I am not saying I believe you are trying to out-intelligent (i made it up) me, but I admit that I cannot always think on your or others level.

But from what I can gather now, I will say this. There is absolute truth, no matter what philosophy says. Two opposing ideas cannot be true at the same time, I do know that. Even if you think I am wrong, there is only one truth out there. I am not saying you should just give in and accept the bible either, but I think you can accept the concept of absolute truth. We can philosophize about it (or anything) for that matter, but it does not make it true. We can say it's plausible, but lot's of things are plausible if we just speak them into existence.

[BryanS]

niche, you and most everyone on here are probably much smarter than me, i have no problem admitting that. I am not sure what you're trying to get across to me here. I'll have to think about it and respond later. But what I do know is that I don't have to be smart or understand everything to do 99% of the things I do in this world. I am not saying I believe you are trying to out-intelligent (i made it up) me, but I admit that I cannot always think on your or others level.

But from what I can gather now, I will say this. There is absolute truth, no matter what philosophy says. Two opposing ideas cannot be true at the same time, I do know that. Even if you think I am wrong, there is only one truth out there. I am not saying you should just give in and accept the bible either, but I think you can accept the concept of absolute truth. We can philosophize about it (or anything) for that matter, but it does not make it true. We can say it's plausible, but lot's of things are plausible if we just speak them into existence.

Beware those in life who claim to know the answer... who know "the truth."

These are dangerous people.

[TheNiche]

But from what I can gather now, I will say this. There is absolute truth, no matter what philosophy says. Two opposing ideas cannot be true at the same time, I do know that. Even if you think I am wrong, there is only one truth out there. I am not saying you should just give in and accept the bible either, but I think you can accept the concept of absolute truth. We can philosophize about it (or anything) for that matter, but it does not make it true. We can say it's plausible, but lot's of things are plausible if we just speak them into existence.

I think that if there is absolute Truth (with a capital "T"), I cannot possibly know it. Not in this realm of existence, not in this form. That is a conclusion inherent to epistemological nihilism, whereas epistemological nihilism is an extension of logic, whereas logic is an extension of language, whereas language is fundamentally inadequate to articulate the complete nature of the universe. Of course, religion is communicated with language, and so Christianity shares in the inadequacy. The Bible even acknowledges it:

Exodus 33:20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live.

Ask your pastor about the difference between Yahweh and Elohim as they might be used to describe God's presence to Moses, and know that I am referring to Elohim, which is being referenced in this and related verses. Yahweh is a name ascribed to God's person and perceived manifestation. Yahweh appears to Abraham, Isaac, and lots of other people; Jesus is even described as Yahweh at one point in the text (essentially as the physical manifestation of God). In contrast, Elohim typically refers more to His purpose, His plan, His magnificence. You cannot possibly know it. Not in this realm of existence, not in this form, not in this lifetime. Of course, that might be problematic in some scenarios, for instance if God faces a similar dilemma, scaled to His existence, and either doesn't realize it or is misleading us whether intentionally or unintentionally.

So yeah, my conception of Christianity is that it offers a plausible explanation, but only because it denies the faithful access to absolute Truth. Science also attempts to offer plausible explanations, but is really more of a method of reasoning than something that offers cut-and-dry truth...much less absolute Truth. Although science does seem to offer more existential utility, neither Christianity or science pretends that it is capable of explaining everything, at least not to humanity. And that'd be pretty dumb if they did offer up absolute Truth. They'd be embracing the same underlying principles as Atheism, which is outright implausible because Atheism denies even the possibility that the Christian God or any god (including FSM) exists in any form.

[lockmat]

Beware those in life who claim to know the answer... who know "the truth."

These are dangerous people.

Why? Is there anything to substantiate that?

[lockmat]

I think that if there is absolute Truth (with a capital "T"), I cannot possibly know it. Not in this realm of existence, not in this form. That is a conclusion inherent to epistemological nihilism, whereas epistemological nihilism is an extension of logic, whereas logic is an extension of language, whereas language is fundamentally inadequate to articulate the complete nature of the universe. Of course, religion is communicated with language, and so Christianity shares in the inadequacy. The Bible even acknowledges it:

Exodus 33:20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live.

Ask your pastor about the difference between Yahweh and Elohim as they might be used to describe God's presence to Moses, and know that I am referring to Elohim, which is being referenced in this and related verses. Yahweh is a name ascribed to God's person and perceived manifestation. Yahweh appears to Abraham, Isaac, and lots of other people; Jesus is even described as Yahweh at one point in the text (essentially as the physical manifestation of God). In contrast, Elohim typically refers more to His purpose, His plan, His magnificence. You cannot possibly know it. Not in this realm of existence, not in this form, not in this lifetime. Of course, that might be problematic in some scenarios, for instance if God faces a similar dilemma, scaled to His existence, and either doesn't realize it or is misleading us whether intentionally or unintentionally.

So yeah, my conception of Christianity is that it offers a plausible explanation, but only because it denies the faithful access to absolute Truth. Science also attempts to offer plausible explanations, but is really more of a method of reasoning than something that offers cut-and-dry truth...much less absolute Truth. Although science does seem to offer more existential utility, neither Christianity or science pretends that it is capable of explaining everything, at least not to humanity. And that'd be pretty dumb if they did offer up absolute Truth. They'd be embracing the same underlying principles as Atheism, which is outright implausible because Atheism denies even the possibility that the Christian God or any god (including FSM) exists in any form.

niche, I do remember Elohim, but not the details. I will have to go brush up on it.

But as for your first sentence in the second paragraph, I am not so sure that is true unless you mean something else. What about the verses from John below? Especially note verse 6. He does not say "a," he says, "the." Is he not claiming to the Truth? I am not sure if when I post passages if people read them in their entirity or just the places I bold them, but it would be beneficial to read the whole thing. And actually, it's sort of funny that I did not even realize it, but Philip is kind of like you guys in verse 8.

Also, I agree that the bible does not try to explain everything. Deuteronomy 29:29 says - The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law.

The bible is meant to reveal just enough to give us faith for salvation. It is not trying to be a history book or science book.

John 14

¹"Do not let your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me. ²"In My Father's house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. ³"If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also. ⁴"And you know the way where I am going." ⁵Thomas said to Him, "Lord, we do not know where You are going, how do we know the way?" ⁶Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. ⁷"If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him." ⁸Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us." ⁹Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father'? ¹⁰"Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works. ¹¹"Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; otherwise believe because of the works themselves. ¹²"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father. ¹³"Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. ¹⁴"If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it. ¹⁵"If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.

[AtticaFlinch]

They'd be embracing the same underlying principles as Atheism, which is outright implausible because Atheism denies even the possibility that the Christian God or any god (including FSM) exists in any form.

And this is the huge flaw with atheism. It requires as much faith to deny that possibility as it does to believe in the existence of a god. As best as I can tell, atheism appears little different to me than a religion, albeit with considerably less dogma.

Lockmat, I'm sure if you were to ask the God you know his opinion on the topic, he's be fairly astounded you were even concerning yourself with an origin story (especially considering the boatloads of evidence sets the Earth's age at 4.6 billion years old). God would probably wonder why his follwers weren't out in the world aiding the sick and the poor. He would probably wonder why wars were waged in his name. He'd probably wonder why his followers were so intent on accumulating material wealth when his son expressly condemned the wealthy to an afterlife outside of Heaven. He'd probably wonders why that Australian loon in Kentucky is devoting $30 million to that absurd creation "museum" and not devoting those funds to feeding and clothing the homeless. He probably wonders why every megachurch has a gift shop despite Jesus' one fit of anger that was mentioned in the Bible was due to a temple commercializing faith. He probably wonders why people who claim to be his followers don't actually follow him.

[AtticaFlinch]

¹⁴"If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.

Now I know this is a lie.

Had this been true, this would never have happened.

[AtticaFlinch]

But HEY, good news, you are gaining ground because in 2000 it was 96%, so maybe some people are warming up to your idea of no God.

It's not really my idea, and it's not where I sit with it. I'm comfortable not knowing if there is or isn't a god and not getting my knickers in a twist trying to find out. If you remember, this conversation started because you claimed creationism (and implicitly all it entails) is a rational alternative to the principles of natural selection. I don't dispute the possiblity of some sort of god or gods or whatever else, though I do highly doubt the existence of the God of Lockmat. What I dispute is the story of creationism as tenaciously expounded by Christian Fundamentalists. It's a goofy story intended for a less rational time, and I find it a bit strange that it's something we'd even debate in this day and age. It's no more believable than the creation mythology of literally thousands of other cultures, none of which have been lended any credence here (with the lone exception of the FSM).

[lockmat]

And this is the huge flaw with atheism. It requires as much faith to deny that possibility as it does to believe in the existence of a god. As best as I can tell, atheism appears little different to me than a religion, albeit with considerably less dogma.

Lockmat, I'm sure if you were to ask the God you know his opinion on the topic, he's be fairly astounded you were even concerning yourself with an origin story (especially considering the boatloads of evidence sets the Earth's age at 4.6 billion years old). God would probably wonder why his follwers weren't out in the world aiding the sick and the poor. He would probably wonder why wars were waged in his name. He'd probably wonder why his followers were so intent on accumulating material wealth when his son expressly condemned the wealthy to an afterlife outside of Heaven. He'd probably wonders why that Australian loon in Kentucky is devoting $30 million to that absurd creation "museum" and not devoting those funds to feeding and clothing the homeless. He probably wonders why every megachurch has a gift shop despite Jesus' one fit of anger that was mentioned in the Bible was due to a temple commercializing faith. He probably wonders why people who claim to be his followers don't actually follow him.

Attica, the origin story is foundational to Christianity and the bible. If it is not true, many other parts of the bible are false and the faith is invalid.

Concerning the rest of your statements, first, we should consider the Matthew 7 verses below.

Matthew 7:13-14

¹³Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. ¹⁴"For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.

There are not many who will find salvation. Second, the bible speaks many times to make sure we are "in the faith," truly believing and also warns of false prophets and false believers. Let us consider this...

¹⁵"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. ¹⁶"You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? ¹⁷"So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. ¹⁸"A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. ¹⁹"Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. ²⁰"So then, you will know them by their fruits. ²¹"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. ²²"Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' ²³"And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'

It is true that many churches have fallen into a lie, a false gospel. They think they can believe and live life the way they want. That is not the true gospel. The true gospel is when Jesus says in Matthew 16:24-25 ²⁴Then Jesus said to His disciples, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me. ²⁵"For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it. /// Many "christians" are not denying themselves. They are using Christianity as way to "get to heaven", "get out of jail/hell free card." That is not right and it does not lead to true salvation, that is not true faith. True faith compels. If I am to consider the amazing gift God has given me/us, that he sent his perfect son to die as a substitute on my sinful behalf, so that I may be at peace with him, get to enjoy him and go to heaven, then I will be greatful and live my life for him; denying myself for him. However, once someone believes and becomes a follower of Christ, that does not make them sinless either. We should becoming sanctified (sinning less, becoming more like Christ/holy) but we will not be sinless and like Christ until we die and are with him in heaven. God is patient and kind with us, even though we are undeserving.

[lockmat]

Now I know this is a lie.

Had this been true, this would never have happened.

Almost everyone takes that verse out of context. That verse is not speaking of a "blank check." If we ask anything according to his will, he will give it to us. Many people do not know his will. For instance, he will not give a man his lustful desires to have sex with anyone.

1 Thessalonians 4:3

³For this is the will of God, your sanctification; that is, that you abstain from sexual immorality.

If we understand God's will from what he has revealed in the bible and know his principles and desire what he desires, we should be asking for his will.

Also, James 4:3

³You ask and do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, so that you may spend it on your pleasures.

God's will is revealed in the scripture, not in our lustly desires and the things of this world.

[lockmat]

Had this been true, this would never have happened.

lol, sorry. I should have clicked on the link right away, but i didn't.

;P

[TheNiche]

niche, I do remember Elohim, but not the details. I will have to go brush up on it.

But as for your first sentence in the second paragraph, I am not so sure that is true unless you mean something else. What about the verses from John below? Especially note verse 6. He does not say "a," he says, "the." Is he not claiming to the Truth? I am not sure if when I post passages if people read them in their entirity or just the places I bold them, but it would be beneficial to read the whole thing. And actually, it's sort of funny that I did not even realize it, but Philip is kind of like you guys in verse 8.

I don't know about this one, and I'm certainly not going to bother debating over the English translation. I'd say that your best bet is to look into verse 7, see how that one translates, and be wary of confining your analysis of a dead tounge to what seems semantically correct in our language.

The bible is meant to reveal just enough to give us faith for salvation. It is not trying to be a history book or science book.

That sounds like capitulation to the possibility that the biblical timeline can be brought into question.

[LTAWACS]

I know you like facts, and the fact is that you are in a 12% minority Attica. 88% of the world believes in some sort of religion where there is a "Creator" of all things. http://www.compassion.com/child-advocacy/find-your-voice/quick-facts/religion-quick-facts.htm . But HEY, good news, you are gaining ground because in 2000 it was 96%, so maybe some people are warming up to your idea of no God.

The fact that he's in a minority has nothing to do with anything. Simply because many more people believe in something does not make that thing true.

[AtticaFlinch]

Attica, the origin story is foundational to Christianity and the bible. If it is not true, many other parts of the bible are false and the faith is invalid.

I'm not going to argue with your conclusion as I do think the Bible is false and the faith is invalid, but out of curiosity, how do you figure everything about Christianity is invalidated if the Genesis is full of nothing more than antiquated mythology? Are the teachings of Jesus any less relevant because radiometric dating proves inexhaustibly that the Earth is over four billion years old as opposed to six thousand years old? I hardly think so. The teachings attributed to Jesus offer many valuable moral and ethical guidelines that hold true regardless of the age of the Earth or the processes involved in creating it.

[TheNiche]

Beware those in life who claim to know the answer... who know "the truth."

These are dangerous people.

Why? Is there anything to substantiate that?

Bryan is my prophet. So it is written.

Now that I, the corporeal manifestation of God, have substantiated it...would you dare doubt me? Depending on my mood I might transform you into a pillar of garlic salt; I've done it before, I'll do it again.

[LTAWACS]

Ok, so I went too far with the hyperbole. But I was trying to represent macro evolution. Apes do not turn into humans.

Correct. Our common ancestor is long gone.

Because there is no actual proof or evidence that they are "missing links." It's speculation. Does someone have a reference?

Forget the term "missing link". It is a fact that apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor. It is NOT speculation. References? There are tons online. And in your local library too.

Because if the garden, adam and eve are true, sin could not have existed millions of years ago, only thousands.

There are rocks older than this. Sin is a relative term.

[TheNiche]

Correct. Our common ancestor is long gone.

Forget the term "missing link". It is a fact that apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor. It is NOT speculation. References? There are tons online. And in your local library too.

There are rocks older than this. Sin is a relative term.

Are you sure?

[LTAWACS]

I'm not going to argue with your conclusion as I do think the Bible is false and the faith is invalid, but out of curiosity, how do you figure everything about Christianity is invalidated if the Genesis is full of nothing more than antiquated mythology? Are the teachings of Jesus any less relevant because radiometric dating proves inexhaustibly that the Earth is over four billion years old as opposed to six thousand years old? I hardly think so. The teachings attributed to Jesus offer many valuable moral and ethical guidelines that hold true regardless of the age of the Earth or the processes involved in creating it.

Perhaps the teachings (dont kill, dont steal, dont eat pork(?)) present in all of these religious texts are ultimately good and may provide some kind of moral framwork. However it may be that the WAY they are presented are becoming more and more dangerous. We should be able to teach certain things (dont kill, dont steal) without all the religious/creator/jesus mythology.

So, while teaching our children that stealing is not a good thing, it is deplorable that we teach them that some guy named jesus was here to save us all and that he is the only way we can be "saved" and everyone else on this planet has got it wrong ala 'my saviour is better than yours'.

Are you sure?

Sure about what?

[AtticaFlinch]

Are you sure?

I've got pillars of garlic salt in my spice cabinet older than 6,000 years. I'm sure of that. I'm positive sin and morality is relative. I'm 100% positive "missing link" is outdated terminology. I'm also sure that humans didn't evolve from apes, but that we share a common ancestor. I'm also certain this isn't speculation and there exists mouintains of evidence to support this. I'm also sure this can be referenced online and at the library. And lastly, I'm positive the common ancestor for man and the various extant ape species has long since gone extinct (or at least gradually evolved into other species).

I feel pretty confident that LTAWACS' post was accurate.

Edit: But, before we go down the epistimological nihilism path again, I'm confident this is fact as far as anything can be known.

Perhaps the teachings (dont kill, dont steal, dont eat pork(?)) present in all of these religious texts are ultimately good and may provide some kind of moral framwork. However it may be that the WAY they are presented are becoming more and more dangerous. We should be able to teach certain things (dont kill, dont steal) without all the religious/creator/jesus mythology.

So, while teaching our children that stealing is not a good thing, it is deplorable that we teach them that some guy named jesus was here to save us all and that he is the only way we can be "saved" and everyone else on this planet has got it wrong ala 'my saviour is better than yours'.

I don't disagree. (Except for the pork thing; bacon could possibly be the best thing ever.)

[TheNiche]

Sure about what?

Well, anything generally. But specifically, are you sure of the claims that you made?