|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26030 Posts |
 Posted - 06/29/2003 : 22:59:32 [Permalink]
|
Cuneiformist wrote:quote:
...But it does show that we should consider at least some parts of the Bible to reflect real attitudes of intellectual elites in the Levant towards events and politics during the middle part of the first millennium.
I absolutely agree, but it's really beside the point. The metaphors I'm talking about are what Creation88 refers to as "the stories" of the Bible: the important stuff about God; about Jesus' birth, live, death, and resurrection; the miracles. Just as Creation88 doesn't give a rat's patootie about exact census figures being different in two parts of the same "Revealed Truth," he probably doesn't care one bit that there are, indeed, some correct historical facts tossed in, since those are nothing more than the acts of puny mortals. The Big Picture - the "moral" of the story, the lesson to be learned from the parables - is completely unaffected by whether or not the verifiable historical facts are correct.
In other words, by saying that the whole book is parables, I'm not saying that the whole thing is necessarily myth. If you tell the story of, for example, Galilleo's jailing for his heliocentrism in order to make a point about religion and science, it doesn't really matter if you get the facts right or not. If the lesson you intend for people to learn is that science and religion don't often get along well, the politics behind the whole joojooflop situation can either be included or not. You don't need to invent the story out of thin air for it to have meaning as a parable. The historical political facts in the Bible can, likewise, be considered to be "extras," and unimportant to the theme.
(Unless, of course, your theme is political history, which Creation88's is not.)
Oh, I've also tried to be careful in these threads to describe the Bible as "not being an inerrant historical document," as opposed to describing it as "a completely wrong historical document," in order to acknowledge that there are some real facts in there. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2003 : 03:25:15 [Permalink]
|
I think of the Bible as an historical document only in that it gives something of an insight into how people lived in the era. Mostly, I think of it as a poem, and a rather beautiful one, albeit a bit bloody in places.
A pity it's gone through so many revisions and so much editing. An accurate translation of the original work would be an interesting read. Even more interesting would be the history of how the original was written by it's various authors and brought together into a single volume.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Phobos
New Member
USA
47 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2003 : 15:51:15 [Permalink]
|
| creation88 - Something to keep in mind. Evolution is not just fins-to-feet (although that is the focus of your arguments). Any small change in the overall gene pool of a species from generation to generation counts as evolution. |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2003 : 15:56:15 [Permalink]
|
Dave W thank you for replying to creation88's reply to my post. I was out for the weekend and busy at the beginning of the week. However it appears he/she has vanished and has no real intention in serious discussion.
It appears that creation88 doesn't realize what the theory of evolution is when presented to him/her in such a fashion and was having a hard time connecting the dots. So instead of seriously thinking about the matter he/she dismissed them in typical creationists fashion, going so far as to reject basic genetics to support his/her worldview.
creation88, if you ever happen to come back and decide to reply, please pick a point and argue as to why it is true or not true. I will add a little now to Dave W's reply.
This in reference to my point 4, that more organisms are produced than can survive.
quote:
point 4. What does that have to do with evidence for evolution? It makes perfect sense, that god would do that. Please explain the point of mentioning that.
Now why would any supreme being create a huge surplus of baby animals, plants, and germs only so they can die? This has to do with evolution because if there was no struggle to survive there would be no selection process and there would be no evolution. This again was one of the founding blocks realized by Darwin.
This in reference to my point 5, dealing with some organisms can out compete its peers based on their characteristics.
quote:
point 5. You are making no sense at all. Again that has NOTHING to do with evolution or creation. If Evolution or creation is true it doesn't matter. That is no evidence for evolution.
Again this is the foundating of what drives evolution. If a feature is advantageous then it will spread over the population and thus the population will evolve. Again this another building block realized by Darwin. This has everything to do with evolution.
quote:
point 6-7. That explains why the color of skin, has changed from the beginning, which was probably black.(cosidering "The Garden of Eden" was probably somwhere in Africa) To white and all the other skin colors in-between.
Actually all of the steps combined explain why human skin color varies over geographical regions. Skin color is advantageous for protecting against UV radiation and also for allowing in UV radiation to synthesize vitamin D. People in northern latitudes where UV radiation is low and who wear clothes/stay inside allot have pale skin because they do not need UV protection, but instead need more UV to prevent vitamen D deficiency. People near the equator need UV protection, but get plenty of sun light so don't have problems with vitamen D.
Your comments to my points 8 & 3 which deal with new genetic mutations:
quote:
point 3. oooook... I don't know if thats true or not, but even if it is, it means absolutly nothing.
If you don't know what genetic mutations are, then why are you hear telling us you UNDERSTAND EVOLUTION? This again is another basic principle of evolution. Why are you lying to us?
quote:
point 10. See point 9.(You are repeating yourself alot)
Actually point 10 deals with an entirely different process than evolution via natural selection called genetic drift. The fact you don't understand these basic principles of evolution leaves me to wonder why you said you did.
quote:
point 12. That point is assuming evolution is true. Because it doesnt apply to any human race, or animals. example: A Poodle can breed with a Doberman Pincher.(though it would be a funny looking dog.lol)
It does apply to animals and it doesn't assume anything. Again this has been observed.
Examples:
Adaptive divergence and the evolution of reproductive isolation in the wild: an empirical demonstration using introduced sockeye salmon.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11838786&dopt=Abstract
Rapid evolution of reproductive isolation in the wild: evidence from introduced salmon.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11039932&dopt=Abstract
Sexual isolation evolves faster than hybrid inviability in a diverse and sexually dimorphic genus of fish (Percidae: Etheostoma).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12683528&dopt=Abstract
Sex chromosome evolution and speciation in Ficedula flycatchers.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12590771&dopt=Abstract
By the way there is no such thing as a human race in biology. Human races are a social construct to classify people. Humans are all of the same species as our dogs. Your examples are true in these cases, but just because you can find 2 examples where gene flow is high and reproductive isolation has not evolved does not mean it does not exist.
quote:
point 13. This point shows more proof for creation than evolution. Your point on demestication, just shows that breeds of for example, dogs. Can only be changed un-naturally.
No domestication shows that organisms can be changed dramatically via a simple process of SELECTION. Whether that process of SELECTION is artificial (as in domestication) or natural (as in the wild) is irrelevant.
quote:
point 14. You stating these as "Empirical Facts" is a joke.
THEN PROVE ME WRONG
I gave references to back up my claims and I gave some more here. Everyone of my 12 points has been observed directly. That makes them empirical facts.
quote:
Your list was a complete failure.
Who says? You???? LOL. You dismissed half the points as to "I don't know what this means so I am not even going to try." You failed to recognized what key points that are the foundation of evolution have to do with evolution.
Let's see you are telling my list of points are a failure without providing one shred of evidence. Someone who:
1. Hasn't studied evolution at all.
2. Can't explain the basic points behind evolution.
3. Can't even identify the basic points behind evolution when they are shown to them.
4. Someone who so badly describes e |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26030 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2003 : 06:22:03 [Permalink]
|
jmcginn wrote:quote:
Dave W thank you for replying to creation88's reply to my post. I was out for the weekend and busy at the beginning of the week.
Oh, no thanks needed or expected. I was actually a little worried about "stealing your thunder," but Creation88's reply to you annoyed me enough that I felt a need to speak. Glad to know I didn't botch things up. 
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9695 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2003 : 01:52:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by jmcginn
quote:
Your list was a complete failure.
Who says? You???? LOL. You dismissed half the points as to "I don't know what this means so I am not even going to try." You failed to recognized what key points that are the foundation of evolution have to do with evolution.
Let's see you are telling my list of points are a failure without providing one shred of evidence. Someone who:
1. Hasn't studied evolution at all.
2. Can't explain the basic points behind evolution.
3. Can't even identify the basic points behind evolution when they are shown to them.
4. Someone who so badly describes evolution (e.g. your board analogy and your line about purely random) that I have to wonder if its intentional lying.
If you are going to convince me that evolution is wrong then you are going to have to do with with evidence. The same way the scientists who convinced me it was right did.
I'm seriously doubting he will do anything but repeat the old fundie mantras. He's been lying from the very beginning about studying science and different religions. His inability to lay puzzle proves that.
"This piece of the puzzle is just blue, it has nothing to do with the picture of the light-house..." not realizing it's a piece of the sky, and thus important to make the puzzle complete.
His inability to "connect the dots" in order create a chain of evidence is symptom of fundamentalistic indoctrination that has limited his ability of free thinking. I recognize it, because I've seen it before.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9695 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2003 : 02:16:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by creation88
point 12. That point is assuming evolution is true. Because it doesnt apply to any human race, or animals. example: A Poodle can breed with a Doberman Pincher.(though it would be a funny looking dog.lol)
Ok, then answer me this: Do you honestly believe that an OLD ENGLISH MASTIFF and a PEKINESE will breed if we leave them om their own? |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2003 : 03:30:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Ok, then answer me this: Do you honestly believe that an OLD ENGLISH MASTIFF and a PEKINESE will breed if we leave them om their own?
Well...If the PEKINESE is a female in estrus, and the MASTIFF is a young male, I think they'll certainly try. If the genders are reversed, I'm afraid the PEKINESE will be something more akin to lunch!
Hey, you asked...
Anyways, Doc, I think you hit the nail on the head with the fundamentalist indoctrination obseravation. I often wonder how so many seemingly intelligent people can buy into the stories. I remember as a kid, we were hammered with the amazing O.T. stories during Sunday School. Me and my buddies thought they were the silliest things we ever heard. I mean, who ever heard of some guy camping out in the stomach of a whale for a few days. Now, I often wonder at how effective that hammering was. Several of those guys are Biblical literalists today. |
"We got an issue in America. Too many good docs are gettin' out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their -- their love with women all across this country." Dubya in Poplar Bluff, Missouri, 9/6/2004
|
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2003 : 07:31:02 [Permalink]
|
Creation88, what's the order of creation in Genesis? Was it plants (1:9), light (1:14), birds and fish (1:20-23), land animals (1:24-25) and finally human males and females (1:26-27), or was it human males (2:7), plants (2:9), animals (2:19), and then human females (2:21-23)?
Cuneiformist, you'll notice that on the first day of creation, God made light and separated it from darkness. What made that light, do you think? I think it was a huge ball of fire way out in the universe far from earth. The earth had to be rotating as evening and morning occurred on earth, thus making it a "day" as we know it. Heat and light had to be present on earth for plant life to grow and survive on the third day. The fourth day, if one is allowed to read between the lines, God took that huge ball of light and created all the other planets, stars, and our own sun and moon. The fifth day He went on creating animal life (fish and birds). He completed His creation with all animals and finally man, then woman. Just because Moses referred to making the animals out of the dust in chapter two after having made Adam, does not mean that He did it in that order, as you presume. Moses made the order clear in the first chapter and thought you would get it. "19And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air;" Note that birds are also mentioned in your so called contradiction and they were made on the fifth day, so, please, try not to think Moses was such an idiot that he would contradict his own writing. God brought the animals and birds to Adam to name what they would be called. Then he made woman (Eve)to be Adams helper and mate. This is not a contradiction at all, just a misunderstanding by the unlearned and presumptious. Ask yourself, "Am I standing to close to the tree? Is that why I can't see the forest?" |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2003 : 08:05:51 [Permalink]
|
Jmcginn, what's the point of quoting empirical data when the suppositions to the reasons that such things occur can be made for both sides of the argument? If the basic presumption of life beginning via chance happenstance can be shown to be virtually impossible by statistical science, and this chance happening is the basic for the theory of evolution, how is it that the explanation of a Creator causing it to happen is not viable? I hear people with your belief say "life happened, therefore, evolution must be true" Huh? That's real scientific isn't it? Evolutionary theory is based on assumptions, assumptions that have yet to be proven in order to make Evolution of the species a "fact". It remains a theory with much opposition because of the lack of proof. I, for one, am very skeptical of believing such controverted "evidence" in the face of a different explanation that is far more believable.
Let me propose a far more viable explanation than the current evolutionary theory just off the cuff: several thousand forms of life existed on earth along with all inanimate stuff. An alien race planted all these life forms on earth and left to see what would become of them. We cannot find their origin as yet, because we haven't developed space travel to distant solar systems. Some of the life forms died off and others thrived....sounds like a pretty good theory to me. Darwin's theory of the evolution of the species was a man's concept of what might have happened. This concept has been shown to be full of holes with the advancement of knowledge, yet many cling to the idea of species evolving from protozoa to man. Pretty far fetched comic book type stuff. Darwin nor anyone else found the missing links that were thought to be out there if his theory is true. There should have been thousands of these "missing links" in the evolutionary chain. We argue about a couple that may or may not be, not thousands. Let's face it; this mythological theory has about run its course. Why not try to find a better theory to drive a stake in and lay claim to, all you Darwinians?
|
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
| Edited by - Doomar on 07/06/2003 08:10:00 |
|
|
|
Maverick
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
385 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2003 : 08:19:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Doomar
quote:
Cuneiformist, you'll notice that on the first day of creation, God made light and separated it from darkness. What made that light, do you think? I think it was a huge ball of fire way out in the universe far from earth. The earth had to be rotating as evening and morning occurred on earth, thus making it a "day" as we know it. Heat and light had to be present on earth for plant life to grow and survive on the third day. The fourth day, if one is allowed to read between the lines, God took that huge ball of light and created all the other planets, stars, and our own sun and moon. The fifth day He went on creating animal life (fish and birds). He completed His creation with all animals and finally man, then woman. Just because Moses referred to making the animals out of the dust in chapter two after having made Adam, does not mean that He did it in that order, as you presume. Moses made the order clear in the first chapter and thought you would get it. "19And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air;" Note that birds are also mentioned in your so called contradiction and they were made on the fifth day, so, please, try not to think Moses was such an idiot that he would contradict his own writing. God brought the animals and birds to Adam to name what they would be called. Then he made woman (Eve)to be Adams helper and mate. This is not a contradiction at all, just a misunderstanding by the unlearned and presumptious.
What makes our solar system more special than all the other systems we can observe being in the process of coming about? Why did only our planets form instantaneously, and what supports this idea?
quote:
Ask yourself, "Am I standing to close to the tree? Is that why I can't see the forest?"
If someone stands too close to a Bible in the forest, and no one is there to see or hear it happen, will he then believe the Bible? |
"Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy." -- Carl Sagan |
|
|
|
Darwin Storm
Skeptic Friend
87 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2003 : 11:31:38 [Permalink]
|
Doomar, do you know how ridiculous the christian creation story is? Take light for example, even if the stars were made on the first day, the vast majority of stars we see in the sky wouldn't be there! Why? Because even at the speed of light, distances in space are HUGE! We can see galaxies that lie BILLIONS of years out from out little planet. I really don't know why people wish to take a story written thousands of years ago by people who had little or no understanding of physics or the universe, and accept it as truth, especially when almost every scientific line of inquery directly contradicts those tales. Reality is the ultimate sounding board, if there is a conflict between the bible and the universe, we can be mostly certain that its not the universe that is wrong.
As for evolution, not only does it explain the evidence we have found, it helped predict a whole host of things because the theory was sound. Modern genetics and the discovery of DNA, are all thanks to evolution. Also, why does every creationist love the word random. Please, go take a science class. May I suggest biochemistry. You will quickly find out that chemical quite naturally tend towards certain configurations. It isn't random. Natural selection isn't random either, the pressures on species populations is directly linked to the enviroment in which they live. That is hardly random.
Your rejection of evolution as a theory is very amusing. Science, unlike religion, doesn't claim "truth". It deals with facts, and theories, which must be supported by facts. Evolution has a large body of information supporting it. We understand the mechanics by which it works. Heck , science know far more about why and how evolution works than we do about gravity. We all experience the effects of gravity, but exactly what causes gravity and how remains a mystery. Einstien showed that mass curves space, but why? What causes mass? There is a host of questions about gravity, but no one questions that gravity exists. OF course, it doesn't conflict with an antiqueted set of myths that people dogmantically hold as truth. Evolution, on the other had, is well understood.
As for your test, which is amusing, there are a few points you didn't consider. It is entirely possible that earth was seeded with life. Unlikely from what we know, but would be far more likely than some creation myth. Secondly, even if earth was seeded with some lifeforms, the process of evolution would still occur. It would be neccessary for their expriment to work.
Yes, Darwin's theories were created by a man, just like the bible stories were created and written my men (and perhaps women.) The difference is that Darwin's theories were based on observable fact, and others were also able to conduct expirements and observe phenomena that supported Darwin's theories. If evolution didn't satisfy the evidence, from both before it was formulated, and after, it would have been cast off. Meanwhile, religious dogma that obviously contradicts reality is clung too by zealots who prefer to hide in a book written in a time were creative lies called myths were the only way to attempt to explain the universe around them. I would much rather take the path that deals with reality. If you want ideas that don't make sense, read the bible literally. It always amused me. I readily agree with but a single sentiment, mythology has run its course. Accept the fact that the bible is not the literal truth, but merely a collection of stories that a few ancient tribes of people codified as their religion, and that gullible for thousands of years since have lapped up in an poor effort to give meaning to their lives when they couldn't do it themselves.
(By the way, missing links are a misnomer. Evolution is a continous process, not one of gaps. Additionally, fossils are actually quite rare. The fact that we have as many as we do is evendence that life has existed over vast lengths of time, in different forms, and by comparing the fossils and dating them, we can estabilish some sort of timeline and paths of evolution. ) |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2003 : 15:49:54 [Permalink]
|
[quote]Originally posted by Darwin Storm
[br]Doomar, do you know how ridiculous the christian creation story is? Take light for example, even if the stars were made on the first day, the vast majority of stars we see in the sky wouldn't be there! Why? Because even at the speed of light, distances in space are HUGE!
Darwin, how can you use the laws of science as we know them to disprove creation? The act of creation by an omnipotent and benevolent creator means that forces beyond the ability of man to understand were involved,forces that made matter where none existed, forces that moved and formed planets and stars and placed them in order, forces that made life where none existed. Such forces are beyond our ability to even comprehend. Don't you think an all powerful God is able to place light that He creates where He wants it when He wants it? Is the creator of the laws, limited by them? Look at some of the miracles that Jesus did. He gave a man who was born blind sight. Was this a known and understood scientific power? No, it was the power of the creator. Miracles imply that power beyond the laws of nature has been used. When the paralytic man stood and walked, was it explainable. No, it was a miracle, the power of the creator at work, power to make whole. I can't deny the reality of this power like you can, because I have been healed miraculously and know others who have experience this power also, like a girl friend whose spine was straightened in a moment after prayer and faith in Christ. There are just too many phenomenom like this with no explanation within the realm of science. Jesus taught and proved that "with God, all things are possible."
Accept the fact that the bible is not the literal truth, but merely a collection of stories that a few ancient tribes of people codified as their religion, and that gullible for thousands of years since have lapped up in an poor effort to give meaning to their lives when they couldn't do it themselves.
If things that happened in the Bible didn't ever happen today, I'd have to agree with you. If sin was not so prevalent and man was indeed becoming more and more evolved toward good, then the premises of the Bible would be irrelevant. However, all the sins mentioned in Scripture are seen around us every day. The guilt and shame and harm from these sins goes on, except in those who find God's mercy by faith. Eternal judgment and eternal life or punishment may be irrelevant to you, but to many, it is not. If Jesus hadn't risen from the dead, but just died like the rest of us then you might have a point. If He hadn't revealed Himself to be alive to me, I wouldn't care either.
(By the way, missing links are a misnomer.
I see, then Darwins theory is evolving, too. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Maverick
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
385 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2003 : 16:12:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Doomar
quote:
Darwin, how can you use the laws of science as we know them to disprove creation? The act of creation by an omnipotent and benevolent creator means that forces beyond the ability of man to understand were involved,forces that made matter where none existed, forces that moved and formed planets and stars and placed them in order, forces that made life where none existed.
How do you know there is a god? You claim there is a god and that this god created the universe including our solar system and us, correct? What makes you believe this? There has to be some evidence, otherwise I can come up with another creation myth, too (as if there were not enough of those already).
quote:
Such forces are beyond our ability to even comprehend. Don't you think an all powerful God is able to place light that He creates where He wants it when He wants it? Is the creator of the laws, limited by them?
What suggests that your god did all these things? I mean you do have something to back it up with, right?
quote:
Look at some of the miracles that Jesus did. He gave a man who was born blind sight. Was this a known and understood scientific power? No, it was the power of the creator. Miracles imply that power beyond the laws of nature has been used. When the paralytic man stood and walked, was it explainable. No, it was a miracle, the power of the creator at work, power to make whole.
It seems to me that this omnipotent god couldn't make us more perfect, so that he wouldn't have to materialize himself as a human being that walked around and performed tricks on a few people. Why not heal them all? And why would I believe these stories written in the bible?
quote:
I can't deny the reality of this power like you can, because I have been healed miraculously and know others who have experience this power also, like a girl friend whose spine was straightened in a moment after prayer and faith in Christ. There are just too many phenomenom like this with no explanation within the realm of science. Jesus taught and proved that "with God, all things are possible."
Could this healer of yours perform his miracles on actually sick people, more than once, repeating it many times, in an environment set up by skeptics? And if so, why doesn't he work at a hospital? If he indeed have that power, he could easily convince others and get a job anywhere.
"Men think epilepsy divine, merely because they do not understand it. But if they called everything divine which they do not understand, why, there would be no end of divine things." --Hippocrates |
"Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy." -- Carl Sagan |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26030 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2003 : 21:10:34 [Permalink]
|
Doomar wrote:quote:
...if one is allowed to read between the lines...
If one considers oneself to be a Biblical Literalist, one isn't allowed to read between the lines. If one doesn't consider oneself to be a Literalist, then the fact that Genesis 1 differs from Genesis 2 doesn't matter. Take your pick, but you can't have it both ways.quote:
...If the basic presumption of life beginning via chance happenstance can be shown to be virtually impossible by statistical science, and this chance happening is the basic for the theory of evolution...
This is NOT NOT NOT the basic premise of evolution, which has nothing to do with the origin of life. It doesn't even have anything to do with abiogenesis. All this question of yours does is show your basic ignorance of things that you argue against. If you don't understand evolution, how in heck do you think you can criticize it properly? Isn't that your basic point against those here who are criticizing the Bible? Hypocrisy! And you continue the hypocrisy with ignorant comments about "missing links" and how evolution has been shown to be "full of holes." If it has, then show it - for real evolution, not your "comic book" version of it which is nothing but a pathetic, 100-year-old strawman.quote:
...Look at some of the miracles that Jesus did...
Perhaps you can document these supposed 'miracles' with something other than the Bible? How do you know they even happened?quote:
...There are just too many phenomenom like this with no explanation within the realm of science...
Now you're demonstrating your ignorance of science: just because some particular phenomenon is not explainable now doesn't mean that it will remain unexplainable forever.quote:
...If sin was not so prevalent and man was indeed becoming more and more evolved toward good, then the premises of the Bible would be irrelevant...
Why do you think that man should be "more evolved toward good"? Obviously, since all the problems you list are still around, even amongst people who call themselves Christians (look at Creation88's lies, and your own hypocrisy, for examples), both Christianity and the Bible are utter failures at getting people to "evolve toward good."quote:
I see, then Darwins theory is evolving, too.
Like all good scientific theories, it is changing in small ways with the accumulation of new data. Why do you think it should be set in stone? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
