Civilization V, Afterlife, Reincarnation, Time Travel, Akashic Records, God etc.

[kaybeebiscuits]

Edit: Due to recent upheavals, this thread has evolved from its originally intended purpose into an all-out war between Science and Religion! (See Ibid.)

Religion VS Science
http://shahrahul.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/546252526_3811e94968_b.jpg

So what will it be? Will religion trump science? Or will science make a moon-walk out of religion?

The Avatar of Religion
http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/0/7666/786794-godysseypages4and5_super.jpg

VS

The Horseman of Science
http://rune.galactic.to/bilde2.jpg

Remember to read both sides of the argument (Evolution and Scripture) before participating!
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_hWAVXHNngbk/SxGkmayydNI/AAAAAAAAFoY/ZQGV-nzW7uA/s1600/darwin_phototennis.jpg

Next up: Science or Religion? Which came first?
http://failuretointegrate.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/svsr.jpg
YOU DECIDE!

Former thread (no longer the topic of interest):

Civilization V, Afterlife, Reincarnation, Time Travel, Akashic Records, God etc.

Well, there are many things I like about Civilization V:

1) Immortality: Unlike in real life, where you die after anywhere from 70-90 cycles around the sun, Civilization V allows the living incarnate of whatever leaders you have picked to live on for thousands and thousands of years, witnessing the entire progression and stretch of a civilization from dawn to dusk.

2) Reincarnation: Regret being stuck in an immortal body for thousands of years only to see your civilization get wiped out into the casket of oblivion? No problem, just reincarnate! Pick a new location, and a new vassal to reincarnate in, and repeat the cycle once more, this time taking note of what not to repeat in your past history.

3) Time Travel: "Time" in Civilization V is malleable as we know it. There is no destiny or predestination. Committed a terrible atrocity and wish you could turn back time? Sure! Just load back and regress into the past! Wish you hadn't loaded back just to commit a worse treachery? Sure, just load forward and move into the future. Weary of watching your civilization stagnate? No problem, as long as you have a file containing the future of the civilization, you can move forward in time and lo and behold! Your civilization finally blossoms in a thousand years' time!

4) The Afterlife: As we know, death is not the end of all things in Civilization V. If you die, you become a spirit and get a chance to enter the afterlife, a plane of pure informational content and exchange: this forum. In here, you review what you have done in your past lives, and share it with other souls that have traversed this plane. Of course, this plane even has Elders or Ascended Masters such as slowtarget or Onandoga to guide us into a higher path.

5) God: There is a god in Civilization V, but he simply refuses to show himself. Like a watchmaker who simply creates a watch and leaves it to drift afloat in space for eternity, he leaves little trace of his existence, except by passing indirect messages through higher "ascended" spirits such as 2Kgreg or 2Kelizabeth, which are passed on to other lesser souls like us. This god, we refer casually as "Sid Meier" does exist, and we know from these sources that he is the one who created everything - the one! The all! The Civilization universe! The afterlife! And for that, we must be thankful to him!

6) Akashic Records: Need information on how to successfully excel at life (a game of Civilization V)? No problem. Just go to the Akashic Records (the 2K Games Archive) and the secrets of the universe; any information, will be known to us when we enter this plane. The "Old ones", enlightened spirits that have reincarnated many times across games and having mastered them successfully, have left traces of their strategies to triumphantly waltz across all hurdles.

7) Demons: Demonic spirits, or very low semi-intelligent yet sentient life-forms (otherwise known as "Trolls") arise to the Afterlife plane (this forum) to disrupt activity by other gracious souls. Fortunately, there are powerful beings (moderators) that filter out these souls and force them to reincarnate or be thrown into the fiery chasms from whence they came.

8) Other Universes: It was informed that Sid Meier was just one out of many essences that created this particular universe. There are others like him who has created countless other worlds across the 2K universe. Then there are also other universes like Steam, EA games and Valve or whatever, that have their own pocket universes. Bored of Civilization V or 2K games? No problem! Just reincarnate in another universe!

9) A Chance to Join the Creator: A few privileged ones among us, who have obtained sufficient skills through our mastery of creativity and expertize at gaming (through computer science degrees etc.) can join the creators themselves by becoming a part of creation. For instance, a highly evolved soul (with a Ph.D in computer science) can join the 2K gods, and rise to godhood like Sid Meier himself, and become a fragment that creates new universes (games). We can also choose to join other universes (like Steam or those SIM games) and engage in the process of creating new worlds (games).

10) Nirvana/Samadhi/or whatever you call it: The highest state of existence where reincarnation is no longer necessary. One has reincarnated across games so many times that he/she has mastered everything. Souls who reach this state are the Enlightened ones, who no longer play video games, and are forever etherealized to ascend to higher planes of existence. We hear that such planes include things like "Family", "Career", "Post-grad education", "Retirement" and so forth. Only the most evolved souls can break this cycle of reincarnation to move on to such heights, however, most of us will be incarcerated in this cycle perpetually.

11) Demon Realms: Just like there is a post-etheric realm of pure paradise, there is also a hell realm, where many players continuously reincarnate in "lower forms" and become forever entrapped in a cycle of materialistic craving and a desperate power struggle with many conflictual elements like in MMOGs like Warcraft World (what is it spelled?). These souls who crave everything and fail to develop their spirituality are destined to stay in these lower planes forever in a phenomenon that we refer to as "Severe Video Gaming Addiction".

12) Karma: Think you can simply just exit your current incarnation by ending your life by suicide? (i.e. Ragequit from a game just because you are losing) Think again! The law of Karma dictates that you will probably have to reincarnate again to face all the challenges that you have flunk in your last game! Think that you can simply play a game only once and attain mastery of it? Think again! You will have to reincarnate many times across various incarnations to master the game up till a certain level before you are freed from the cycle. Thrashed an enemy player on multiplayer and think you can get away with it? No! The law of averages (Karma) states that as you tend towards infinity, you will most probably lose as much as you have won!

In conclusion: Civilization V has given us 7-12 things that real life may not have. Imagine if life ends when the brain dies. No afterlife, no reincarnation, no god. That seems to be the case for an increasingly secularized world. However, in Civilization V, we are free to feel that all these do exist! And live forever and enjoy the fruits of immortality we shall!

[Kan]

It's both frightening and fascinating that you would actually go through the trouble to write all that.

[tfordp]

Hey Kan, if you think that's long, maybe you should try it with a book one day. They're reeeeeeeallly long.

[Onandoga]

Of course, this plane even has Elders or Ascended Masters such as slowtarget or Onandoga to guide us into a higher path.


And with this i now realize i need a life... :D (or maybe need to 'pass on more wisdom' since all my strats are before alot of patches.)

[Strudo76]

Hey Kan, if you think that's long, maybe you should try it with a book one day. They're reeeeeeeallly long.

A book? Hey I've heard of those :D

[kaybeebiscuits]

Even though Civilization V has provided us with a cosmological utopia that reality may never mimick, we must also be aware of the security system installed within Civ V that prevents players from abusing such vitality and freedom that could lead to our demise: the Universal Law of Karma. Now let me illustrate:

A 73 year old crank (that happens to be me!) decides to hybridize his potentially lethal and malicious Trollish tendencies with his serious and complex personality, by posting threads of a high level of egocentrism that most readers will find themselves evaluating it as bizarre, yet in all its aberration lies an internal logic of complexity that only some players understand the severity of the message implied. This old man will not get away with it! What has been typed into the forum (the Akashic Records) gets stored here forever, and the old man has face the repercussions of consequently being labelled as a "Poster who sometimes Trolls, sometimes posts serious and constructive threads, and who sometimes blends his 'Trollism' with a serious repose". The universal law of Karma punishes this old geezer for allowing his Trollish and bestial nature to run rampant, but rewards him in exact proportion for the numerous constructive posts that he has created in this vast archive of knowledge. One has heard of the duality of good and evil manifesting simultaneously within a person with exact degree, but mine is one of a duality of constructivism, humor and Trollism.

Whether you all like it or not, the law of Karma is in action on the forum: the Trollish shall be punitively treated in one way or another! Either through condemnation through the fiery pits of Mordor from whence we came, or outright disapprobation from others! Yet even with a tiny dose of constructivism, can one still manage to redeem himself from the clutches of insanity (senility for me), and avoid being bulldozed by the Arch-angels (AKA moderators), or enlightened spirits with hundreds of incarnations across many games.

My spirit contains equal magnitudes of an élan of progressive constructivism, and also the cur of being unable to control my transformation into a Troll at times, and for that, relating to my original post, I am simply referred to as a Demonic Angel. Neutral? Not quite, but contradictory yet in equilibrium; yes quite a lot.

Good souls such as tfordp and Strudo76 have constructed positive karma with their continuous refinement through active participation, in a constructive manner, and as such, they have been awarded karmically with an aura of credibility and consistency, unlike my aura, which comprises contradiction within an Yin-yang dualism that is tearing itself asunder.

[tfordp]

...

Good souls such as tfordp and Strudo76 have constructed positive karma with their continuous refinement through active participation, in a constructive manner, and as such, they have been awarded karmically with an aura of credibility and consistency, unlike my aura, which comprises contradiction within an Yin-yang dualism that is tearing itself asunder.

Nah, sorry mate, you're confusing me with somebody else :)

[kaybeebiscuits]

Nah, sorry mate, your confusing me with somebody else :)

lol wrong guy ;)

[eastkitton]

Millennia after the ecocollapse the Akashic Records are dug up, and learned scholars heatedly debate whether kaybeebiscuits actually existed. The prevailing hypothesis is that he was an amalgum of many people, all of whom were consumed by the Axis of Fire.

[inseeisyou]

Hey Kan, if you think that's long, maybe you should try it with a book one day. They're reeeeeeeallly long.

Definitely the witty repartee winner of the day. +1 interwebs for you my friend.

[kaybeebiscuits]

Millennia after the ecocollapse the Akashic Records are dug up, and learned scholars heatedly debate whether kaybeebiscuits actually existed. The prevailing hypothesis is that he was an amalgum of many people, all of whom were consumed by the Axis of Fire.

To answer your question, kaybeebiscuits does exist and he was in fact a conglomeration of different beings linked telepathically across a vast differentia of consciousness across the galaxy. The moniker of 'kaybeebiscuits' first came into being when one of our dearest representatives discovered a space debris (Voyager II) containing discs demonstrating some elements of earthly culture, of which, the first one viewed contained a kaybeebiscuit advertisement. It was subsequently adopted for use due to its practicality and significance as the first means of contact by humanity to the galactic federation.

Ever since that fateful day, 14 different representatives from 14 planetary civilizations have liaised to form the collective entity known as 'kaybeebiscuits', with the sole intent of uncovering the earthly behaviors of human beings. This is a document containing the individual portfolios and pictures of the 14 beings that have contributed to this magnificent medley of what humans call 'extra-terrestrial' beings:

http://www.conceptart.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1334612&stc=1&d=1317621883

However, due to various destabilizations involving the Civilization V universe's lack of stability, as illustrated by its rampant quantum tunneling effects that would cause black holes to continuously rupture and destroy the known universe [other wise known as 'crashes'], the group had to temporarily disband and discontinue the project until the universe proved stable enough once more for habitation. The relic that you have found is a piece of the Akashic Records in one of the numerous cosmos that were destroyed in the various unstable phase transitions [crashes] on parallel earths. When dug up, it finally triggered our collective consciousness and caused the 14 of us to coalesce once more to establish ties with earthlings.

We also have to agree with you that we were literally 'consumed by the Axis of Fire'. Numerous probing done in the previously unstable Civilization V universe has destroyed many of our advanced craft through innumerable 'Big Crunches' caused by the quantum destabilization process. Fortunately for us, we were saved from this inferno because we were telepathically remote controlling our vessels from our alternate universe or dimension.

[stethnorun]

This post basically describes most gaming.

[Hawk]

In conclusion: Civilization V has given us 7-12 things that real life may not have. Imagine if life ends when the brain dies. No afterlife, no reincarnation, no god. That seems to be the case for an increasingly secularized world. However, in Civilization V, we are free to feel that all these do exist! And live forever and enjoy the fruits of immortality we shall!

Just to point out...if life ends when the brain dies that does mean that there is no afterlife and no reincarnation, but that doesn't mean there is no God. If the Bible is actually the word of God then God himself tells us "For the living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all, neither do they have wages, because the remembrance of them has been forgotten. Also, their love and their hate and their jealousy have already perished, and they have no portion anymore to time indefinite in anything that has to be done under the sun." Ecclesiastes 9:5, 6.

[Strudo76]

Just to point out...if life ends when the brain dies that does mean that there is no afterlife and no reincarnation, but that doesn't mean there is no God. If the Bible is actually the word of God then God himself tells us "For the living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all, neither do they have wages, because the remembrance of them has been forgotten. Also, their love and their hate and their jealousy have already perished, and they have no portion anymore to time indefinite in anything that has to be done under the sun." Ecclesiastes 9:5, 6.

No wages? Bummer!

[Hawk]

No wages? Bummer!

Just think of all the super rich people...everyone's equal after death. And it also makes you think about ancient Egyptian religion, and how they packed lots of stuff into the tombs for the dead so they'd be rich in the afterlife.

[mwallyn]

Just think of all the super rich people...everyone's equal after death. And it also makes you think about ancient Egyptian religion, and how they packed lots of stuff into the tombs for the dead so they'd be rich in the afterlife.

...only for them to be looted and/or put on display in museums, leaving them no better than the rest of the dead. ;)

[Hawk]

...only for them to be looted and/or put on display in museums, leaving them no better than the rest of the dead. ;)

But at least it preserved some historical relics! :)

[Shiggs713]

one...more....... acid drop

[kaybeebiscuits]

Just to point out...if life ends when the brain dies that does mean that there is no afterlife and no reincarnation, but that doesn't mean there is no God. If the Bible is actually the word of God then God himself tells us "For the living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all, neither do they have wages, because the remembrance of them has been forgotten. Also, their love and their hate and their jealousy have already perished, and they have no portion anymore to time indefinite in anything that has to be done under the sun." Ecclesiastes 9:5, 6.

Actually, I have known for quite some time now of the existence of some of the things mentioned on the first post (in real life, not Civ 5 lol). Because of the secular nature of culture nowadays, I don't mention such things unless it is put in the form of a joke. However, you could find numerous evidences on these, credible, well-researched, valid and reliable ones if you know where and how to find them. The scientific evidences on the so-called 'afterlife' have existed for more than 20 years now, but only a minority know of it for reasons which I do not know in spite of the overwhelming evidence. I would say that perhaps give it 30 to 40 years, and we will find this in our mainstream curriculum. Maybe it's just because of the combined effects of the sectarian monopoly of proclaiming to know esoteric knowledge about such things by certain religious groups, and the denial of such things by mainstream scientists that makes it difficult for the truth to be disseminated freely.

From what I know, there is no evidence for the existence of an absolute patriarchal and anthropomorphic god, and there is a hesitance to use the word 'god' due to the various connotations attached to it. There is however, in my imperfect understanding, some form of an immanent and transcendent (yes both) kind of a conscious field that is 'infinitely expanding through finite means'. I cannot describe it in words. Notice that I used the word 'absolute', because of the very malleability of this conscious field. What is imagined can be in a sense become real to the perceiver, but I shall not go further into this as it is better for you all to find out and judge the evidence and facts yourselves gradually.

[stethnorun]

Actually, I have known for quite some time now of the existence of some of the things mentioned on the first post (in real life, not Civ 5 lol). Because of the secular nature of culture nowadays, I don't mention such things unless it is put in the form of a joke. However, you could find numerous evidences on these, credible, well-researched, valid and reliable ones if you know where and how to find them. The scientific evidences on the so-called 'afterlife' have existed for more than 20 years now, but only a minority know of it for reasons which I do not know in spite of the overwhelming evidence. I would say that perhaps give it 30 to 40 years, and we will find this in our mainstream curriculum. Maybe it's just because of the combined effects of the sectarian monopoly of proclaiming to know esoteric knowledge about such things by certain religious groups, and the denial of such things by mainstream scientists that makes it difficult for the truth to be disseminated freely.

From what I know, there is no evidence for the existence of an absolute patriarchal and anthropomorphic god, and there is a hesitance to use the word 'god' due to the various connotations attached to it. There is however, in my imperfect understanding, some form of an immanent and transcendent (yes both) kind of a conscious field that is 'infinitely expanding through finite means'. I cannot describe it in words. Notice that I used the word 'absolute', because of the very malleability of this conscious field. What is imagined can be in a sense become real to the perceiver, but I shall not go further into this as it is better for you all to find out and judge the evidence and facts yourselves gradually.

So you know there is evidence of an afterlife, but you don't know what it is or how to find it? Convincing.

[kaybeebiscuits]

So you know there is evidence of an afterlife, but you don't know what it is or how to find it? Convincing.

I have been there myself once. This is a rough map and guide to the architecture of the afterlife. There is a definite price to pay if you wish to visit the afterlife. For once, you need 2 dragmas to pay Charon for a trip there and back.

Now for the moment that you have been waiting for; lo and behold! The afterlife!

http://www.bookteacher.org/Inferno.gif

[Strudo76]

I have been there myself once. This is a rough map and guide to the architecture of the afterlife. There is a definite price to pay if you wish to visit the afterlife. For once, you need 2 dragmas to pay Charon for a trip there and back.

Now for the moment that you have been waiting for; lo and behold! The afterlife!

Is that to scale? Smaller than I expected...

[tfordp]

Didn't the Dragmas get replaced by Euros some years ago? Cheaper than I expected...

[eastkitton]

I have been there myself once. This is a rough map...


Hmm. You've been playing Diablo a lot recently?

[stethnorun]

I call Poe's law on kaybee. He's screwing with us.

[Hawk]

Actually, I have known for quite some time now of the existence of some of the things mentioned on the first post (in real life, not Civ 5 lol). Because of the secular nature of culture nowadays, I don't mention such things unless it is put in the form of a joke. However, you could find numerous evidences on these, credible, well-researched, valid and reliable ones if you know where and how to find them. The scientific evidences on the so-called 'afterlife' have existed for more than 20 years now, but only a minority know of it for reasons which I do not know in spite of the overwhelming evidence. I would say that perhaps give it 30 to 40 years, and we will find this in our mainstream curriculum. Maybe it's just because of the combined effects of the sectarian monopoly of proclaiming to know esoteric knowledge about such things by certain religious groups, and the denial of such things by mainstream scientists that makes it difficult for the truth to be disseminated freely.

From what I know, there is no evidence for the existence of an absolute patriarchal and anthropomorphic god, and there is a hesitance to use the word 'god' due to the various connotations attached to it. There is however, in my imperfect understanding, some form of an immanent and transcendent (yes both) kind of a conscious field that is 'infinitely expanding through finite means'. I cannot describe it in words. Notice that I used the word 'absolute', because of the very malleability of this conscious field. What is imagined can be in a sense become real to the perceiver, but I shall not go further into this as it is better for you all to find out and judge the evidence and facts yourselves gradually.

I have been there myself once. This is a rough map and guide to the architecture of the afterlife. There is a definite price to pay if you wish to visit the afterlife. For once, you need 2 dragmas to pay Charon for a trip there and back.

On the assumption that you are being serious (and I'm not going to say that you didn't go into the afterlife because we are all free to believe what we want to, and we all have reasons for our individual beliefs), your word on that is by no means evidence. You see you could not use that in a court of law to prove that there is an afterlife.
What evidence were you referring to?

Also, you said that there's no evidence of a God, yet many people would argue that there is evidence of a God in nature, since so much of nature is well...intelligently designed. Or, just look at the human body, and how we can see in colour, and have such a wide range of taste bugs, and an incredibly complex brain that allows us to feel deep emotion, which even props some to travel overseas into 3rd Word counties, and risk their lives daily, just to save animals that we neither eat nor are eaten by (I'm thinking of Gorillas, which are not connected to our food chain, and so their extinction would not hinder us as a species). Such strange behaviour for survival of the fittest!
- Not trying to pick on anyone's beliefs, only showing that belief in a Creator is reasonable. (I was picked on at school quite badly for believing in God, even though I've always been very tolerant and respectful of the beliefs of others, so I always feel the need to stick up for those who believe in a God)

Now, by pointing out what it says in Ecclesiastes 9:5, 6 doesn't mean I'm telling people what to believe in, but just showing what the Bible says on the subject.

[stethnorun]

Also, you said that there's no evidence of a God, yet many people would argue that there is evidence of a God in nature, since so much of nature is well...intelligently designed.

Many people with no understanding of natural selection. A better way of phrasing that is "people would argue that there is evidence of a god in nature since so much of nature SEEMS intelligently designed". "Is intelligently designed" implies it's a fact. It only "seems" like someone designed creatures, if you have never been taught evolution.

[kaybeebiscuits]

On the assumption that you are being serious (and I'm not going to say that you didn't go into the afterlife because we are all free to believe what we want to, and we all have reasons for our individual beliefs), your word on that is by no means evidence. You see you could not use that in a court of law to prove that there is an afterlife.
What evidence were you referring to?

Also, you said that there's no evidence of a God, yet many people would argue that there is evidence of a God in nature, since so much of nature is well...intelligently designed. Or, just look at the human body, and how we can see in colour, and have such a wide range of taste bugs, and an incredibly complex brain that allows us to feel deep emotion, which even props some to travel overseas into 3rd Word counties, and risk their lives daily, just to save animals that we neither eat nor are eaten by (I'm thinking of Gorillas, which are not connected to our food chain, and so their extinction would not hinder us as a species). Such strange behaviour for survival of the fittest!
- Not trying to pick on anyone's beliefs, only showing that belief in a Creator is reasonable. (I was picked on at school quite badly for believing in God, even though I've always been very tolerant and respectful of the beliefs of others, so I always feel the need to stick up for those who believe in a God)

Now, by pointing out what it says in Ecclesiastes 9:5, 6 doesn't mean I'm telling people what to believe in, but just showing what the Bible says on the subject.

To be serious, this is my response:

Well there are some things which I don't feel like bringing out here, and the debate about whether a god exists is not part of my intention either (and I do not have much enthusiasm over it). In addition, there are also things which I wish I could explain, but are in a sense ineffable; and it is also partially because of how bizarre it is that I do not wish to bring it up beyond a certain point.

I myself have had a near-death experience before (the actual 'light' and tunnel phenomenon of timeless existence whereby every content in the universe became known), and was left with an ineluctable trace and deep understanding of what is really going on. It was true that this thread was posted for the purposes of humor (by using Civ 5 as a target of this joke), but the unintended truth was that it was partially based on what I saw in my NDE, and therefore held some idiosyncrasies that encroached the boundaries of creationism (completely unintended). Surely enough, if you want 'evidence' for any of such claims, there can be no such objective information because it was derived from personal experience. I have been reluctant to share the entire scope of my NDE with anyone else other than my close ones due to potential issues such as being accused of having 'cultish' fantasies (and I shall not probe further about how I survived without brain damage after close to 5 minutes of oxygen deprivation during my NDE). However, I am not willing to be labelled as a crank and a target of argument when it comes to such topics either, largely because I hold true to my own personal conviction that what I had experienced was real and that nothing else could convince me otherwise that it was not. Moreover, I do not intend for anyone to believe what I had experienced, and have no motivation to be a story-teller to spread this around much either (so don't PM me about this please). However, here is a piece of advice for most people: "Unless you have had a NDE yourself, please do not even try to bother to disprove the validity of out-of-body experiences, you will only get a one-sided argument of which you have missed out most of the whole".

And to stethnorun, while the existence of a 'god' and the 'afterlife' may not be mutually exclusive, I do not know why you are suspecting me of trying to spread some 'gospels' on creationism (oh trust me, I have been an atheist all my life, even after my NDE, because it was revealed to me that the definition of 'god' is just too narrow to encapsulate the totality of my experience; most people's ideal of 'god' is directed in the wrong direction as well, but I am not saying that it doesn't exist, neither am I saying that it does). I am neutral regarding this, and therefore decline to take either sides with creationists or anti-creationists. If it helps, perhaps you are right on Poe's law, and if it helps to clarify: I am just making a parody out of this, not siding with either creationist stance. You all can debate about whatever you guys have brought up, but I am staying on neutral grounds.

P.S: Just to add a comment: because I am not an American, I often find it amusing at how intense the 'war' between science and religion can be over there. I really have not seen a country that has taken this debate so seriously (in most cases, only 1 side predominates over the other, or the question just isn't debated at all).

[Hawk]

Many people with no understanding of natural selection. A better way of phrasing that is "people would argue that there is evidence of a god in nature since so much of nature SEEMS intelligently designed". "Is intelligently designed" implies it's a fact. It only "seems" like someone designed creatures, if you have never been taught evolution.

In my country everyone is taught evolution whether they like it or not, and from an early age too (as in as soon as they go to school), but you are only taught about God if your parents make the effort themselves. Even TV teaches evolution only. You can hardly watch a documentary without evolution at least being mentioned, but never God...In other words most of us are only taught one side of the story. Can you guess which side they will choose?

Even a single living cell is so incredibly complex it seems impossible for just one cell to develop without any help of a creator. A cell developing by itself is like mixing all the jelly beans (all colours) in a massive pile of thousands of jelly beans (most being odd shaped in this example), putting a blindfold on a trying to get exactly twenty yellow ones of perfect shape, along with 20 red ones of odd shape, with one scoop of a shovel. There is so much to a simple cell...It needs the perfect selection of proteins to develop, and the exact number as well, and this is just one aspect of a cell!
Don't get me wrong, I can understand why many go for evolution, but what I'm trying to say is don't view those who believe in God as dump or misled. In fact many who do have to fight for it, while it would be socially easier just to cave in to believing in evolution (I can't speak for every country, but that's what it's like here).

[Hawk]

To be serious, this is my response:

Well there are some things which I don't feel like bringing out here, and the debate about whether a god exists is not part of my intention either (and I do not have much enthusiasm over it). In addition, there are also things which I wish I could explain, but are in a sense ineffable; and it is also partially because of how bizarre it is that I do not wish to bring it up beyond a certain point.

I myself have had a near-death experience before (the actual 'light' and tunnel phenomenon of timeless existence whereby every content in the universe became known), and was left with an ineluctable trace and deep understanding of what is really going on. It was true that this thread was posted for the purposes of humor (by using Civ 5 as a target of this joke), but the unintended truth was that it was partially based on what I saw in my NDE, and therefore held some idiosyncrasies that encroached the boundaries of creationism (completely unintended). Surely enough, if you want 'evidence' for any of such claims, there can be no such objective information because it was derived from personal experience. I have been reluctant to share the entire scope of my NDE with anyone else other than my close ones due to potential issues such as being accused of having 'cultish' fantasies (and I shall not probe further about how I survived without brain damage after close to 5 minutes of oxygen deprivation during my NDE). However, I am not willing to be labelled as a crank and a target of argument when it comes to such topics either, largely because I hold true to my own personal conviction that what I had experienced was real and that nothing else could convince me otherwise that it was not. Moreover, I do not intend for anyone to believe what I had experienced, and have no motivation to be a story-teller to spread this around much either (so don't PM me about this please). However, here is a piece of advice for most people: "Unless you have had a NDE yourself, please do not even try to bother to disprove the validity of out-of-body experiences, you will only get a one-sided argument of which you have missed out most of the whole".

And to stethnorun, while the existence of a 'god' and the 'afterlife' may not be mutually exclusive, I do not know why you are suspecting me of trying to spread some 'gospels' on creationism (oh trust me, I have been an atheist all my life, even after my NDE, because it was revealed to me that the definition of 'god' is just too narrow to encapsulate the totality of my experience; most people's ideal of 'god' is directed in the wrong direction as well, but I am not saying that it doesn't exist, neither am I saying that it does). I am neutral regarding this, and therefore decline to take either sides with creationists or anti-creationists. If it helps, perhaps you are right on Poe's law, and if it helps to clarify: I am just making a parody out of this, not siding with either creationist stance. You all can debate about whatever you guys have brought up, but I am staying on neutral grounds.

P.S: Just to add a comment: because I am not an American, I often find it amusing at how intense the 'war' between science and religion can be over there. I really have not seen a country that has taken this debate so seriously (in most cases, only 1 side predominates over the other, or the question just isn't debated at all).

As I said before, I am respectful of other people's beliefs, so I will not criticise you at all.

What I will say is, don't measure God on the basis of what humans say (there are so many opinions!), since many who believe in him actually paint him as a cruel being who literally burns criminals in hell for eternity (no one deserves this.), and takes your babies away in death to be his angels (why?!), and there are some who would murder in God's name - you can see why he's getting a bad name. If you are interested, and want to, focus on what God himself says (no one should force you to do this either). There are two ways of doing this, the first is the easiest, earnest prayer to God that you want him to show you the truth (if he does exist you would expect him to be interested in those who wish to get to know him). Secondly is to find a book that could have actually been inspired of God, and read it for yourself. On that note the Bible does say in 2 Timothy 3:16 that it was inspired of God and beneficial, but I have not read other religious books, and this really is up to you on what road you take, no one should judge you for this.

If you want I am happy to discuss the Bible with you via eMail too.

[stethnorun]

In my country everyone is taught evolution whether they like it or not, and from an early age too (as in as soon as they go to school), but you are only taught about God if your parents make the effort themselves. Even TV teaches evolution only. You can hardly watch a documentary without evolution at least being mentioned, but never God...In other words most of us are only taught one side of the story. Can you guess which side they will choose?

Even a single living cell is so incredibly complex it seems impossible for just one cell to develop without any help of a creator. A cell developing by itself is like mixing all the jelly beans (all colours) in a massive pile of thousands of jelly beans (most being odd shaped in this example), putting a blindfold on a trying to get exactly twenty yellow ones of perfect shape, along with 20 red ones of odd shape, with one scoop of a shovel. There is so much to a simple cell...It needs the perfect selection of proteins to develop, and the exact number as well, and this is just one aspect of a cell!
Don't get me wrong, I can understand why many go for evolution, but what I'm trying to say is don't view those who believe in God as dump or misled. In fact many who do have to fight for it, while it would be socially easier just to cave in to believing in evolution (I can't speak for every country, but that's what it's like here).

You are also only taught "one side of the story" regarding physics, geology, chemistry, and mathematics. Why would biology be any different? The fact is, just like those others field of science, there IS only one side of the story. The "side" you are talking about is a universal "god did it" explanation. If we were happy with that explanation, we wouldn't bother trying to ACTUALLY explain how the universe works.

As for thinking of creationists as dumb or misled...is there a credible reason not to? I mean an intellectual, logical reason, not "because it will hurt their feelings".

[mwallyn]

You are also only taught "one side of the story" regarding physics, geology, chemistry, and mathematics. Why would biology be any different? The fact is, just like those others field of science, there IS only one side of the story. The "side" you are talking about is a universal "god did it" explanation. If we were happy with that explanation, we wouldn't bother trying to ACTUALLY explain how the universe works.

As for thinking of creationists as dumb or misled...is there a credible reason not to? I mean an intellectual, logical reason, not "because it will hurt their feelings".

There is always the camp of "God did it. We're trying to understand how."

[Hawk]

You are also only taught "one side of the story" regarding physics, geology, chemistry, and mathematics. Why would biology be any different? The fact is, just like those others field of science, there IS only one side of the story. The "side" you are talking about is a universal "god did it" explanation. If we were happy with that explanation, we wouldn't bother trying to ACTUALLY explain how the universe works.

As for thinking of creationists as dumb or misled...is there a credible reason not to? I mean an intellectual, logical reason, not "because it will hurt their feelings".

It sounds like you believe that creationism is not scientific. I'm a logical, scientific person, and it annoys me when people say do you believe in God or Science - from following the Bible they are not separate. Let me give you some examples of what the Bible says: Our planet - "God is stretching out the north over the empty place, hanging the earth upon nothing." Job 26:7 (incredible, since back then everyone else believed that the world was flat on on the back of elephants or a giant sea turtle! In fact some early religion that were supposedly following the Bible disregarded this truth as blasphemy...Religion and men can definitely be unscientific, but that doesn't mean God is). "There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth." Isaiah 40:22.
The water cycle - "All streams run into the sea, yet the sea never overflows; back to the place from which the streams ran they return to run again." Ecclesiastes 1:7 (How did they know that thousands of years ago?).
Health and sanitation - Regarding the treatment of leprosy in ancient Israel the Bible says "All the days that the plague is in him he will be unclean. He is unclean. He should dwell isolated. Outside the camp is his dwelling place." Leviticus 13:46. In fact even the clothing was burned (Leviticus 13:52). This is also a big issue, since what we know of health and sanitation now days in fairly resent on the scale of history.
More on health - "A calm heart is the life of the fleshly organism, but jealousy is rottenness to the bones." Proverbs 14:30. This is in line with modern knowledge of how stress can effect us.
All of this sounds a lot like science to me!

[DaOrks]

http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs27/i/2008/044/6/a/The_Emperor_of_Mankind_by_Linford_H_Mann.jpg
All your religion belong to us!
Mainly a troll post.. looked up some Civ 5 stuff found this... Odd eh?
Atheist ftw.

"It's the Emperor from Warhammer.. google it if you dont understand XD"

[stethnorun]

It sounds like you believe that creationism is not scientific. I'm a logical, scientific person, and it annoys me when people say do you believe in God or Science - from following the Bible they are not separate. Let me give you some examples of what the Bible says: Our planet - "God is stretching out the north over the empty place, hanging the earth upon nothing." Job 26:7 (incredible, since back then everyone else believed that the world was flat on on the back of elephants or a giant sea turtle! In fact some early religion that were supposedly following the Bible disregarded this truth as blasphemy...Religion and men can definitely be unscientific, but that doesn't mean God is). "There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth." Isaiah 40:22.
The water cycle - "All streams run into the sea, yet the sea never overflows; back to the place from which the streams ran they return to run again." Ecclesiastes 1:7 (How did they know that thousands of years ago?).
Health and sanitation - Regarding the treatment of leprosy in ancient Israel the Bible says "All the days that the plague is in him he will be unclean. He is unclean. He should dwell isolated. Outside the camp is his dwelling place." Leviticus 13:46. In fact even the clothing was burned (Leviticus 13:52). This is also a big issue, since what we know of health and sanitation now days in fairly resent on the scale of history.
More on health - "A calm heart is the life of the fleshly organism, but jealousy is rottenness to the bones." Proverbs 14:30. This is in line with modern knowledge of how stress can effect us.
All of this sounds a lot like science to me!

Yeah because religion started as a means of trying to understand the world. Science has the exact same goal. But since science ALSO has the means and the method of understanding (as opposed to the "best guesses" of religion), it will always be more informative than "because god did it".

God has become to the "god of holes". That is, wherever there is a hole in scientific understanding (such as, "where did the big bang come from?"), religious people simple say "god". The problem is that as science discovers more answers, there are fewer and fewer holes to fill. Thus, god becomes "lazier and lazier" since people have to keep retreating their flawed logic. God used to cause rain to fall and the sun to rise. But now that all that is firmly understood, god's no longer a valid explanation. Those holes have been filled. So now god has to be one step, and then two steps, and then three steps removed. Eventually, when we understand pretty much everything, god will have nothing left "to do".

[mwallyn]

Yeah because religion started as a means of trying to understand the world. Science has the exact same goal. But since science ALSO has the means and the method of understanding (as opposed to the "best guesses" of religion), it will always be more informative than "because god did it".

God has become to the "god of holes". That is, wherever there is a hole in scientific understanding (such as, "where did the big bang come from?"), religious people simple say "god". The problem is that as science discovers more answers, there are fewer and fewer holes to fill. Thus, god becomes "lazier and lazier" since people have to keep retreating their flawed logic. God used to cause rain to fall and the sun to rise. But now that all that is firmly understood, god's no longer a valid explanation. Those holes have been filled. So now god has to be one step, and then two steps, and then three steps removed. Eventually, when we understand pretty much everything, god will have nothing left "to do".

Just because someone says "God did it" doesn't mean that they don't want to know how he did it. There is absolutely no rule that says all scientists have to be unrelenting atheists to be truly objective about their work. There are great minds in both camps.

[Hawk]

That's true, and thanx mwallyn for pointing this out - there are very smart people on both sides of the argument (from scientists and doctors to teachers and politicians, etc.), so both sides have something to them, and neither side is stupid. As I said, we all have our reasons for believing in what we do.

stethnorun, sure enough many teachings of men have had to develop as science revealed more truth, but this has not taken away from the Bible. Just because someone said that God makes the sun rise and set and then we find out that science shows us that this is happening all on its own due to laws of the universe, such as gravity and such, doesn't mean that to begin with God didn't create gravity and the sun in the first place and thus it is able to continue on its own. The Bible doesn't disagree with this either..."The sun rises, the sun sets; then to its place it speeds and then it rises." Ecclesiastes 1:5. This passage doesn't say that God is directly controlling the sun's movements, but just agrees with science that it moves. This was written thousands of years when other non-Biblical religions were teaching that gods were in control of the sun, yet still today this passage makes sense. It is not God that needs to change, it is the thoughts of men as we understand more and more of the universe.

[stethnorun]

Just because someone says "God did it" doesn't mean that they don't want to know how he did it. There is absolutely no rule that says all scientists have to be unrelenting atheists to be truly objective about their work. There are great minds in both camps.

Ridiculous. To answer the question "How did god do it?", it would be something like, "he willed it" or to be more anthropomorphic, "he waved his hand". That's how god does things.

When you ask "How does god affect the tides?" and your response is "because the moon's gravity pulls on the water closest to it", that's a non-sequitur. It's like asking "What color is the sky?" and getting an answer of "puppies".

[stethnorun]

stethnorun, sure enough many teachings of men have had to develop as science revealed more truth, but this has not taken away from the Bible. Just because someone said that God makes the sun rise and set and then we find out that science shows us that this is happening all on its own due to laws of the universe, such as gravity and such, doesn't mean that to begin with God didn't create gravity and the sun in the first place and thus it is able to continue on its own. The Bible doesn't disagree with this either..."The sun rises, the sun sets; then to its place it speeds and then it rises." Ecclesiastes 1:5. This passage doesn't say that God is directly controlling the sun's movements, but just agrees with science that it moves. This was written thousands of years when other non-Biblical religions were teaching that gods were in control of the sun, yet still today this passage makes sense. It is not God that needs to change, it is the thoughts of men as we understand more and more of the universe.

You are exactly illustrating my point. Before we knew about gravity and nuclear fusion and all that, "god makes the sun rise and set" WAS the answer. He literally did it himself. He was filling a GIANT hold in our understanding. Then science came along and filled that hole in with knowledge. Now god has to retreat to a smaller hole of "he created gravity and nuclear fusion"....of course then when we know how THOSE laws of physics started, god will again have to retreat to an even SMALLER hole. As I said, as we learn more and more about our universe, god's role in it gets smaller and smaller...he gets "lazier".

[Hawk]

You are exactly illustrating my point. Before we knew about gravity and nuclear fusion and all that, "god makes the sun rise and set" WAS the answer. He literally did it himself. He was filling a GIANT hold in our understanding. Then science came along and filled that hole in with knowledge. Now god has to retreat to a smaller hole of "he created gravity and nuclear fusion"....of course then when we know how THOSE laws of physics started, god will again have to retreat to an even SMALLER hole. As I said, as we learn more and more about our universe, god's role in it gets smaller and smaller...he gets "lazier".

I just showed you a few scriptures in the Bible that were written thousands of years ago that the Bible is in line with science, and not separate. Just because we discover that gravity exists doesn't mean that believing in God is any less logical...Let me reiterate the point of the scripture quoted earlier: Job 26:7 says that the earth is hanging on nothing. Now gravity isn't an object, so this was the perfect way to describe it to people of the time period. The thing is though, the very fact that this scripture states this is very impressive, because back then if you were to say that to the average person (who doesn't follow the Bible, aka most of the planet at the time), they would think you were crazy, because from a human perspective at that time the very idea that the earth is just floating on nothing would be seen as ridiculous.

Regardless of our beliefs the Bible is scientific, but not only this its historical accuracy is to the letter...these are just a couple of the reasons why it is still the world's best selling book.

[mwallyn]

Ridiculous. To answer the question "How did god do it?", it would be something like, "he willed it" or to be more anthropomorphic, "he waved his hand". That's how god does things.

When you ask "How does god affect the tides?" and your response is "because the moon's gravity pulls on the water closest to it", that's a non-sequitur. It's like asking "What color is the sky?" and getting an answer of "puppies".

I can't believe I'm even humoring the argument, but...how is it ridiculous? Its a genuine motivation to study how things work and what's going on around a person. You can just as easily ask "What happened when he willed it?" if saying "God just did it" is too much of a spiritual leap for you. Besides, if its so crazy, what's to motivate an atheist, then?

[kaybeebiscuits]

Wow this has turned out to be quite a storm here! Time for me to pack up and run out!

But ... there is a piece of advice for you all: if you have read Karl Popper, there are distinctions between at least 5 types of knowledge, ranging from the platonic to the intersubjective and objective. These 5 types of knowledge are mutually exclusive from each other and are also not possible to reductionistically explain one knowledge in terms of the other; they are simply parallel perspectives of viewing the world, and it is because of this I find the stipulation that various schools of thought and religious beliefs are true to a certain extent within their own platonic realms, and that it may be derogatory for any belief system to attempt to debunk another through sheer objectivity because after all, many cultural worldviews (weltanschaung) have in a sense a right to exist for purposes of diversity. If you have read "Cultural Patterns" by Ruth Benedict, you will know what I mean, that each culture is indirectly implied in his book to have a certain form of 'direction' that propagates out from a center in a radial manner rather in a linear, and non-perpendicular manner. Each parcel of culture expands the scope of human knowledge in ways that some cultures take for granted: one example is how the prevalent Western view that the amalgam of rationalism/capitalism/economism etc. sometimes tend to become 'over-imperializing' by presupposing that other beliefs are not as equally important. That said, it is important to respect each other's culture.

However, there is a saying that goes that "while one is entitled to his or her own opinion, one is not entitled to his or her own facts", and this is the rationale for using an objective framework to attempt to decipher and create models that explain external phenomenon objectively. I do not like to use the world 'science', because it has become so personified and abstract to the extent that it has almost lost its meaning in the same way that the word 'god' did. While it is important to get certain facts right, it must be reiterated again that some forms of knowledge such as the arts or even some idiosyncratic beliefs have a form of consistency within themselves and social situations become defined as real (Thomas Theorem) and are therefore expressed as another facet of truth in a materialized form.

Therefore it is largely because of the above two arguments that I find this notorious debate on whether 'god' exists or not should be isolated and confined only to the boundaries of objectivity, and it should not be allowed to permeate into the lifeworlds of other cultures in a disruptive manner, whereby the banner of objectivity or rationalism can be used as an excuse to eradicate other forms of beliefs. Debating about the rationale of something through a series of arguments and counter-arguments is virtuous deed and I enjoy doing this as well, but imposing one's belief on another is not very different from that of trying to objectify one's subjectivity on another person when, as explained above, sometimes this is just not possible.

I am an atheist myself, but I find that the bible itself holds many truths, and offers just yet another perspective to look at the world. As people age, they gain more perspectives to examine the world, as well as the important ability to switch between different inconsistent views in a dialectical manner to deal with the contradictions of the immense cultural relativism in the world. I am not a Christian and I do not intend to be one, but I myself have been magnetized by Christian symbolism and the use of this semiotic and perspective to comprehend the world through Christian eyes, while bearing a certain measure of precaution to keep one leg on the safe shores of my own core belief structure. One of which is to appreciate the bible or works related to Christian morality such as Dante's Inferno (not quite) or the book of Job to see how some analogies of 'good and evil' are borrowed and hermeneutically expanded upon in other pieces of work. I also engage in the works of other religions such as Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, Mormonism, Judaism and certain Folk religion to anthropologically try to understand a greater range of human paradigms rather than deliberately fixate on one and try to impose one view on others - that is just plain sociocentrism. Of course in developing my own intellectual prowess, I do not neglect the social and physical sciences either, and have been engaged in reading research articles on a routine basis so that I can more objectively form a compromise between as many forms of thoughts as possible.

And now the kaybeebiscuits has said what he has wanted to say. Kaybee biscuits are NOT biscuits by the way! We are not the new brand of 'living sashimi' biscuits that comprise baking living hamsters with a layer of chocolate, such that they squeak when they are chewed upon.

[stethnorun]

I just showed you a few scriptures in the Bible that were written thousands of years ago that the Bible is in line with science, and not separate. Just because we discover that gravity exists doesn't mean that believing in God is any less logical...Let me reiterate the point of the scripture quoted earlier: Job 26:7 says that the earth is hanging on nothing. Now gravity isn't an object, so this was the perfect way to describe it to people of the time period. The thing is though, the very fact that this scripture states this is very impressive, because back then if you were to say that to the average person (who doesn't follow the Bible, aka most of the planet at the time), they would think you were crazy, because from a human perspective at that time the very idea that the earth is just floating on nothing would be seen as ridiculous.

Regardless of our beliefs the Bible is scientific, but not only this its historical accuracy is to the letter...these are just a couple of the reasons why it is still the world's best selling book.

Historical accuracy "to the letter"? You mean how there's 4 different and contradictory accounts of the life of Jesus? How most of the stories are actually copies of Egyptian and other ancient myths? Scientific like water into wine? Like a staff into a snake?

Seriously? You want to have this discussion?

[stethnorun]

I can't believe I'm even humoring the argument, but...how is it ridiculous? Its a genuine motivation to study how things work and what's going on around a person. You can just as easily ask "What happened when he willed it?" if saying "God just did it" is too much of a spiritual leap for you. Besides, if its so crazy, what's to motivate an atheist, then?

It's ridiculous for exactly the reason I already wrote. Go back and read it. The question and the answer are non-related.

Now we are talking motivation? Okay, kind of a sudden change of topic, but I'll answer it anyway. The motivation is probably exactly the same as the religious person: the search for truth. The difference is in methodology. The scientist has the scientific method (constantly challenging assumptions, experiments that can reproduce results), the religious have...guessing at what "god's plan" is (let's see, that involves reading a 1700 year old book...and uh..."having faith" while guessing).

I wonder which one is more accurate.

[mwallyn]

It's ridiculous for exactly the reason I already wrote. Go back and read it. The question and the answer are non-related.

Now we are talking motivation? Okay, kind of a sudden change of topic, but I'll answer it anyway. The motivation is probably exactly the same as the religious person: the search for truth. The difference is in methodology. The scientist has the scientific method (constantly challenging assumptions, experiments that can reproduce results), the religious have...guessing at what "god's plan" is (let's see, that involves reading a 1700 year old book...and uh..."having faith" while guessing).

I wonder which one is more accurate.

Your response is just as non-sequitur as you make mine out to be. Why? You're making the ridiculous assumption that religion can NEVER be unified with science. Why is it impossible for a religious person to apply the scientific method to their search? Its not hard to find religious scientists out there. If your assumption is true, how the hell did they become scientists in the first place? If you think its just because Christianity is a backwards and narrowminded system, consider Islam, then. Islam back in its heyday was responsible for a golden age of science and knowledge. They were far and away ahead of the Europe stuck in the dark ages. Religion simply does not disqualify you from being scientific.

[stethnorun]

Again, you are mixing your concepts. When did I ever say that a scientist CAN'T be religious? What I'm saying is that regardless of the scientist's religious beliefs, he/she uses the scientific method NOT scripture or prayer to run experiments and find truth. Therefor, the scientist could be Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Taoist, Hindu, Wiccan, Satanist, or Pastafarian...it doesn't matter because it's irrelevant. The only relevant thing is that they are using the scientific method.

How come you refuse to get what I'm saying? I'm being very clear. I'm talking about METHODOLOGY of finding truth. If you use the scientific METHOD, they you get actual usable data. If you use the prayer/scripture METHOD, then you get superstitious nonsense and the "best guesses" of people living thousands of years ago.

[Hawk]

Historical accuracy "to the letter"? You mean how there's 4 different and contradictory accounts of the life of Jesus? How most of the stories are actually copies of Egyptian and other ancient myths? Scientific like water into wine? Like a staff into a snake?

Seriously? You want to have this discussion?

I'm not talking about accounts of miracles, such as turning water into wine, but focusing on how the Bible describes scientific facts, such as the water cycle and gravity, thousands of years before everyone else caught on, and how it taught proper standards of health and sanitation way before anyone knew anything about germs. And it has proven many times to be on the dot with historical accuracy, such as naming Kings before archaeologists found them (in fact some historical Kings in the Bible the critics said never existed until archaeologists found that they did), and is in agreement with records from ancient Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, etc. In fact it's been more honest, because ancient Kings didn't like to record when they lost battles, however the Bible lists battles lost by the Israelites.
You cannot blame people for believing in the miracles when the science and history matches up.

By the way, you said there's four different accounts of the like of Jesus, and that they are contradictory...Could you please explain, and point out how they are contradictory.

[Hawk]

Now we are talking motivation? Okay, kind of a sudden change of topic, but I'll answer it anyway. The motivation is probably exactly the same as the religious person: the search for truth. The difference is in methodology. The scientist has the scientific method (constantly challenging assumptions, experiments that can reproduce results), the religious have...guessing at what "god's plan" is (let's see, that involves reading a 1700 year old book...and uh..."having faith" while guessing).

I wonder which one is more accurate.

Your comment here completely ignors all the scientists who happen to be religious - There are scientists on both sides of the argument, as I mentioned earlier.
Also the very fact that the Bible was the first book ever printed in an age of darkness when it came to scientific knowledge (in fact some scientific ideas where viewed as blasphemy by men), and yet the book is in line with science is part of the reason why the book is so impressive. Isn't it interesting when a scientist discovers something many hundreds of years after the Bible was first printed, and even longer since it was first written, and yet the scientist gets the credit.

[stethnorun]

Your comment here completely ignors all the scientists who happen to be religious - There are scientists on both sides of the argument, as I mentioned earlier.
Also the very fact that the Bible was the first book ever printed in an age of darkness when it came to scientific knowledge (in fact some scientific ideas where viewed as blasphemy by men), and yet the book is in line with science is part of the reason why the book is so impressive. Isn't it interesting when a scientist discovers something many hundreds of years after the Bible was first printed, and even longer since it was first written, and yet the scientist gets the credit.

You do realize that the Bible isn't the first book ever written right? If we are talking about written works that contain scientific truth, the Greeks, Romans and Egyptians had WAY more fact, WAY earlier.

In fact, most of the Bible is just a rehash of earlier myths and prophecies. The Bible's primary purpose when it was written was to appeal to various demographics (Jews, Pagans, etc). Thus you have the 4 books detailing Jesus's life and death in different ways...to appeal to different audiences. There are other accounts of Jesus's life that aren't included in the Bible, such as ones where Jesus uses magic to help his father do his carpentry.

[mwallyn]

Again, you are mixing your concepts. When did I ever say that a scientist CAN'T be religious? What I'm saying is that regardless of the scientist's religious beliefs, he/she uses the scientific method NOT scripture or prayer to run experiments and find truth. Therefor, the scientist could be Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Taoist, Hindu, Wiccan, Satanist, or Pastafarian...it doesn't matter because it's irrelevant. The only relevant thing is that they are using the scientific method.

How come you refuse to get what I'm saying? I'm being very clear. I'm talking about METHODOLOGY of finding truth. If you use the scientific METHOD, they you get actual usable data. If you use the prayer/scripture METHOD, then you get superstitious nonsense and the "best guesses" of people living thousands of years ago.

Where along the lines did I say that a religious person would use exclusively scripture or prayer to analyze something? My response to you was that just because someone says God was responsible for something doesn't mean that they wouldn't want to know how he was. Nothing to do with text. I said nothing remotely close to implying that. Also, your response read quite a lot like you were saying a theist couldn't apply the scientific method to their research at all, and it appears that I wasn't the only one who read it this way.

Regarding the 4 gospels, it would actually be VERY suspect if all 4 told the exact same story. These were 4 people with 4 very different perspectives, so it would make sense that each one tells a different story with different anecdotes about Jesus.

[kaybeebiscuits]

Calm down everyone.

What is happening here does not fit into the grand scheme and agenda of kaybeebiscuits. The kaybeebiscuits arrived here eons ago with the benevolent intention of halting a possible heat death of the Civilization V universe; this need not be seen as estranged, for as we note that there are already other threads on the forums signalling the comprehension that Civilization V is dying, and we believe that this gradual death is caused by the increase in the amount of entropy in the Civilization V universe. It will only be a matter of time before this forum becomes dead with no activity at all.

To avoid this tragedy, the kaybeebiscuits created this thread to increase the amount of intelligent activity to avoid the insufferable agony of a heat death, but little did the kaybeebiscuits foresee the increased altercation and argument between so many forumites. Cooperation and love negate entropy, while heated debates that tear asunder the universe create entropy; therefore, this schism between the many branches of forumites has to stop, before it contributes way too significantly to the eventual heat death of the universe. The kaybeebiscuits was once from a universe that suffered from the agonizing pain of a heat death before, but managed to avert it through sheer cooperation and will-power to design a series of black-hole and white-hole generators to balance the flow of matter between this universe and its anti-universes; the amount of precision was made such that the cosmological density of our universe would never exceed, or be below the critical density needed to cause another Big Crunch through a universal contraction, but was high enough to avoid a heat-death, thereby attaining universal immortality such that our civilization was allowed to progress infinitely. The duality between the flow of matter in and out of our universe with our mirror universes also meant immortality for them.

Be warned: if you all do not find a way, no one will. The kaybeebiscuits is only here to deliver this exigent message of the necessity of cooperation, and the dangers of conflict, but is not here to directly assist in preventing this heat death. And now, the kaybeebiscuits has said what 'it' has decided to say, and shall return to 'its' parent universe.

[stethnorun]

Where along the lines did I say that a religious person would use exclusively scripture or prayer to analyze something? My response to you was that just because someone says God was responsible for something doesn't mean that they wouldn't want to know how he was. Nothing to do with text. I said nothing remotely close to implying that. Also, your response read quite a lot like you were saying a theist couldn't apply the scientific method to their research at all, and it appears that I wasn't the only one who read it this way.

Regarding the 4 gospels, it would actually be VERY suspect if all 4 told the exact same story. These were 4 people with 4 very different perspectives, so it would make sense that each one tells a different story with different anecdotes about Jesus.

Sigh...you do realize that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John weren't "eye witnesses" right? They wrote those gospels 300-400 years after the fact...for those 4 different audiences I already mentioned. And also like I said, they are just rehashes of earlier myths such as the Egyptian story of Horus.

It appears I actually know more about the Bible than you do, and I'm VERY far from an expert, which means you don't know much about it. So let's move on from that, because I'm not all that interested in pretending to be a Bible studies professor on a Civ forum.

Again, I would simply ask you to just take a second and read what you are writing. When you ask the question "How does god do XYZ?", the answer is "He wills it" or something along those lines. When you answer something like "It's gravity's effect on blah blah blah", you are actually answering the question, "How does NATURE/SCIENCE do XYZ?" God is not nature, he is not science. He is god. God makes things happen through magic (read Genesis). Nature makes things happens through laws of physics. You are purposefully mixing those two concepts up so that you can deceive yourself into thinking that they can exist together harmoniously.

You either accept the magic and hocus pocus as the "god" explanation or you don't. But if you don't, then you don't really accept "god" as a reason for anything. God IS the "magic" answer.

[mwallyn]

Sigh...you do realize that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John weren't "eye witnesses" right? They wrote those gospels 300-400 years after the fact...for those 4 different audiences I already mentioned. And also like I said, they are just rehashes of earlier myths such as the Egyptian story of Horus.

It appears I actually know more about the Bible than you do, and I'm VERY far from an expert, which means you don't know much about it. So let's move on from that, because I'm not all that interested in pretending to be a Bible studies professor on a Civ forum.

Again, I would simply ask you to just take a second and read what you are writing. When you ask the question "How does god do XYZ?", the answer is "He wills it" or something along those lines. When you answer something like "It's gravity's effect on blah blah blah", you are actually answering the question, "How does NATURE/SCIENCE do XYZ?" God is not nature, he is not science. He is god. God makes things happen through magic (read Genesis). Nature makes things happens through laws of physics. You are purposefully mixing those two concepts up so that you can deceive yourself into thinking that they can exist together harmoniously.

You either accept the magic and hocus pocus as the "god" explanation or you don't. But if you don't, then you don't really accept "god" as a reason for anything. God IS the "magic" answer.

Quite wrong, actually. The only gospel written "300-400" years after Jesus, as you say, was Matthew, and it was finalized around 120 AD. Luke and Mark were written as early as 60 AD, though (And bear in mind, most scholars place Jesus of Nazareth's death at about 36 AD). Also, all of the gospel writers drew from direct accounts of the life and times of Jesus. Essentially, think of it as a compilation of what had been written about him thus far. Plus, the connection to Egyptian lore is tenuous at best. Most comparisons are purely superficial. True, Mary and Jesus had a close relationship, just like the Egyptian gods Horus and Isis. However, nowhere does it say that Horus had 12 disciples or was born of a virgin or anything of the like. Most historians agree that this appearance was simply because many early Christian artists saw and had access to a lot of Egyptian art. Also, Osiris "rose from the dead" like Jesus did. Problem is, Christian and Egyptian afterlives are two VERY different places, not to mention that Osiris never walked among the living after death as Jesus did, and he could only rule over the dead, while Jesus ascended body and soul to heaven to rule over all. And even if there were modifications to the original account, that doesn't automatically invalidate the entire thing. At least 3 of the 4 gospels are used as a reliable source of fact for information regarding Jesus. Also, Catholics (read: half of the world's Christian population) don't take Genesis as historical or scientific fact at all, so that's a pretty shaky generalization to be making, as well

Your theory relies entirely on the principle that there is absolutely nothing beyond this universe, and everything that happens is a result of something else within this realm. Mine relies on the fact that at the very least, there is SOMETHING that started it all that exists beyond this world, even if it is no longer present. Our problem is that while both hold fast to these ideals, neither of us can absolutely prove into scientific law that it is truth. So let me ask this; you've debunked my theory for all time in your mind, why is your's any more valid?

[stethnorun]

Mine relies on the fact that at the very least, there is SOMETHING that started it all that exists beyond this world, even if it is no longer present.

And you got to that, how?

[mwallyn]

The prevailing theory of creation is the Big Bang, would we not agree? Going from that, everything that is was once condensed into a singularity in the middle of nothingness. Why did that singularity even exist in the first place? Why did it suddenly decide that it would explode into what is now our universe? What caused this to happen in the middle of void? Why is there even a universe at all? I fail to see how we just happened to exist in the middle of nowhere and that without any outside influence, the universe exploded into what it is now. What could have caused that? Conventional science doesn't work too well because the laws of physics and relativity don't apply beyond our universe. Where can we go from there?

Any stabs at backing your theory? :D

[Hawk]

You do realize that the Bible isn't the first book ever written right? If we are talking about written works that contain scientific truth, the Greeks, Romans and Egyptians had WAY more fact, WAY earlier.

In fact, most of the Bible is just a rehash of earlier myths and prophecies. The Bible's primary purpose when it was written was to appeal to various demographics (Jews, Pagans, etc). Thus you have the 4 books detailing Jesus's life and death in different ways...to appeal to different audiences. There are other accounts of Jesus's life that aren't included in the Bible, such as ones where Jesus uses magic to help his father do his carpentry.

Yes, I said first book printed. I am aware of other early books.

If the Bible was based on early myths and prophecies then don't you think it would be a lot more fantastic and not scientific at all, and the history would all be tweaked as well! It was written so the people of that time period would understand it well, and so now reading it can be difficult to understand.

Those other books that mention Jesus do not say that they were inspired of God, while the Bible does say this in 2 Timothy 3:16, so from a Christian point of view we would not be surprised to see these independent books differ from the Bible. The Bible is a very unique book!

[Hawk]

Sigh...you do realize that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John weren't "eye witnesses" right? They wrote those gospels 300-400 years after the fact...for those 4 different audiences I already mentioned. And also like I said, they are just rehashes of earlier myths such as the Egyptian story of Horus.

It appears I actually know more about the Bible than you do, and I'm VERY far from an expert, which means you don't know much about it. So let's move on from that, because I'm not all that interested in pretending to be a Bible studies professor on a Civ forum.

Again, I would simply ask you to just take a second and read what you are writing. When you ask the question "How does god do XYZ?", the answer is "He wills it" or something along those lines. When you answer something like "It's gravity's effect on blah blah blah", you are actually answering the question, "How does NATURE/SCIENCE do XYZ?" God is not nature, he is not science. He is god. God makes things happen through magic (read Genesis). Nature makes things happens through laws of physics. You are purposefully mixing those two concepts up so that you can deceive yourself into thinking that they can exist together harmoniously.

You either accept the magic and hocus pocus as the "god" explanation or you don't. But if you don't, then you don't really accept "god" as a reason for anything. God IS the "magic" answer.

stethnorum, I want you to understand that I really do respect your beliefs, and will not try to make you believe what I believe. I am simply defending my beliefs, as is mwallyn, since our beliefs are so important to us. This is partially because I have experienced discrimination for my beliefs, and so I feel the need to speak up about this.

Now in answer...you presume that God does his will through magic, yet if he is real and did create everything - including science - then the most logical explanation is that he does his well via science. In fact it's the pagan religions who don't follow the Bible who are more likely to believe in and/or use magic (For example Sorceresses and Wiccans, and by saying this I mean no offence, since I have known some to be very nice people, I am simply pointing out that they believe in magic and yet their beliefs do not stem from the Bible.), while those who follow the Bible actually avoid the practice of magic, because scriptures in the Bible warn to stay away from magical practices, such as Deuteronomy 18:10-13.

In other words magic is un-Biblical.

[kaybeebiscuits]

Hungry Uruk: "I'm starving. We ain't had nothing but maggoty bread for 3 stinking days!"
http://www.tk421.net/lotr/film/ttt/img/ttt0159.jpg

Hungry orc: "Yeah! Why can't we have some meat?"
http://www.tk421.net/lotr/film/ttt/img/ttt0160.jpg

Hungry and craving for fresh meat?
http://www.tk421.net/lotr/film/ttt/img/ttt0162.jpg

Then have some Kaybeebiscuits! Meat-infused to provide all the proteins needed for the day! Not even maggoty bread hating orcs or Uruks can refuse its call!
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcThA85Dqd_lLmnFhM9Qt2otVtllNiJBm RFHKvubjvKLXRvbQvSZsV6vBtDP

[stethnorun]

The prevailing theory of creation is the Big Bang, would we not agree? Going from that, everything that is was once condensed into a singularity in the middle of nothingness. Why did that singularity even exist in the first place? Why did it suddenly decide that it would explode into what is now our universe? What caused this to happen in the middle of void? Why is there even a universe at all? I fail to see how we just happened to exist in the middle of nowhere and that without any outside influence, the universe exploded into what it is now. What could have caused that? Conventional science doesn't work too well because the laws of physics and relativity don't apply beyond our universe. Where can we go from there?

Any stabs at backing your theory? :D

No. Because "I don't know" works fine for me. I don't need to create a god-like entitity to fill in gaps in my knowledge. "I don't know" suffices perfectly well until I know more. I also don't know exactly how every component in my computer works, but I don't go around saying "god powers my PC".

[stethnorun]

Yes, I said first book printed. I am aware of other early books.

If the Bible was based on early myths and prophecies then don't you think it would be a lot more fantastic and not scientific at all, and the history would all be tweaked as well! It was written so the people of that time period would understand it well, and so now reading it can be difficult to understand.

Those other books that mention Jesus do not say that they were inspired of God, while the Bible does say this in 2 Timothy 3:16, so from a Christian point of view we would not be surprised to see these independent books differ from the Bible. The Bible is a very unique book!

It's...really not unique. Look it up, most stories in the Bible are taken from earlier Greek Roman and Egyptian myths (including Jesus's "messiah" status) and even within the Bible itself, many stories are repeated over and over, changing on the names and slight details.

Also, I don't care in the slightest about the "Christian point of view". I care about the independently verifiable view, ie the objective point of view.

Look, I know I'm not going to convince you or any other religious person of anything. But the fact remains that the Bible has lots and lots of reasons for existing. Some of it is ancient, barbaric law (Deuteronomy), some of it is propaganda to spread the power of the newly form Christian religion (The New Testament), and some of it is crazy doomsday ramblings (the book of Revelations). But none of it is particularly original or factual. It's not even written very elegantly, thus it makes for pretty poor reading.

[stethnorun]

stethnorum, I want you to understand that I really do respect your beliefs, and will not try to make you believe what I believe. I am simply defending my beliefs, as is mwallyn, since our beliefs are so important to us. This is partially because I have experienced discrimination for my beliefs, and so I feel the need to speak up about this.

Now in answer...you presume that God does his will through magic, yet if he is real and did create everything - including science - then the most logical explanation is that he does his well via science. In fact it's the pagan religions who don't follow the Bible who are more likely to believe in and/or use magic (For example Sorceresses and Wiccans, and by saying this I mean no offence, since I have known some to be very nice people, I am simply pointing out that they believe in magic and yet their beliefs do not stem from the Bible.), while those who follow the Bible actually avoid the practice of magic, because scriptures in the Bible warn to stay away from magical practices, such as Deuteronomy 18:10-13.

In other words magic is un-Biblical.

I have a simple Occam's Razor proof in response for what you are saying:

A (cause) -> B (effect, measured by science)
A + G (god) -> B
therefore, G is an irrelevant variable.

If the cause and the effect are both the same with and without the "intervention" of god, then god doesn't even factor in. And since there is no scientific evidence for god, there's no reason to include him/her/it in the equation. I could just as easily say:

A + E (undetectible elf creature carrying Sauron's One Ring) -> B

I mean, when you can just throw any old non-disprovable value into the mix, you can literally create anything you want. But aside from making you feel "less alone" in your life, that doesn't accomplish anything.

And lastly, in regards to you being discriminated against for your beliefs, that's wrong and I'm sorry that happened to you. However, that doesn't mean that your beliefs are "sacred" or "deserving of respect". You have every right to live and think the way you want to, but I have every right to call you delusional. And I consider that a beautiful thing.

[Hawk]

It's...really not unique. Look it up, most stories in the Bible are taken from earlier Greek Roman and Egyptian myths (including Jesus's "messiah" status) and even within the Bible itself, many stories are repeated over and over, changing on the names and slight details.

Also, I don't care in the slightest about the "Christian point of view". I care about the independently verifiable view, ie the objective point of view.

Look, I know I'm not going to convince you or any other religious person of anything. But the fact remains that the Bible has lots and lots of reasons for existing. Some of it is ancient, barbaric law (Deuteronomy), some of it is propaganda to spread the power of the newly form Christian religion (The New Testament), and some of it is crazy doomsday ramblings (the book of Revelations). But none of it is particularly original or factual. It's not even written very elegantly, thus it makes for pretty poor reading.

That part about not being written elegantly, you have to take into account that it was originally written in ancient Hebrew and ancient Greek, and their grammar and sentence structure is different to ours, so it would make more sense to them, and probably sound more poetic. The book of Proverbs does manage to keep a cool sound to it though, and is a very interesting read.

The Bible is very unique! Other historical recordings were all about glorifying and brown-nosing some ancient King, focusing on all his victories, but ignoring losses. The Bible recorded both the good and the bad, which was unique for that era, because no one liked to record when they lost. Also the miracles and uncanny events and supernatural beings are different from those of ancient Egypt and Greece, which are more about gods with imperfect personalities who were always trying to deceive one another and be the best, while the supernatural characters of the Bible behave perfectly - even the way Satan words things are so clever! Also the Bible has just one God...You see the Hebrew words for god and God (notice the capital) were different words, their word for "God" only ever referring to YHWH (Hebrew word probably sounding like "Yahwah", and translated into modern English as "Jehovah"), while "god" (now with no capital) is not used for YHWH. (*We only have one word for "God" so I have to use capital to show the difference.*)

[Hawk]

I have a simple Occam's Razor proof in response for what you are saying:

A (cause) -> B (effect, measured by science)
A + G (god) -> B
therefore, G is an irrelevant variable.

If the cause and the effect are both the same with and without the "intervention" of god, then god doesn't even factor in. And since there is no scientific evidence for god, there's no reason to include him/her/it in the equation. I could just as easily say:

A + E (undetectible elf creature carrying Sauron's One Ring) -> B

I mean, when you can just throw any old non-disprovable value into the mix, you can literally create anything you want. But aside from making you feel "less alone" in your life, that doesn't accomplish anything.

And lastly, in regards to you being discriminated against for your beliefs, that's wrong and I'm sorry that happened to you. However, that doesn't mean that your beliefs are "sacred" or "deserving of respect". You have every right to live and think the way you want to, but I have every right to call you delusional. And I consider that a beautiful thing.

I don't disagree with the equation here. It still works logically with creationism, with God creating everything (including science), and he does it in such a way that it takes care of itself...And why not? If you were a god-like being with endless power wouldn't you design a world that doesn't need you to constantly pour the rain, grow the plants, and orbit it around the sun?

You said that even though it's wrong that someone would go through discrimination just because of what they believe in is wrong, and yet my beliefs are not necessarily deserving of respect. This sounds contradictory, because if you show disrespect to someone because of what they believe in isn't that discrimination? By what you said it would be ok for me to call you delusional...But the thing is I don't want to. Even though I am not an atheist, and do not believe we evolved from apes, I feel no need to disrespect you for believing in those things. This is just one reason why I follow the Bible, because it teaches us to have respect for others, and to be peaceable with all men: 1 Peter 3:15, Romans 12:18.

[Black Gate of Mordor]

Any stabs at backing your theory? :D

There is one. It's called the infinite universe theory, if I'm correct.

The basis of the theory is that spacetime is not infinite, but there have been infinite universes before us and there will be infinite universes after us. Therefore, the singularity formed from a big crunch (where the universe becomes too unstable, and collapses on itself). From there the theory gets a little sketchy, because as you said, conventional physics does not work out of time. But the point is there is no need for a beginning, because there never was one, just as there will never be an end.


If the Bible was based on early myths and prophecies then don't you think it would be a lot more fantastic and not scientific at all, and the history would all be tweaked as well! It was written so the people of that time period would understand it well, and so now reading it can be difficult to understand.

It's not that the Bible is difficult to understand. The fact is, it's dead boring. To compare those authors to now, they're wannabe writers, who've never studied the craft, and used old books and inspiration, and didn't turn it into their own. It's sort of like Eragon.

Also, regarding the prophecies, the thing is, when you're told that you're part of a prophecy, there is a compulsion to do said things in the prophecy. There's also the fact that the prophecies could have easily been written after the prophecy was completed.


http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcThA85Dqd_lLmnFhM9Qt2otVtllNiJBm RFHKvubjvKLXRvbQvSZsV6vBtDP

Those are not biscuits. They are scones.


That part about not being written elegantly, you have to take into account that it was originally written in ancient Hebrew and ancient Greek, and their grammar and sentence structure is different to ours, so it would make more sense to them, and probably sound more poetic. The book of Proverbs does manage to keep a cool sound to it though, and is a very interesting read.

It doesn't matter. I've asked my father (a native Greek speaker) and it doesn't sound elegant in Greek either. Also, you would expect any translator to translate it into English/Latin, and then actually make it sound good.


The Bible is very unique! Other historical recordings were all about glorifying and brown-nosing some ancient King, focusing on all his victories, but ignoring losses. The Bible recorded both the good and the bad, which was unique for that era, because no one liked to record when they lost.

But the book was not written by kings, for kings, or paid for by kings. It was entirely written by the people of Rome.


Also the miracles and uncanny events and supernatural beings are different

Still had them.


which are more about gods with imperfect personalities who were always trying to deceive one another and be the best

Yahweh seems pretty nuts too.


I don't disagree with the equation here. It still works logically with creationism, with God creating everything (including science), and he does it in such a way that it takes care of itself...And why not? If you were a god-like being with endless power wouldn't you design a world that doesn't need you to constantly pour the rain, grow the plants, and orbit it around the sun?

If you're a perfect being you don't need any of that. You can just sit around in your void. Also, the whole entire need for god to be in that equation defies Occam's Razor. The simplest solution is that a part of physics that we are currently unaware of caused the singularity to expand (NOT explode) into the current universe. The usage of of a god (god caused singularity to expand) complicates this. The second equation working under creationism doesn't matter - because it is a human invention. First, we must obey the laws of physics, then the beliefs of man.

[Hawk]

It's not that the Bible is difficult to understand. The fact is, it's dead boring. To compare those authors to now, they're wannabe writers, who've never studied the craft, and used old books and inspiration, and didn't turn it into their own. It's sort of like Eragon.

Also, regarding the prophecies, the thing is, when you're told that you're part of a prophecy, there is a compulsion to do said things in the prophecy. There's also the fact that the prophecies could have easily been written after the prophecy was completed.

It doesn't matter. I've asked my father (a native Greek speaker) and it doesn't sound elegant in Greek either. Also, you would expect any translator to translate it into English/Latin, and then actually make it sound good.



But the book was not written by kings, for kings, or paid for by kings. It was entirely written by the people of Rome.



Still had them.

Yahweh seems pretty nuts too.

If you're a perfect being you don't need any of that. You can just sit around in your void. Also, the whole entire need for god to be in that equation defies Occam's Razor. The simplest solution is that a part of physics that we are currently unaware of caused the singularity to expand (NOT explode) into the current universe. The usage of of a god (god caused singularity to expand) complicates this. The second equation working under creationism doesn't matter - because it is a human invention. First, we must obey the laws of physics, then the beliefs of man.

The Bible isn't boring to me. Reading the historical accounts is exciting to the side of me that's into history, reading the wise sayings (like in Proverbs) is interesting for anyone who likes wise sayings, or self improvement. Sure there are bits of mostly hard to pronounce names, but that's just part of the genealogy, and can be a bit on the boring side, but there is plenty in it that's pretty cool too.

As for the prophecies, people could try to set up their situation so that it fits in with a prophecy, but in the case of Jesus there are too many fulfilled prophecies that he had absolutely no control over, such as where he was born, when he was born, the fact that he travelled to Egypt with his parents when he was a toddler, that he was betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, that they cast lots over his clothing, the way people abused him when he was on the torture stake, and that he was pierced with a spear in the side and yet had no bones broken - unlike both the other people put to death along side him who had their legs broken.

It wasn't written by the people of Rome, but was written by Hebrews. The Roman writer (Paul) was a Roman citizen, but was a Jew, and he was not exactly in favour of the general population of Rome, since he were persecuted, beaten and thrown into prison!

Why do you say that Yahweh seems nuts?

[stethnorun]

Why do you say that Yahweh seems nuts?

Oh wow, where to begin? Well first and foremost, he is as insecure as a teenager. "Worship me above everything!" Talk about an attention whor. Oh and there's also all the genocide. God throws a hissy-fit by WIPING OUT HUMANITY WITH A FLOOD. Overkill much? And of course all the condoned mass murder, rape, etc etc. I mean even the comandment of "Thou Shall Not Kill" ONLY pertained to the Israelites. It really means "Thou Shall Not Kill....unless that person is not part of your tribe. Otherwise, scalp the f-er."

The list goes on and on and on and on. I'm super thankful we DON'T live in a universe created by Yahweh. If we did, we would be a world held in the iron grip of an invincible lunatic dictator with a cult of personality.

[Black Gate of Mordor]

Why do you say that Yahweh seems nuts?

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able, and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"

-Epicurus, 33 C.E.

[Hawk]

Firstly, God saying "Worship me above everything" is very reasonable, since if God did create everything then he's actually saying "Worship me, not my creation. Don't worship a piece of carved wood, or a human who thinks he 's god-like." - honestly, if he is the creator of everything (life, our existence, our planet), then is it too much to ask to give him the credit for it?

The flood of Noah's day was explained. First certain angels had done something very unnatural - materialized and taken human wives and had hybrid children, who turned out to be very nasty! Then there was the state of humankind in general back then (it wasn't exactly a nice period to live in), and he gave them plenty of time and warnings via Noah, who went out preaching to the people, trying to get them to save themselves, but they took no note until the flood came and slept them all away. Notice God always warns the people doing wrong and gives them a chance to turn around, but not everyone does. And since he is the creator he does have the right to dictate punishment over humanity, and to set up a moral code for humans to live by.
You may be thinking of Sodom and Gomorrah, where people were very bad. Lot (Bible character) came to live outside Sodom, and before the people of Sodom were destroyed he asked God to spare the city if there were just ten people who were good in it, but not even ten were found (basically it was explaining that Lot's family were the only good people there), and when Lot had visitors - who turned out to be angels - everybody in Sodom came out and tried to forcibly rape them! I'm talking young and old, everyone!

Black Gate, you are referring to why God allows suffering? There is definitely a reason for this...Let me try to explain using scriptures. Basically there are three main reasons: 1) Ecclesiastes 9:11 states "I return to see under the sun that the swift do not have the race, nor the mighty ones the battle, nor do the wise also have the food, nor do the understanding ones also have the riches, nor do even those having knowledge have the favour; because time and unforeseen occurrence befall them all." Time and unforeseen occurrence befalls us all, so basically bad stuff just happens sometimes, and we can be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
2) Ecclesiastes 8:9 says "All this I have seen, and there was an applying of my heart to every work that has been done under the sun, during the time that man has dominated man to his injury." Man ruling man to his injury is a huge part of our suffering - in other words a lot of it we do to ourselves as imperfect beings trying to self-govern without God's help.
3) 1 John 5:19 states "We know we originate with God, but the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one." This states that Satan is in power at the moment, and controlling things happening in the world...Now why is that? Let's go back to the start...

In Genesis it explains the story of Adam and Eve, and how they lived as perfect beings with perfect health and had the ability to live forever. There is one tree in the garden they live in that God doesn't want them to touch, but as we know Satan tempts Eve and she goes and takes some, then Adam does too. This was them saying to God "We don't need you, we can rule ourselves!" So they rebelled and a universal issue came up...Can humans rule themselves without God's help? Now God could have ended it then and there, but the issue would have still been unsolved, and so he had two other choices. The first choice is to step back and let humans rule themselves, but step in whenever something bad happens to save the day - in other words not completely letting go, and not completely solving the issue. Second was to step back altogether and let humans try to rule themselves entirely, and let them try every government type, and once the issue is solved step in again. He chose the latter because he wanted to solve the issue completely. Now this also explains why we are all imperfect, since Adam is the forefather of all humans, so by becoming imperfect all of his offspring would also be imperfect through the genes. This is also the explanation for why Jesus had to die for us. You see Adam was originally perfect, so another perfect human had to be ransomed as a sacrifice to counter this, and to do this Jesus had to be born as a human and live his entire life without sinning, and then die a perfect being, which is what he did.

Here are a few scriptures that support this: Romans 5:12 points out that through Adam sin entered into the world. John 8:42 says that Gods sent Jesus. John 3:16 is about the ransom sacrifice.

[stethnorun]

WALL OF TEXT

Very reasonable? Why does god need ANYTHING from us? Only an immature, insecure person needs others to "worship" him/her. I have more self esteem than god.

Ok, so flip all the murdering around. What if someone walked in San Francisco (arguably a "worse" place than Sodom and Gomorrah ever was) and said, "I will murder every man woman and child in the place unless you either change your ways or flee!"

What would you call that person? Probably a psychopath with extreme homicidal tendencies. And there's your god. What a lovely guy.

[istry555]

The Bible (well let's get specific as the Old Testament and New Testament should really never be treated together when talking about the history of the Bible as they come from two different traditions and time periods), so the Old Testament isn't really all that unique as you seem to say. It's fairly typical of the Afro-Asiatic cultural group with identical stories in all the surrounding cultures (see the religious Ras Shamra tablets of Ugarit for the closest parallels). Anyway the Afro-Asiatic peoples originated somewhere in the Horn of Africa and then migrated into the Middle East and Northern Africa and became the Jews, Berbers, Egyptians, Babylonians, Canaanites, etc. etc. and just like all these people are all descended from the same proto-group of people, all their religions are also descended from the same religion of that proto-group. Which is why there's a bunch of parallels in terms of myths and worship between them.

Anyway, the real significance of the New Testament is that it represents a merging of the Afro-Asiatic and Indo-European religious groupings (the Indo-Europeans originating between the Black and Caspian Seas, and becoming the Hittites, Greeks, Romans, Germans, Norse, Indians, Persians, Tocharians, etc. etc.). Which is why if you analyze the structure of the Jesus "myth" it basically parallels the Proto-Indo-European creation myth, and elements of the major Mystery Cults of Rome (all of which, Dionysus, Zoroastrianism, Mithras were of Indo-European origin).

This is not to discredit Christianity. There is a historicity around Jesus. I'm just saying you should never really take any text, sacred or otherwise, at purely face value. (For example, Jesus did not really flee into Egypt, that story was added to the Bible to add another parallel between Jesus and Moses. However, this was deliberately and knowingly done, it wasn't meant to fool the audience of the time, but teach--the original intended audience knew it was a comparison). These types of texts are, however, invaluable in understanding the cultural evolution of societies as a whole.

[Black Gate of Mordor]

The flood of Noah's day was explained.

Noah's Ark is impossible. There is zero evidence in the geological records of any great flood, anywhere on the Earth at that time. Also, how did he manage to build a boat large enough to carry the millions of species on Earth? And what about incest? More evidence this book was written by quite unknowledged Bronze-Age scribes.


In Genesis it explains the story of Adam and Eve, and how they lived as perfect beings with perfect health and had the ability to live forever. There is one tree in the garden they live in that God doesn't want them to touch, but as we know Satan tempts Eve and she goes and takes some, then Adam does too. This was them saying to God "We don't need you, we can rule ourselves!" So they rebelled and a universal issue came up...Can humans rule themselves without God's help? Now God could have ended it then and there, but the issue would have still been unsolved, and so he had two other choices. The first choice is to step back and let humans rule themselves, but step in whenever something bad happens to save the day - in other words not completely letting go, and not completely solving the issue. Second was to step back altogether and let humans try to rule themselves entirely, and let them try every government type, and once the issue is solved step in again. He chose the latter because he wanted to solve the issue completely. Now this also explains why we are all imperfect, since Adam is the forefather of all humans, so by becoming imperfect all of his offspring would also be imperfect through the genes. This is also the explanation for why Jesus had to die for us. You see Adam was originally perfect, so another perfect human had to be ransomed as a sacrifice to counter this, and to do this Jesus had to be born as a human and live his entire life without sinning, and then die a perfect being, which is what he did.

The story of Adam and Eve is ripe with problems. First, what about incest? Adam and Eve's sons and daughters would have no other humans to reproduce with.

Also, if God is omniscient, he would have known well ahead of creation that Adam and Eve were going to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. As Epicurus said, therefore he is malevolent and obviously not a God. And the problem of evil has an earlier stem than Adam and Eve - that story is simply supposed to explain sin within humans. Were did the snake come from? What earlier crime had it committed to be able to be evil? The simple knowledge that God knew his creation would sin and be doomed to suffering is that of an unjust and hateful God. A God that confines people to a fiery, endless torture, for simply not believing in him, is unjust and cruel. A God that is omnipresent and omniscient should know exactly why and how I am going to not believe in him, so if he is omnibenevolent, he should send all people to heaven, as he knows why they would not believe in him.


Here are a few scriptures that support this: Romans 5:12 points out that through Adam sin entered into the world. John 8:42 says that Gods sent Jesus. John 3:16 is about the ransom sacrifice.

As I said before - if Adam brought sin into the world, how could the snake lie? Is lying not a sin?

[stethnorun]

The Bible (well let's get specific as the Old Testament and New Testament should really never be treated together when talking about the history of the Bible as they come from two different traditions and time periods), so the Old Testament isn't really all that unique as you seem to say. It's fairly typical of the Afro-Asiatic cultural group with identical stories in all the surrounding cultures (see the religious Ras Shamra tablets of Ugarit for the closest parallels). Anyway the Afro-Asiatic peoples originated somewhere in the Horn of Africa and then migrated into the Middle East and Northern Africa and became the Jews, Berbers, Egyptians, Babylonians, Canaanites, etc. etc. and just like all these people are all descended from the same proto-group of people, all their religions are also descended from the same religion of that proto-group. Which is why there's a bunch of parallels in terms of myths and worship between them.

Anyway, the real significance of the New Testament is that it represents a merging of the Afro-Asiatic and Indo-European religious groupings (the Indo-Europeans originating between the Black and Caspian Seas, and becoming the Hittites, Greeks, Romans, Germans, Norse, Indians, Persians, Tocharians, etc. etc.). Which is why if you analyze the structure of the Jesus "myth" it basically parallels the Proto-Indo-European creation myth, and elements of the Mystery Cults of Rome (all of which, Dionysus, Zoroastrianism, Mithras were of Indo-European origin).

This is not to discredit Christianity. There is a historality around Jesus. I'm just saying you should never really take any text, sacred or otherwise, at face value. (For example, Jesus did not really flee into Egypt, that story was added to the Bible to add another parallel between Jesus and Moses. However, this was deliberately and knowingly done, it wasn't meant to fool the audience of the time, but teach. The original intended audience knew it was a comparison). These types of texts are, however, invaluable in understanding the cultural evolution of societies as a whole.

Well put. Thanks for more of the context. I'm not as knowledgeable about this stuff as you (and others) are.

[Hawk]

Very reasonable? Why does god need ANYTHING from us? Only an immature, insecure person needs others to "worship" him/her. I have more self esteem than god.

It's not that he needs our worship - he's been around long before he created anything - but it's that he deserves it, since he gave us life and made us such a beautiful planet, and many other things that make life so wonderful.

[Hawk]

The Bible (well let's get specific as the Old Testament and New Testament should really never be treated together when talking about the history of the Bible as they come from two different traditions and time periods), so the Old Testament isn't really all that unique as you seem to say. It's fairly typical of the Afro-Asiatic cultural group with identical stories in all the surrounding cultures (see the religious Ras Shamra tablets of Ugarit for the closest parallels). Anyway the Afro-Asiatic peoples originated somewhere in the Horn of Africa and then migrated into the Middle East and Northern Africa and became the Jews, Berbers, Egyptians, Babylonians, Canaanites, etc. etc. and just like all these people are all descended from the same proto-group of people, all their religions are also descended from the same religion of that proto-group. Which is why there's a bunch of parallels in terms of myths and worship between them.

Anyway, the real significance of the New Testament is that it represents a merging of the Afro-Asiatic and Indo-European religious groupings (the Indo-Europeans originating between the Black and Caspian Seas, and becoming the Hittites, Greeks, Romans, Germans, Norse, Indians, Persians, Tocharians, etc. etc.). Which is why if you analyze the structure of the Jesus "myth" it basically parallels the Proto-Indo-European creation myth, and elements of the Mystery Cults of Rome (all of which, Dionysus, Zoroastrianism, Mithras were of Indo-European origin).

This is not to discredit Christianity. There is a historality around Jesus. I'm just saying you should never really take any text, sacred or otherwise, at face value. (For example, Jesus did not really flee into Egypt, that story was added to the Bible to add another parallel between Jesus and Moses. However, this was deliberately and knowingly done, it wasn't meant to fool the audience of the time, but teach. The original intended audience knew it was a comparison). These types of texts are, however, invaluable in understanding the cultural evolution of societies as a whole.

It adds to the credibility of the Bible when the same accounts are recorded in other texts from the period. As a whole the Bible is still unique, or why don't we have any of the other texts or books as global bestsellers? And why hasn't any of the other texts and books effected so many peoples lives as the Bible has?

What evidence do you have that Jesus never fled into Egypt with his parents? And there still are all the other fulfilled prophecies that he had no control over.

[Hawk]

Noah's Ark is impossible. There is zero evidence in the geological records of any great flood, anywhere on the Earth at that time. Also, how did he manage to build a boat large enough to carry the millions of species on Earth? And what about incest? More evidence this book was written by quite unknowledged Bronze-Age scribes.

The story of Adam and Eve is ripe with problems. First, what about incest? Adam and Eve's sons and daughters would have no other humans to reproduce with.

Also, if God is omniscient, he would have known well ahead of creation that Adam and Eve were going to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. As Epicurus said, therefore he is malevolent and obviously not a God. And the problem of evil has an earlier stem than Adam and Eve - that story is simply supposed to explain sin within humans. Were did the snake come from? What earlier crime had it committed to be able to be evil? The simple knowledge that God knew his creation would sin and be doomed to suffering is that of an unjust and hateful God. A God that confines people to a fiery, endless torture, for simply not believing in him, is unjust and cruel. A God that is omnipresent and omniscient should know exactly why and how I am going to not believe in him, so if he is omnibenevolent, he should send all people to heaven, as he knows why they would not believe in him.

As I said before - if Adam brought sin into the world, how could the snake lie? Is lying not a sin?

They found the ark in Turkey...And it's up on a mountain! There has been several documentaries on this, and it's been in the news a few times as well. (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-04-28/noahs-ark-discovered-on-turkish-mountain/413428)
As we know with animals, species develop from the original animal, such as the dog - there are so many breeds of dog, yet they all are related. This is not proof of evolution though, since a dog is still in the end a dog, and not a bird or fish. So basically there were a lot less species of animals around, and later they spread around the earth and the different environments assisted in developing many species. Australian wildlife is a great example of this.
There is plenty of evidence that a world-wide flood occurred, such as shells being found up on top of mountains everywhere around the globe, and the fact that nearly every culture and people in every corner of the planet as a flood story.

Adam and Eve's children would have had to marry each other...There was no one else at the time. I'm not supporting incest, but this was a necessary step at the time - if they didn't then humans would've died out. Also at the time they were much closer to perfection, since people were still living for hundreds of years at the time, so there would not have been negative effects to incest so early on.

God can look into the future if he likes, but he doesn't since that would fix the future like destiny, and so he allows for free will, which is quite a gift!
The snake is not to blame, but the spirit creature that puppeted it. It was just an animal that was fitting in Satan's opinion to use.

Lying is a sin, and that is why Satan is called the "Father of the lie". Satan himself sinned, but Satan is not our genetic forefather, and thus did not give us all sin, as Adam did via genetics.

[mwallyn]

Noah's Ark is impossible. There is zero evidence in the geological records of any great flood, anywhere on the Earth at that time. Also, how did he manage to build a boat large enough to carry the millions of species on Earth? And what about incest? More evidence this book was written by quite unknowledged Bronze-Age scribes.



The story of Adam and Eve is ripe with problems. First, what about incest? Adam and Eve's sons and daughters would have no other humans to reproduce with.

Also, if God is omniscient, he would have known well ahead of creation that Adam and Eve were going to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. As Epicurus said, therefore he is malevolent and obviously not a God. And the problem of evil has an earlier stem than Adam and Eve - that story is simply supposed to explain sin within humans. Were did the snake come from? What earlier crime had it committed to be able to be evil? The simple knowledge that God knew his creation would sin and be doomed to suffering is that of an unjust and hateful God. A God that confines people to a fiery, endless torture, for simply not believing in him, is unjust and cruel. A God that is omnipresent and omniscient should know exactly why and how I am going to not believe in him, so if he is omnibenevolent, he should send all people to heaven, as he knows why they would not believe in him.



As I said before - if Adam brought sin into the world, how could the snake lie? Is lying not a sin?

First off, remember that most Christian denominations do not take anything that happened in Genesis as historical or scientific fact whatsoever, so arguing of the historical accuracy of Genesis is pretty useless given that most people will actually agree with you. Bearing that in mind, there are still logical explanations to things like the Great Flood. Obviously at the time, the "Known World" was basically the Middle East from the Mediterranean to Persia. The Tigris and Euphrates are the two major rivers in the region, and if both were to flood, you'd have a seriously cataclysmic disaster that would make most people think that the whole world flooded over. It also doesn't help that a massive flood (which can occur with some regularity) can completely change the geographical features of the area, so areas described in the Bible may be in different locations post-disaster or may flat not exist anymore.

Regarding Adam, Eve, and the Snake, the snake is basically the devil. If you wonder how the devil exists, Lucifer was actually one of God's most highly regarded angels in Heaven. However, Lucifer plotted to make himself the most powerful being in existence. Naturally, God didn't take kindly to this so Lucifer was kicked out of Heaven and sent to Hell for all eternity. Thus, with Lucifer/Satan lurking around, it was only a matter of time before he tried to seduce Adam and Eve. When it came to incest, the Bible does not explicitly say anywhere about who else God created (again, most people do not take it for face value on historical matters), but its implied pretty heavily when Cain fears being killed by random people (Gen 4:14-16), finds a wife and founds a city (Gen 4:17), and when people began to call on the name of God (Gen 4:26) that there were more people than just Adam and Eve in the world.

[Hawk]

This is the opinion from someone I think may be an Agnostic. He's against Atheism and Religion, and is not altogether tactful, but this is interesting nonetheless: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkMsk5yH5O4

Let me know what you think.

[stethnorun]

It's not that he needs our worship - he's been around long before he created anything - but it's that he deserves it, since he gave us life and made us such a beautiful planet, and many other things that make life so wonderful.

Um, read the Bible, dude. He either gets his worship, or he mass murders your civilization. It's one of the other with him. Again, I'm glad I don't live in a universe where god exists, because he would be like an omnipotent Kim Jung Il.

[stethnorun]

First off, remember that most Christian denominations do not take anything that happened in Genesis as historical or scientific fact whatsoever, so arguing of the historical accuracy of Genesis is pretty useless given that most people will actually agree with you.

But what you fail to accept is that prior to science discovering things like evolution, Christians DID take Genesis as historical truth. 40% of Americans STILL do. The only reason YOU don't is because your brain can't accept the ludicrousness of that story, so you decide "Okay, that one is a metaphor or an allegory...but other parts are real". And as we discover more and more truth through science, more and more parts of the Bible are going to seem equally ridiculous.

Are you really not understanding this very basic concept?

[Hawk]

Um, read the Bible, dude. He either gets his worship, or he mass murders your civilization. It's one of the other with him. Again, I'm glad I don't live in a universe where god exists, because he would be like an omnipotent Kim Jung Il.

I have read the Bible extensively. Since we do exist, why wouldn't he want us to worship him? Look at it from a much smaller scale...I don't know your situation, but say your a parent. Now because of you a life exists (or more than one life), and you have looked after this life since it was a helpless baby, and you have been a very good parent, but it's grown up and now treats you with disrespect. Not saying you want your children to literally worship you, but you want their respect, and you deserve respect since you were a good parent. Now back to God, if he created everything, which would put him on a much grander scale than parenthood with humans, what is so wrong with him want us to worship him? He is not the monster you are making him out to be. 1 John 4:8 states that he is love. Also Jesus is his son, and yet he sacrificed him to save all of us...What I huge thing to do! He had been with Jesus for probably millions of years, so seeing his son die would have be an extremely difficult thing for God - but being God he can cope with that. He was so motivated by love for us that he sacrificed his only son.

[Hawk]

But what you fail to accept is that prior to science discovering things like evolution, Christians DID take Genesis as historical truth. 40% of Americans STILL do. The only reason YOU don't is because your brain can't accept the ludicrousness of that story, so you decide "Okay, that one is a metaphor or an allegory...but other parts are real". And as we discover more and more truth through science, more and more parts of the Bible are going to seem equally ridiculous.

Are you really not understanding this very basic concept?

Evolution has so many gaps in it that it's not all that scientific itself. How did the first cell develop from nothing without being either destroyed by the sun or dissolving in the water? Why did so many complex organisms appear all of a sudden in the Cambrian period, with nothing before hand? Where are the fossils that show how gills turned into lungs? Why are the skulls of the apes that supposedly preceded man in no particular order of size (small skull is next to large skull, then small skull again, and this is how we are meant to have developed)? Why did long term experiments on flies show that all their mutants that were breed their offspring would resort back to the normal fly? Why did earlier evolutionists desperately hold onto false records, such as the Piltdown man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man ) Why do some people travel to Africa and risk their lives to save Gorillas? Why isn't survival of the fittest socially accepted as normal human behavior? Why are ancient languages often a lot more complex than modern languages?
I studied evolution to learn for myself the truth, and afterwards I was more convinced that Creationism is correct.

The Theory of Evolution has so many holes in it that it requires faith to believe in it.

[stethnorun]

Evolution has so many gaps in it that it's not all that scientific itself. How did the first cell develop from nothing without being either destroyed by the sun or dissolving in the water? Why did so many complex organisms appear all of a sudden in the Cambrian period, with nothing before hand? Where are the fossils that show how gills turned into lungs? Why are the skulls of the apes that supposedly preceded man in no particular order of size (small skull is next to large skull, then small skull again, and this is how we are meant to have developed)? Why are mutations always bad? Why did long term experiments on flies show that all their mutants that were breed their offspring would resort back to the normal fly? Why did earlier evolutionists desperately hold onto false records, such as the Piltdown man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man ) Why do some people travel to Africa and risk their lives to save Gorillas? Why isn't survival of the fittest socially accepted as normal human behavior? Why are ancient languages often a lot more complex than modern languages?
I studied evolution to learn for myself the truth, and afterwards I was more convinced that Creationism is correct.

The Theory of Evolution has so many holes in it that it requires faith to believe in it.

Sigh...when you can't respond to the substance of what someone says, pick a detail and completely redirect. I guess I'll just chalk that one up as "I concede" and move on.

[Hawk]

Sigh...when you can't respond to the substance of what someone says, pick a detail and completely redirect. I guess I'll just chalk that one up as "I concede" and move on.

Actually I'm making a point. You attack my beliefs, and say that Creationism is unscientific, and yet you have not been able to disprove the Bible, or answer all the many flaws of evolution.
Also I have already answered what you said, or do you need me to reiterate? We are starting to go around in circles.

[stethnorun]

Actually I'm making a point. You attack my beliefs, and say that Creationism is unscientific, and yet you have not been able to disprove the Bible, or answer all the many flaws of evolution.
Also I have already answered what you said, or do you need me to reiterate? We are starting to go around in circles.

Yeah that's fine. Look what's the point anyway? You certainly aren't going to be convinced by me and I seriously doubt you are going to come up with anything I haven't thought of already...so I'm fine with just leaving it here.

[Hawk]

Yeah that's fine. Look what's the point anyway? You certainly aren't going to be convinced by me and I seriously doubt you are going to come up with anything I haven't thought of already...so I'm fine with just leaving it here.

Well, provided both sides can keep civil, religious discussion is educational, deep, and a most interesting and wide subject. Still you have to want to talk about it, no one should force anyone into religious debate. I really enjoy it when neither side attacks the other's beliefs, but when they do, as you have learnt, I stand up for what I believe in, and I can see you do too. It takes a strong character to do that.

Thanx for discussing it with me.

[stethnorun]

Well, provided both sides can keep civil, religious discussion is educational, deep, and a most interesting and wide subject. Still you have to want to talk about it, no one should force anyone into religious debate. I really enjoy it when neither side attacks the other's beliefs, but when they do, as you have learnt, I stand up for what I believe in, and I can see you do too. It takes a strong character to do that.

Or just stubborn defensiveness :p But I get your meaning and in a way, I agree with you. As I've said a few times here in various threads, I completely respect someone's right to live and think the way they want and also my right to call them an idiot for doing so (and of course, their right to call me an idiot in return). The fact that people can do that, without violence, is what makes the Western way of life great, and at least in that regard, far superior to...certain other areas of the world.

[Black Gate of Mordor]

Why are mutations always bad?

Who said that?


Why did long term experiments on flies show that all their mutants that were breed their offspring would resort back to the normal fly?

Because they have no need to change if their environment does not. The environment provokes change.


Why did earlier evolutionists desperately hold onto false records, such as the Piltdown man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man )

Because they're human and didn't want to be wrong? I don't get what you're arguing here.


Why do some people travel to Africa and risk their lives to save Gorillas? Why isn't survival of the fittest socially accepted as normal human behavior?

People have been guilted into thinking they caused those problems, and we're large enough now that survival of the fittest doesn't apply.


Why are ancient languages often a lot more complex than modern languages?

As time goes by, we become more proficient in the creation of things - the modern car engine is more efficient than an old one. Languages are generally seen as complex because they are inefficient.


The Theory of Evolution has so many holes in it that it requires faith to believe in it.

You are confusing the layman's 'theory' with scientific 'theory'. Theory, in science, is a group of proven facts that will stand as fact until unproven. That's how all science works.

[Black Gate of Mordor]

As we know with animals, species develop from the original animal, such as the dog - there are so many breeds of dog, yet they all are related. This is not proof of evolution though, since a dog is still in the end a dog, and not a bird or fish. So basically there were a lot less species of animals around, and later they spread around the earth and the different environments assisted in developing many species. Australian wildlife is a great example of this.

Australian wildlife is so different because it has had millions of years to evolve. The separation from Gondwana, the separation from India, the separation from Antarctica - and after all these events, the animals on these differing continents began to have less similarities. Animals today would not have evolved from the simplest beings, because then we're left with about 50,000 types of animals and more than 2 millions types of insect. That's of course, assuming that they all evolve somehow into the more varied versions in five thousand years.


There is plenty of evidence that a world-wide flood occurred, such as shells being found up on top of mountains everywhere around the globe, and the fact that nearly every culture and people in every corner of the planet as a flood story.

That is not evidence of a flood - it is evidence of continental drift. The reason there are shell fossils in the Himalayas is that the shells fossils formed in the ocean north of India, which then proceeded to ram into Asia.


Adam and Eve's children would have had to marry each other...There was no one else at the time. I'm not supporting incest, but this was a necessary step at the time - if they didn't then humans would've died out. Also at the time they were much closer to perfection, since people were still living for hundreds of years at the time, so there would not have been negative effects to incest so early on.

What do you mean? I'm not objecting incest on religious beliefs, I'm doing it on scientific data. Incestual couples have a far higher rate of birth defects in their children. If that continues, the rate gets even higher.


God can look into the future if he likes, but he doesn't since that would fix the future like destiny, and so he allows for free will, which is quite a gift!

Before God created the universe he knew exactly everything that would happen. He knew about sin. He knew about the Tree. He knew about the flood. God is malevolent.


The snake is not to blame, but the spirit creature that puppeted it. It was just an animal that was fitting in Satan's opinion to use.

Doesn't matter. Satan still existed. Satan is a direct violation of God, and therefore should not be able to exist.


Lying is a sin, and that is why Satan is called the "Father of the lie". Satan himself sinned, but Satan is not our genetic forefather, and thus did not give us all sin, as Adam did via genetics.

But God allowed sin to exist in the first place.

[Hawk]

Or just stubborn defensiveness :p But I get your meaning and in a way, I agree with you. As I've said a few times here in various threads, I completely respect someone's right to live and think the way they want and also my right to call them an idiot for doing so (and of course, their right to call me an idiot in return). The fact that people can do that, without violence, is what makes the Western way of life great, and at least in that regard, far superior to...certain other areas of the world.

Freedom of speech, and freedom of religious beliefs is very important. There are countries where religious groups are under ban, and they have to practice in secret, so at the very least it's nice to be able to practice my beliefs in a free country.

[Hawk]

Who said that?

Because they have no need to change if their environment does not. The environment provokes change.

Because they're human and didn't want to be wrong? I don't get what you're arguing here.

People have been guilted into thinking they caused those problems, and we're large enough now that survival of the fittest doesn't apply.

As time goes by, we become more proficient in the creation of things - the modern car engine is more efficient than an old one. Languages are generally seen as complex because they are inefficient.

You are confusing the layman's 'theory' with scientific 'theory'. Theory, in science, is a group of proven facts that will stand as fact until unproven. That's how all science works.

Well can you prove that mutations that we've seen in modern science show that they are a good thing? Mutations are a hindrance to whatever suffers it.

The experimenter with the flies was very extensive, and they came up with quite a few variations of flies, yet often it was something like they couldn't fly. Their offspring returned to their normal state.

Fair enough, but my point with the Piltdown man is that they were desperate for some kind of evidence, so they fabricated some.

Guilt doesn't fit in well at all with survival of the fittest. The point is that whenever someone does behave this way they are put into prisons or punished in some way. This shouldn't be the case if evolution is true, because the priority is for our species survival, and an animal such as the gorilla that we neither eat or are eaten by, and doesn't effect our way of life at all, wouldn't matter.

By evolution languages should start very simple, and then become complicated.

Once a theory has been proven entirely as fact, and there are no holes left in the argument, it is no longer considered a "Theory" or "Hypothesis".

[Hawk]

Australian wildlife is so different because it has had millions of years to evolve. The separation from Gondwana, the separation from India, the separation from Antarctica - and after all these events, the animals on these differing continents began to have less similarities. Animals today would not have evolved from the simplest beings, because then we're left with about 50,000 types of animals and more than 2 millions types of insect. That's of course, assuming that they all evolve somehow into the more varied versions in five thousand years.

That is not evidence of a flood - it is evidence of continental drift. The reason there are shell fossils in the Himalayas is that the shells fossils formed in the ocean north of India, which then proceeded to ram into Asia.

What do you mean? I'm not objecting incest on religious beliefs, I'm doing it on scientific data. Incestual couples have a far higher rate of birth defects in their children. If that continues, the rate gets even higher.

Before God created the universe he knew exactly everything that would happen. He knew about sin. He knew about the Tree. He knew about the flood. God is malevolent.

Doesn't matter. Satan still existed. Satan is a direct violation of God, and therefore should not be able to exist.

But God allowed sin to exist in the first place.

Regarding Australian mammal wildlife there is a fossil record of how they are related. They remain a similar animal, they all stayed as mammals. As we have seen with species of animals, they do not require millions of years to do this, but can develop and change over a fairly short period of time. Not saying that the earth isn't millions of years old though. When God created the world in 6 days, they were not 6 literal, 24 hour days. Much like you can say about an ancestor "back in his day", you are not referring to just one day of existence, so we don't know how long each creative "day" was.

I have seen a documentary a while back on how there is geological evidence of a great flood. I will have to do a bit of research since I've forgotten much of the details - until then I found an interesting link: http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/scientific_evidence_for_a_worldwide_flood.htm. Still, the fact that the great flood is known around the globe by indigenous peoples is more than just a coincidence.

Adam and Eve and their children where just out of perfection. Adam and Eve had been perfect beings, and then when they left God they became imperfect, but could still live hundreds of years. As thousands of years past we are now further away from perfection than ever before.

Of course God knew of sin, since this is his universe that he created, and he set the standard of morality, and so going under that is sin. He also programmed us with a conscious so we want to be good, and we feel guilty about sinning. As we are imperfect though, God knows we cannot keep from sinning altogether, so he focuses on if we are repentant or not, and he is very forgiving with our sins when we are repentant.

In this universe that God created he could have made all the living things unable to do bad things, but by doing this he would be restricting our freedom, and we would be worshiping him not out of choice, but because he made us this way. It would be kind of like making robots or androids. We wouldn't complain because we couldn't.

[stethnorun]

Freedom of speech, and freedom of religious beliefs is very important. There are countries where religious groups are under ban, and they have to practice in secret, so at the very least it's nice to be able to practice my beliefs in a free country.

Absolutely agreed.

[stethnorun]

Well can you prove that mutations that we've seen in modern science show that they are a good thing? Mutations are a hindrance to whatever suffers it.


Hawk, just so you know, this kind of statement sort of "reveals your hand". Saying something like this shows that you don't really understand natural selection very well. I'm sure Black Gate will feel more motivated to explain why and how, but it's very clear, even for me who knows only the "broad strokes" of evolution (I read a lot of Dawkins) that you are holding onto some very very basic flaws in understanding.

"Theory", "mutation"...you don't really know what these terms mean, in terms of science and biology. Black Gate already explained what the scientific word "theory" means, and I'm sure he will explain what "mutation" means in another post, but I'm just letting you know, you are a little out of your depth on this topic.

[Hawk]

Hawk, just so you know, this kind of statement sort of "reveals your hand". Saying something like this shows that you don't really understand natural selection very well. I'm sure Black Gate will feel more motivated to explain why and how, but it's very clear, even for me who knows only the "broad strokes" of evolution (I read a lot of Dawkins) that you are holding onto some very very basic flaws in understanding.

"Theory", "mutation"...you don't really know what these terms mean, in terms of science and biology. Black Gate already explained what the scientific word "theory" means, and I'm sure he will explain what "mutation" means in another post, but I'm just letting you know, you are a little out of your depth on this topic.

Hmm, my mistake. Almost all mutations are neutral. I would like to know more on this anyway, so I'm happy to hear what Black Gate has to say - and my apologies for saying that "All mutations are bad", I know when I'm wrong...I guess it wasn't the most well thought out list, I was just jotting down ideas as they entered my head. I'll try not to let it happen again. :S (proof that I'm imperfect, lol)

Definition for "Theory": A set of assumptions, propositions, or accepted facts that attempts to provide a plausible or rational explanation of cause-and-effect (causal) relationships among a group of observed phenomenon. The word's origin (from the Greek thorós, a spectator), stresses the fact that all theories are mental models of the perceived reality.

[Black Gate of Mordor]

By evolution languages should start very simple, and then become complicated.

They started simple, got complicated, than we simplified them again. I don't understand why we're arguing linguistics. It has nothing to do with evolution, rather more with human behaviour.


Once a theory has been proven entirely as fact, and there are no holes left in the argument, it is no longer considered a "Theory" or "Hypothesis".

You're confusing theory and hypothesis. Theory in layman's terms is the same as hypothesis. In science, the word theory is the same as fact.


the·o·ry
   [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]
noun, plural the·o·ries.
1.
a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.


Regarding Australian mammal wildlife there is a fossil record of how they are related. They remain a similar animal, they all stayed as mammals. As we have seen with species of animals, they do not require millions of years to do this, but can develop and change over a fairly short period of time.

Some of them didn't, but most of them did. Also, if Australia has been separated from Antarctica for at least 60 million years, with a varying climate throughout, why wouldn't animals evolve differently to others elsewhere?


Not saying that the earth isn't millions of years old though. When God created the world in 6 days, they were not 6 literal, 24 hour days. Much like you can say about an ancestor "back in his day", you are not referring to just one day of existence, so we don't know how long each creative "day" was.

Sorry, but the Hebrew word used in that part of the Bible is the same word they used to mean the normal, 24-hour, one-rotation-of-the-Earth day. There was no "God's version of days". They were six literal days.


Adam and Eve and their children where just out of perfection. Adam and Eve had been perfect beings, and then when they left God they became imperfect, but could still live hundreds of years. As thousands of years past we are now further away from perfection than ever before.

Hmm... what does this remind me of? Tibetan Buddhism, where the age of humans differs depending on the purity of society. The first Buddha was 80,000 years old at his death, and the 34th was only 35.


Of course God knew of sin, since this is his universe that he created, and he set the standard of morality, and so going under that is sin. He also programmed us with a conscious so we want to be good, and we feel guilty about sinning. As we are imperfect though, God knows we cannot keep from sinning altogether, so he focuses on if we are repentant or not, and he is very forgiving with our sins when we are repentant.

But he knows prior whether you are going to sin and forgive him or not! The whole point of Earth being a test is a pointless waste of time on God's part - when he knows exactly what you're going to do, he still gives the illusion of free will anyway! Let's put it into perspective. If I know that taking a gun, pointing it at someone who is sitting in a chair and will not move when I point the gun at them, and then shoot them, that they will die, what is the point of the test? I can just say that said person would die. That is what God is doing - he is supposed to know everything about our souls, yet still does the experiment anyway.


In this universe that God created he could have made all the living things unable to do bad things, but by doing this he would be restricting our freedom, and we would be worshiping him not out of choice, but because he made us this way. It would be kind of like making robots or androids. We wouldn't complain because we couldn't.

But the childish God still has his followers! What does he care? Now he can play around with them like chess pieces, or Sims.

[stethnorun]

Hmm, my mistake. Almost all mutations are neutral. I would like to know more on this anyway, so I'm happy to hear what Black Gate has to say - and my apologies for saying that "All mutations are bad", I know when I'm wrong...I guess it wasn't the most well thought out list, I was just jotting down ideas as they entered my head. I'll try not to let it happen again. :S (proof that I'm imperfect, lol)

Definition for "Theory": A set of assumptions, propositions, or accepted facts that attempts to provide a plausible or rational explanation of cause-and-effect (causal) relationships among a group of observed phenomenon. The word's origin (from the Greek thorós, a spectator), stresses the fact that all theories are mental models of the perceived reality.

Yes and as BG explained, that's the layman's usage of the word. That's not the scientific usage of the word. Everything in science is a theory, and remains so forever...the disproved theories and the proved ones, thus we still have the "theory of gravity" and the "theory of heliocentrism". The theory of evolution has almost as much evidence and proof for it that the theory of gravity does. It's now considered scientific fact (and this is coming from someone that just recently took a HUGE amount of heat for being skeptical about man-made global warming on this forum last week).

I advise you to read the book "The Greatest Show on Earth" by Richard Dawkins. He does a great job of simplifying the theory for easier consumption and showing both how amazing and how logical the theory is, along with so much evidence to back it up that your head will spin. Very easy read and super-informative. Nice pictures too :)

[Hawk]

It seems I stand corrected again. I am used to hearing "Theory" when referring to a "Hypothesis", such as when someone says "In theory...", and I was also taught at school that "Theory" is a "Hypothesis"...
I do remember hearing the term "the Law of Gravity" though, and am unfamiliar with people calling that a theory.

Animals change according to their kinds. They may have quite a lot of room for change, they don't change species altogether (like a fish changing into an amphibian), and we have no animals alive that are in the process of evolving into a different species, and fossil records don't help much here either.

The word "day" is used as an expression of time in that case. For example Psalms 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8 describes a day to God as a thousand years. This means that a day in the Bible is not necessarily a 24 hour day. If God wanted to he could make planets in a 24 hour day, but I imagine he would enjoy his work, much like an artist enjoys the process of painting.

If you look at the amount of children with allergies, and being born with other problems or birth defects, I think you will see it's gradually becoming more common. A lot of people say that this is environmental, but just look at England during the Renascence and the conditions the people lived in then...Even in the Industrial period life in parts of the world has been horrible, yet now problems are increasing.

As I said before, God could look into the future if he wanted to, but he chooses not to. He wants us to be free - to freely choose to love him of our own accord. Love isn't the same if it's forced upon people to act this way! In other words God has given us heaps of freedom - we can even choose to be bad if we want, although he would punish us if we did so, and this is understandable too, since he has the right to make the laws and set the standard of morality, and if he didn't step in to punish then people would be getting away with all kinds of crimes, which we all agree is unjust.

God is not the one playing around with us. As stated in 1 John 5:19, the world is being controlled by Satan and his demons at the moment, and so who do you think is playing with us like chess pieces?

The good news is this will not go on like this forever, but wickedness will end soon, and earth will be back to the way it should be - a Paradise! Psalms 37:9-11, 29 says "For evildoers themselves will be cut off, But those hoping in Jehovah are the ones that will possess the earth. And just a little while longer, and the wicked one will be no more (Satan); And you will certainly give attention to his place, and he will not be. But the meek ones themselves will possess the earth, And they will find exquisite delight in the abundance of peace. The righteous themselves will possess the earth, And they will reside forever upon it."
Revelation 21:4 says "He will wide out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore."
Isaiah 35:6 says "The lame one will climb up just as a stag does."
Isaiah 35:5 says "The eyes of the blind ones will be opened."
Isaiah 33:24 says "No resident will say 'I am sick'."
And Psalms 72:16 says "There will come to be plenty of grain on the earth."

Doesn't that sound wonderful? This is yet another reason why I follow the Bible, because it gives us hope.

[Hawk]

I advise you to read the book "The Greatest Show on Earth" by Richard Dawkins. He does a great job of simplifying the theory for easier consumption and showing both how amazing and how logical the theory is, along with so much evidence to back it up that your head will spin. Very easy read and super-informative. Nice pictures too :)

I will certainly look that one up next time I visit the library. Sounds interesting!

[stethnorun]

Doesn't that sound wonderful? This is yet another reason why I follow the Bible, because it gives us hope.

I think we have, here, the real reason you believe this stuff. It's not because of how much knowledge or insight into our universe that it gives you. It's about emotion. And when it comes to that rationale, I can completely understand why you would want that in your life.

However, you can't just take the good and not the bad. What would it mean to live in a universe with an all-powerful god being? It would mean that there is no consistency, as god has clearly shown in the Bible that he can upend physics and snuff out life on a whim (he is all-powerful, after all). What happens if you are on the wrong side of one of god's decisions. Even if you are TRYING to be good, human beings are imperfect and thus, even without intending to, you could offend god. And then SPLAT, that's the end of you.

That universe (the one depicted in the Bible) sounds like a living nightmare. It's one thing when a tyrant is human. Sure he may have tanks and bombs and planes on his side, but eventually he will die or be killed. No such luck with a pissed off god.

I could go on about "that kind of universe". But the fact is, thankfully, we don't live in that universe. We live in one where logic along with random chance determines our world. We have no obligation to worship an all-powerful father figure our entire lives...we simply get to live our lives and try to find happiness, because chance doesn't favor one person over another.

[Hawk]

I think we have, here, the real reason you believe this stuff. It's not because of how much knowledge or insight into our universe that it gives you. It's about emotion. And when it comes to that rationale, I can completely understand why you would want that in your life.

However, you can't just take the good and not the bad. What would it mean to live in a universe with an all-powerful god being? It would mean that there is no consistency, as god has clearly shown in the Bible that he can upend physics and snuff out life on a whim (he is all-powerful, after all). What happens if you are on the wrong side of one of god's decisions. Even if you are TRYING to be good, human beings are imperfect and thus, even without intending to, you could offend god. And then SPLAT, that's the end of you.

That universe (the one depicted in the Bible) sounds like a living nightmare. It's one thing when a tyrant is human. Sure he may have tanks and bombs and planes on his side, but eventually he will die or be killed. No such luck with a pissed off god.

I could go on about "that kind of universe". But the fact is, thankfully, we don't live in that universe. We live in one where logic along with random chance determines our world. We have no obligation to worship an all-powerful father figure our entire lives...we simply get to live our lives and try to find happiness, because chance doesn't favor one person over another.

It's just part of the reason. I admit that I have health problems, and it would be nice to be free of them, but this is unimportant on the grand scale of things. I may feel emotion, but it's not about emotion. I, too, like to see logic in my beliefs, which obviously I feel that I do, or I wouldn't stand up for them.

God always gives plenty of warning to those doing wrong, and then acts. Would you have it any other way though? Were people can do whatever crimes they want without consequences? God always does things for a reason, he doesn't just move a mountain or split a sea on a whim, but has a logical reason behind it - this is what I have found when studying the Bible.
I think that it would be much nicer to live in a world that's peaceful, with an abundance of food, and perfect health, then having to watch wars on the TV (or, for many, live in areas effected by wars), worried about walking through town at night, know that millions of people starve and I can't do a thing about it, and living in constant pain.

[stethnorun]

God always gives plenty of warning to those doing wrong, and then acts. Would you have it any other way though? Were people can do whatever crimes they want without consequences? God always does things for a reason, he doesn't just move a mountain or split a sea on a whim, but has a logical reason behind it - this is what I have found when studying the Bible.
I think that it would be much nicer to live in a world that's peaceful, with an abundance of food, and perfect health, then having to watch wars on the TV (or, for many, live in areas effected by wars), worried about walking through town at night, know that millions of people starve and I can't do a thing about it, and living in constant pain.

And when you hear "It's all part of god's plan", doesn't some part of you wonder what kind of monster would make you ill as part of "his plan"? Sorry, but that sounds like a monster to me. I would say god has a god complex hehe.

I agree that a peaceful world would be nice, but wishing for something doesn't make it so. Again, that's solipsism. More to the point, why do you want to place control over the fate of the world on some detached father figure? Are we children, that when we spill our milk, daddy has to clean it up for us? And if he doesn't, and we end up finally cleaning up our own mess of a planet, what purpose did god serve in the first place? A dead-beat dad?

You are picking and choosing what you do and don't attribute to god. When something good happens its "god watching over me". When something bad happens, it's "the devil" or your own fault, or human cruelty...or even "god's plan" (which sounds like a pretty sick and twisted plan). You can't logically have it both ways. He is either all powerful or he isn't. He's either the reason things happen or he isn't. Picking and choosing just to make yourself feel better about life...that's not even close to a sound line of reasoning. It's just...well...delusional.

[Hawk]

And when you hear "It's all part of god's plan", doesn't some part of you wonder what kind of monster would make you ill as part of "his plan"? Sorry, but that sounds like a monster to me. I would say god has a god complex hehe.

I agree that a peaceful world would be nice, but wishing for something doesn't make it so. Again, that's solipsism. More to the point, why do you want to place control over the fate of the world on some detached father figure? Are we children, that when we spill our milk, daddy has to clean it up for us? And if he doesn't, and we end up finally cleaning up our own mess of a planet, what purpose did god serve in the first place? A dead-beat dad?

You are picking and choosing what you do and don't attribute to god. When something good happens its "god watching over me". When something bad happens, it's "the devil" or your own fault, or human cruelty...or even "god's plan" (which sounds like a pretty sick and twisted plan). You can't logically have it both ways. He is either all powerful or he isn't. He's either the reason things happen or he isn't. Picking and choosing just to make yourself feel better about life...that's not even close to a sound line of reasoning. It's just...well...delusional.

God didn't make me ill! The Bible states that unforeseen occurrences befall us all, which includes health problems. This is just part of being imperfect and being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I'm not just wishing for a peaceful new world, but I'm trying my best to be a peaceful person now that would fit nicely into that new world. I can make this world a better place just by being better myself, trying to be a good example for others (hopefully anyway), and trying to teach others to be better people themselves. The Bible taught me these principles, and that is why I recommend it to others.

This new world that we hope for, the scripture says that the meek and righteous will inherit - so humble, teachable, good people, who will not make further mess of the place. It's not about making a mess and God cleaning up after us, but we should be responsible for our actions.

[stethnorun]

God didn't make me ill! The Bible states that unforeseen occurrences befall us all, which includes health problems. This is just part of being imperfect and being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I'm not just wishing for a peaceful new world, but I'm trying my best to be a peaceful person now that would fit nicely into that new world. I can make this world a better place just by being better myself, trying to be a good example for others (hopefully anyway), and trying to teach others to be better people themselves. The Bible taught me these principles, and that is why I recommend it to others.

This new world that we hope for, the scripture says that the meek and righteous will inherit - so humble, teachable, good people, who will not make further mess of the place. It's not about making a mess and God cleaning up after us, but we should be responsible for our actions.

...You didn't respond to the part about picking and choosing, which was the whole point of that post. You saying "god didn't make me ill" and then talk about all the ways god (an all powerful, interventionist being) makes the universe good...are you really not seeing the point I'm making?

[Hawk]

...You didn't respond to the part about picking and choosing, which was the whole point of that post. You saying "god didn't make me ill" and then talk about all the ways god (an all powerful, interventionist being) makes the universe good...are you really not seeing the point I'm making?

Oh, sorry about missing that!

No, I don't agree with picking and choosing what you want God to be. It's not up to us, we should listen to what God says he is. The Bible states that God inspired it's words (2 Timothy 3:16), and so I believe that it is, and I read the Bible to learn about God, and to know what he expects of us.


Can I ask you, what gives you hope as an Atheist?

[stethnorun]

Oh, sorry about missing that!

No, I don't agree with picking and choosing what you want God to be. It's not up to us, we should listen to what God says he is. The Bible states that God inspired it's words (2 Timothy 3:16), and so I believe that it is, and I read the Bible to learn about God, and to know what he expects of us.


Can I ask you, what gives you hope as an Atheist?

I guess I don't need hope. What will be, will be and to the extent that I can affect my own life and the world around me for the better, I will do so. I don't have that emotion that yearns for hope or a "way out" or any of that. I actually love reality...I love the things I can see and interact with. I don't need the universe to be supernatural...it's already overwhelmingly impressive and amazing, just being natural.

But you didn't really answer the question. You just referenced scripture. I'm asking for you to really grapple with what I'm saying: How can god both be responsible for everything, and yet when bad things happen, suddenly its not his fault?

And honestly Hawk, I don't mean this as an insult or anything, but if you keep responding to meaningful questions with Bible references (essentially, non-meaningful answers), then I'm not sure we can really converse much further. After all, when you ask me questions, I don't start regurgitating Ayn Rand quotes at you. I take the questions seriously and I respond with genuine thought.

[Black Gate of Mordor]

Can I ask you, what gives you hope as an Atheist?

Life. I see everything around me, and the promise of the future evolution of human civilisation, and that is where I see hope. A lot of times on the internet that hope can be easily dashed away, however.

[kaybeebiscuits]

For purposes of understanding the human race better, the Kaybeebiscuits approves of this debate!

http://operatorchan.org/k/arch/src/k247185_Trollface_smiley.png

[Hawk]

I guess I don't need hope. What will be, will be and to the extent that I can affect my own life and the world around me for the better, I will do so. I don't have that emotion that yearns for hope or a "way out" or any of that. I actually love reality...I love the things I can see and interact with. I don't need the universe to be supernatural...it's already overwhelmingly impressive and amazing, just being natural.

But you didn't really answer the question. You just referenced scripture. I'm asking for you to really grapple with what I'm saying: How can god both be responsible for everything, and yet when bad things happen, suddenly its not his fault?

And honestly Hawk, I don't mean this as an insult or anything, but if you keep responding to meaningful questions with Bible references (essentially, non-meaningful answers), then I'm not sure we can really converse much further. After all, when you ask me questions, I don't start regurgitating Ayn Rand quotes at you. I take the questions seriously and I respond with genuine thought.

But what about the condition the earth is in now? I feel there is good need for hope, at least for most people, since there is so much bad going on.

I'll try to explain it better: Going back to the universal issue "Can humans rule themselves without God", it was essential for God to step out and just watch, because if he is to intervene in human government, or solving problems such as starvation and natural disasters, he would be defeating his own argument, that his creation needs him to rule it. So what we've seen is thousands of years without God stepping in, but he did do some big things for us...He left us the Bible, which is our guild book, and reminds us of our hope, and he sacrificed his son for us. As I explained earlier, Adam was perfect, so the only possible ransom equal to pay off human sin was another perfect human to succeed in not sinning and then being sacrificed. It was explained to me once that when Adam and Eve left the garden of Eden they were clothed with animal skins - and this was symbolism that blood was needed to cover sin. Anyway, now we have seen all kinds of governments, and even Anarchy, and we have seen that none solve all our problems. Some are better than others, and some are pretty good, but they still can't feed everybody, house everybody, and treat all the sick, and stop all crime, AND keep freedom for all. God can do all this, and he will once he has stepped in in a short while, and removed all wickedness, and taken back control over the world. The Bible also shows the signs of the end of this wicked system, and they are very interesting! Let me quote them:
Matthew 24:3-14 "While sitting on upon the Mount of Olives, the disciples approached him (Jesus) privately, saying "Tell us, When will these things be, and what will be the sign of your presence and of the conclusion of the system of things?" And in answer Jesus said to them: "Look out that nobody misleads you; for many will come on the basis of my name, saying, "I am the Christ," and will mislead many. You are going to hear of wars and reports of wars; see that you are not terrified. For these things must take place, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be food shortages and earthquakes in one place after another. All these things are a beginning of pangs of distress. The people will deliver you up to tribulation and will kill you, and you will be objects of hatred by all the nations on account of my name. The, also, many will be stumbled and will betray one another and will hate one another. And many false prophets will arise and mislead many; and because of the increasing of lawlessness the love of the greater number will cool off. But he that has endured to the end is the one that will be saved. And this good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations; and then the end will come."
...This is all in the process of happening now.

With using scriptures I am simply allowing God to answer himself - at least that's the way I see it. I am putting a lot of thought into this, but I feel that my word along has a lot less weight to it than if I use God word.

[Hawk]

Life. I see everything around me, and the promise of the future evolution of human civilisation, and that is where I see hope. A lot of times on the internet that hope can be easily dashed away, however.

But what if the human race was to go too far? Could we become extinct? Will we destroy this planet? A lot of people worry about these things.

[Black Gate of Mordor]

But what if the human race was to go too far? Could we become extinct? Will we destroy this planet? A lot of people worry about these things.

Both things are true. We will become extinct. We will destroy this planet.

[stethnorun]

But what about the condition the earth is in now? I feel there is good need for hope, at least for most people, since there is so much bad going on.

I'll try to explain it better: Going back to the universal issue "Can humans rule themselves without God", it was essential for God to step out and just watch, because if he is to intervene in human government, or solving problems such as starvation and natural disasters, he would be defeating his own argument, that his creation needs him to rule it. So what we've seen is thousands of years without God stepping in, but he did do some big things for us...He left us the Bible, which is our guild book, and reminds us of our hope, and he sacrificed his son for us. As I explained earlier, Adam was perfect, so the only possible ransom equal to pay off human sin was another perfect human to succeed in not sinning and then being sacrificed. It was explained to me once that when Adam and Eve left the garden of Eden they were clothed with animal skins - and this was symbolism that blood was needed to cover sin. Anyway, now we have seen all kinds of governments, and even Anarchy, and we have seen that none solve all our problems. Some are better than others, and some are pretty good, but they still can't feed everybody, house everybody, and treat all the sick, and stop all crime, AND keep freedom for all. God can do all this, and he will once he has stepped in in a short while, and removed all wickedness, and taken back control over the world. The Bible also shows the signs of the end of this wicked system, and they are very interesting! Let me quote them:
Matthew 24:3-14 "While sitting on upon the Mount of Olives, the disciples approached him (Jesus) privately, saying "Tell us, When will these things be, and what will be the sign of your presence and of the conclusion of the system of things?" And in answer Jesus said to them: "Look out that nobody misleads you; for many will come on the basis of my name, saying, "I am the Christ," and will mislead many. You are going to hear of wars and reports of wars; see that you are not terrified. For these things must take place, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be food shortages and earthquakes in one place after another. All these things are a beginning of pangs of distress. The people will deliver you up to tribulation and will kill you, and you will be objects of hatred by all the nations on account of my name. The, also, many will be stumbled and will betray one another and will hate one another. And many false prophets will arise and mislead many; and because of the increasing of lawlessness the love of the greater number will cool off. But he that has endured to the end is the one that will be saved. And this good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations; and then the end will come."
...This is all in the process of happening now.

With using scriptures I am simply allowing God to answer himself - at least that's the way I see it. I am putting a lot of thought into this, but I feel that my word along has a lot less weight to it than if I use God word.

I noticed you say things such as "It was once told to me that..." Forget what other people have told you. Forget what the Bible has "told" you. Just think these concepts through, as you would anything else in life. There are some pretty large logical holes in almost everything you say. The reason you feel unsure using your own words and you feel the need to keep going back to scripture is because on some level, you know there are contradictions left right and center in the Bible and even the concept of god.

You words, your independent thought (not "what someone told you"), your own deductive reasoning means EVERYTHING. Your ability to quote scripture and to have others speak for you means nothing. You've got to take more ownership of your mind. Life and reality is a puzzle...a huge, wonderful puzzle. And you can figure it out and navigate it using NOTHING more than your own reasoning. You don't need the Bible or priests or anyone else. You have that power within you.

Now, I've got to get to bed, and frankly, this isn't the best forum to even have this discussion. If you want to look me up on steam, my username is "stethnorun". I'd love to talk about it with you further, but in a more conversational way, not in an internet debate, because you seem like a good guy.

[stethnorun]

Both things are true. We will become extinct. We will destroy this planet.

Wow...way to be a Debbie Downer! I give us at LEAST 50/50 odds ;)

[Hawk]

Both things are true. We will become extinct. We will destroy this planet.

Then how can you have hope if it's all going to end?

[Black Gate of Mordor]

Then how can you have hope if it's all going to end?

Because it's going to end anyway? We have anywhere from 500 million to 1 billion years until this planet is unable to sustain life. I'm sure we'll have killed ourselves before than.

[Hawk]

I noticed you say things such as "It was once told to me that..." Forget what other people have told you. Forget what the Bible has "told" you. Just think these concepts through, as you would anything else in life. There are some pretty large logical holes in almost everything you say. The reason you feel unsure using your own words and you feel the need to keep going back to scripture is because on some level, you know there are contradictions left right and center in the Bible and even the concept of god.

You words, your independent thought (not "what someone told you"), your own deductive reasoning means EVERYTHING. Your ability to quote scripture and to have others speak for you means nothing. You've got to take more ownership of your mind. Life and reality is a puzzle...a huge, wonderful puzzle. And you can figure it out and navigate it using NOTHING more than your own reasoning. You don't need the Bible or priests or anyone else. You have that power within you.

Now, I've got to get to bed, and frankly, this isn't the best forum to even have this discussion. If you want to look me up on steam, my username is "stethnorun". I'd love to talk about it with you further, but in a more conversational way, not in an internet debate, because you seem like a good guy.

The thing is I decided my beliefs for myself. I'm not following the Bible because some priest told me to, or because of my parents, or anyone else for that matter, but I made my own decision.
I quoted what someone I know told me because I thought it was interesting, and so I brought it up. Also, since the Bible is what I believe in you can understand why I would quote it quite a bit, and point out scriptures I know to defend it...This is much more effective than if I was just to say that the Bible is scientific and not use the Bible to prove this, but find other books to quote.
You may feel there are holes in the Bible's teachings, but it all makes sense to me...This is why I'm here now, defending it. I wouldn't do this if I was sitting on the fence, unsure about my beliefs.
You say there are contradictions in the Bible left right and center, so could you point some out using the scriptures?

Thanx stethnorun, my user name of Steam is "Bigmore". Hope to catch you on that, I've really enjoyed our conversation! :)

[Hawk]

Because it's going to end anyway? We have anywhere from 500 million to 1 billion years until this planet is unable to sustain life. I'm sure we'll have killed ourselves before than.

That sounds depressing. In other words if I was to have kids, and they were to have kids, sure we may enjoy life now, while it lasts, but one day my family, along with everybody else, will be dead. With the Bible I can give people hope to keep going, but what do you tell those who are depressed and in terrible circumstances to get them back on their feet if that is what you believe in?

[kaybeebiscuits]

One of the representatives of the collective entity known as "Kaybeebiscuits" has a promulgation to make, and has thus decided to channel this message though the Kaybeebiscuits medium:

"Why the fear?

The soul is immortal.

We can just reincarnate again!

There are other universes to reincarnate in!

If all else fails, just create a new one to reincarnate in!

If that fails, who cares about reincarnation when you are immortal?"

And that is what the Kaybeebiscuits has wanted to channel! Ah don't ask me if it is right or wrong yah! I am just channeling the message!

*chews on delicious kaybeebiscuits*

*offers you all one*

Want some?

[mwallyn]

But what you fail to accept is that prior to science discovering things like evolution, Christians DID take Genesis as historical truth. 40% of Americans STILL do. The only reason YOU don't is because your brain can't accept the ludicrousness of that story, so you decide "Okay, that one is a metaphor or an allegory...but other parts are real". And as we discover more and more truth through science, more and more parts of the Bible are going to seem equally ridiculous.

Are you really not understanding this very basic concept?

Wrong again. Referring to the Catholic Church once more, never in their history have they advocated a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis. Not once. Even back in the early days of Christianity, most early Doctors of the Church understood that Genesis was a massive allegory, and thus should not be taken literally from a historical standpoint. The whole "Young Earth creationism" business got started with Martin Luther and the Protestant reformation, due in part to the fact that they rejected all tradition and magisterial teaching in favor of studying the Bible exclusively. That said, that still leaves about 1500 years of Christian history where this was NOT the case. There's also a such thing as context. Early biblical scholars knew that Genesis was an attempt to understand the creation of the world and bring meaning to their faith, with little bearing on actual happenings. Biblical scholars study the context of each book of the Bible so they know what should be taken at face value (i.e. the Gospels, Acts, etc) and what should be viewed as an allegory (Genesis, Revelations). This isn't to say books like Genesis and Revelation are completely worthless; they hold a great deal of theological value in terms of shaping the beliefs and values of Christianity. They are not, however, ever intended to be historical documents or scientific fact. Its also worth pointing out that another 40% of Americans believe that the Earth was created over billions of years and humanity evolved over that time but believe that God had a part in it. Religion is not irreconcilable with science.

Regarding the usage of "days" in the story of Genesis, the original writers knew that the world was not created in six days. Even if it were, elsewhere in the Bible, God says that all time in heaven is basically relative, that one second is a thousand years, and a thousand years is one second. The use of "Days" in Genesis is simply to give a general sense of chronology when things were being made, not an exact interpretation of the powers and times at work.

When it comes to picking and choosing (be it concerning God, Hell, the Bible), it is admittedly a serious problem among many Western sects of Christianity. However, many other institutions strive to combat this behavior and keep an active eye on all of scripture, not just parts most people like.

[Black Gate of Mordor]

Regarding the usage of "days" in the story of Genesis, the original writers knew that the world was not created in six days. Even if it were, elsewhere in the Bible, God says that all time in heaven is basically relative, that one second is a thousand years, and a thousand years is one second. The use of "Days" in Genesis is simply to give a general sense of chronology when things were being made, not an exact interpretation of the powers and times at work.

My point still stands. The original authors may have known that, but they still used the Hebrew word that described the 24-hour rotation of the Earth. Whilst, of course, I believe they had another word elsewhere in the Bible used to describe the Biblical day you are referring to - they did not use it in Genesis, however.

[stethnorun]

Regarding the usage of "days" in the story of Genesis, the original writers knew that the world was not created in six days. Even if it were, elsewhere in the Bible, God says that all time in heaven is basically relative, that one second is a thousand years, and a thousand years is one second. The use of "Days" in Genesis is simply to give a general sense of chronology when things were being made, not an exact interpretation of the powers and times at work.

Where are you getting that?

[Hawk]

I quoted a couple of scriptures earlier of the length of days in the Bible. Psalms 90:4 says "For a thousand years in your eyes but as yesterday when it is past, And as a watch during the night." Basically a thousand years to God is like a 24 hour day to us.
2 Peter 3:8 says "However, let this one fact not be escaping your notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day."
This is pretty clear that when a day is mentioned regarding God it a different amount of time to us as humans.

The Hebrew word used here for "day" ("yohm") also has a variety of meanings, including "a long time; the time covering an extraordinary event.", so it could have been any length of time.

[stethnorun]

I quoted a couple of scriptures earlier of the length of days in the Bible. Psalms 90:4 says "For a thousand years in your eyes but as yesterday when it is past, And as a watch during the night." Basically a thousand years to God is like a 24 hour day to us.
2 Peter 3:8 says "However, let this one fact not be escaping your notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day."
This is pretty clear that when a day is mentioned regarding God it a different amount of time to us as humans.

The Hebrew word used here for "day" ("yohm") also has a variety of meanings, including "a long time; the time covering an extraordinary event.", so it could have been any length of time.

So then each day was 1,000 years. So the creation of the planet and life took 6,000 years? That contention has JUST as many logical flaws as 6 days does.

[stethnorun]

Oh and Hawk, you wanted something that showed all the contradictions in the Bible? BEHOLD:

http://www.project-reason.org/bibleContra_big.pdf

[Hawk]

Wrong again. Referring to the Catholic Church once more, never in their history have they advocated a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis. Not once. Even back in the early days of Christianity, most early Doctors of the Church understood that Genesis was a massive allegory, and thus should not be taken literally from a historical standpoint. The whole "Young Earth creationism" business got started with Martin Luther and the Protestant reformation, due in part to the fact that they rejected all tradition and magisterial teaching in favor of studying the Bible exclusively. That said, that still leaves about 1500 years of Christian history where this was NOT the case. There's also a such thing as context. Early biblical scholars knew that Genesis was an attempt to understand the creation of the world and bring meaning to their faith, with little bearing on actual happenings. Biblical scholars study the context of each book of the Bible so they know what should be taken at face value (i.e. the Gospels, Acts, etc) and what should be viewed as an allegory (Genesis, Revelations). This isn't to say books like Genesis and Revelation are completely worthless; they hold a great deal of theological value in terms of shaping the beliefs and values of Christianity. They are not, however, ever intended to be historical documents or scientific fact. Its also worth pointing out that another 40% of Americans believe that the Earth was created over billions of years and humanity evolved over that time but believe that God had a part in it. Religion is not irreconcilable with science.

Regarding Genesis, if its stories are largely just fictional, where does Adam and Eve sit with this - are they fictional too? And if they were not real people, or even if they were real but their story was fabricated, then why did Jesus have to die for us? And why does it refer to his death as a "ransom"? (Matthew 20:28)
You see in Romans 5:12 it states that through one man sin entered into the world - this is referring to Adam - and it goes onto say that the "wages sin pays is death" in Romans 6:23. So from these two scriptures we can see that our imperfection and tendency to sin was past down to us from Adam, and that life wasn't meant to be like this.
Now John 3:16 explains that God sent his son as a ransom to save everyone exercising faith, so that they may have "everlasting life". We will be back to our original state of perfection, and we will be able to live forever.

What I'm getting at here is that the whole Bible is connected, and if you believe in most of the Bible, but not all of it, then how does it make sense? You know that every book is important, and that God always has a logical reason for his actions, and if he inspired the Bible then wouldn't he base it all on truth?

[Hawk]

So then each day was 1,000 years. So the creation of the planet and life took 6,000 years? That contention has JUST as many logical flaws as 6 days does.

No, the word "yohm" can mean "as long as an event took". So it could even be millions of years, which wouldn't be that long from God's point of view.

[stethnorun]

What I'm getting at here is that the whole Bible is connected, and if you believe in most of the Bible, but not all of it, then how does it make sense?

Exactly. Those that try to square science with the Bible by calling some of it "fiction" are just fooling themselves so that they can maintain the contradiction in their heads and not have to make difficult philosophical decisions about what they REALLY believe. It's trying to have their cake and eat it too.

[Hawk]

Oh and Hawk, you wanted something that showed all the contradictions in the Bible? BEHOLD:

http://www.project-reason.org/bibleContra_big.pdf

That's quite a lot of reading - I can see why you might think there are contractions from looking at this link, but I wanted to know if there was a specific contradiction that you knew of, which I would try my best to answer. It would take me ages to go through that list, and I prefer to answer just one question at a time (pick one from that list if you wish), but it's unfair to dump a pile like that on me and expect a good answer. You will find that after careful analysis and scriptural cross-referencing of the Bible these "contradictions" make sense.

[stethnorun]

That's quite a lot of reading - I can see why you might think there are contractions from looking at this link, but I wanted to know if there was a specific contradiction that you knew of, which I would try my best to answer. It would take me ages to go through that list, and I prefer to answer just one question at a time (pick one from that list if you wish), but it's unfair to dump a pile like that on me and expect a good answer. You will find that after careful analysis and scriptural cross-referencing of the Bible these "contradictions" make sense.

Well...try reading it. It's interesting.

[Hawk]

Well...try reading it. It's interesting.

Ok, let's take one step at a time and look at no. 1 on the list then...

1. How many men did the chief of David’s captains kill? 2sam 23:8 ≠ 1chron 11:11

2 Samuel 23:8 says "These are the names of the mighty men that belonged to David: Jo'sheb-basshe'beth a Tahche'monite, the head of the three. He was brandishing his spear over eight hundred slain at one time."

1 Chronicles 11:11 says "And this is the list of the mighty men that belonged to David: Jasho'beam the son of a Hach'monite, the head of the three. He was brandishing his spear over three hundred slain at one time."

I'll have to re-read through this part of the Bible to remember the account it's referring to, but at first glance it certainly doesn't seem to be a contradiction. The obvious difference is the name of the "head of the three" is different, and even their ethnic backgrounds are different, so these to "heads" are different people, so I'm not surprised to see that one slayed 800 and the other 300. Could you point out to me how it is supposed to be a contradiction so I can look into this better?

[Hawk]

2. Was Abraham justified by faith or by works? rom 4:2 ≠ jam 2:21

Romans 4:2 says "If, for instance, Abraham were declared righteous as a result of works, he would have ground for boasting; but not with God." (and continues to say in verse 3) "For what does the scripture say? "Abraham exercised faith in Jehovah, and it was counted to him as righteousness."
- Note that this scripture doesn't say that Abraham wasn't declared righteous by works, but it says that he would have grounds for boasting, although not with God. It does say that his faith in God was counted as righteousness.

James 2:21 says "Was not Abraham our father declared righteous by works after he had offered up Isaac his son upon the alter?" (and goes on to say in verses 22 and 23) "You behold that his faith worked along with his works and by his works his faith was perfected, and the scripture was fulfilled which says: "Abraham put faith in Jehovah, and it was counted to him as righteousness," and he came to be called "Jehovah's friend."
- This combines his faith (which is counted as righteousness) with his works when it says "his faith worked along with his works and by his works his faith was perfected.

Let's cross-reference these with James 2:26 (later part) "faith without works is dead."
So righteousness without works would also be dead, thus he would have been declared righteous by both faith and works.

[stethnorun]

So you honestly think every contradiction in that chart is not accurate? Really? Come now.

[Hawk]

So you honestly think every contradiction in that chart is not accurate? Really? Come now.

Some people are just looking for error, and if your're desperate enough to see error you will see error, in whatever subject. This is why it's good to try to keep open minded. With a proper understanding of the Bible however, you can find answers, either by scriptural cross-reference, understanding the proper meaning of the ancient Hebrew and Greek words used, and by understanding the symbolism.
For example, it has one on that list about calling someone your "Father". There are scriptures that clearly state not to call anyone your "Father" except God, but this is, of course, not referring to a child calling his or her dad their "father", but it's referring to those who call themselves "Father" as a title.

[stethnorun]

Some people are just looking for error, and if your're desperate enough to see error you will see error, in whatever subject. This is why it's good to try to keep open minded. With a proper understanding of the Bible however, you can find answers, either by scriptural cross-reference, understanding the proper meaning of the ancient Hebrew and Greek words used, and by understanding the symbolism.
For example, it has one on that list about calling someone your "Father". There are scriptures that clearly state not to call anyone your "Father" except God, but this is, of course, not referring to a child calling his or her dad their "father", but it's referring to those who call themselves "Father" as a title.

And you don't see the ridiculous logical hoops you have to jump through just to get the book to make sense with itself? Defining words differently, translating back and forth to get the meaning you want out of them...can you really not take a step back and view that objectively?

[Hawk]

And you don't see the ridiculous logical hoops you have to jump through just to get the book to make sense with itself? Defining words differently, translating back and forth to get the meaning you want out of them...can you really not take a step back and view that objectively?

There's a difference between twisting words to make them what you want them to be, and translating words exactly how they are meant to be. Sure enough, some people have changed Bibles - such as taking God's name out (YHWH or "Jehovah" in modern English) and replacing it with "Lord" - but there are plenty who re-translated the original scriptures, so we can get it exactly how it's meant to be.

[stethnorun]

There's a difference between twisting words to make them what you want them to be, and translating words exactly how they are meant to be.

Like how in the Koran it says "72 grapes of white wisdom" rather than "72 virgins"? Yeah...religious people never twist the words ;)

[Hawk]

Like how in the Koran it says "72 grapes of white wisdom" rather than "72 virgins"? Yeah...religious people never twist the words ;)

If you read my above comment you will see that I do know of people changing the Bible to fit in with their own thoughts rather than God's. I have not read the Qur'an, so I can't really comment on it.

[stethnorun]

Yeah but you've heard the 72 virgins thing before, regarding suicide bombings. That's a completely mistranslated verse.

[Hawk]

Yeah but you've heard the 72 virgins thing before, regarding suicide bombings. That's a completely mistranslated verse.

I've always wondered what verse exactly in the Qur'an do the suicide bombers get their extremist ideas from? Christians in history have also done atrocious things in the name of God, such as the Crusades, and there has been plenty of cases where priests of the same religion blessed the troops on both sides of the battlefield before the fighting, but again this is man's doing - God doesn't support this behavior what-so-ever!

[stethnorun]

I've always wondered what verse exactly in the Qur'an do the suicide bombers get their extremist ideas from? Christians in history have also done atrocious things in the name of God, such as the Crusades, and there has been plenty of cases where priests of the same religion blessed the troops on both sides of the battlefield before the fighting, but again this is man's doing - God doesn't support this behavior what-so-ever!

Or maybe he does. He sure supported lots of atrocities in support of the Israelites. Lots of genocide.

[mwallyn]

Where are you getting that?

Finally found it. The passage in question is 2 Peter 3:8. Specifically, it reads "Beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day”. The context on this was people were asking when the end of time would be. Peter basically said that even if he was told a date, it would mean nothing since God exists beyond our universe and our frame of reference to time doesn't work with him because of this.

Concerning the radical Muslims, this is a MINUSCULE proportion of the total number of Muslims in the world, just as there are hyper radical Christian, Jewish, Hindu, etc sects out there. Take for example WBC. They call themselves Christians, but they do exactly what you say; they pick and choose what they want to see/hear from the Bible and twist it to their own ends. No one would consider them true Christians. Similarly, most members of Islam around the world would not consider groups like the Taliban true Muslims for that very reason. They take what they want to see from the Koran and use it to their ends, in this case make themselves more powerful.

[stethnorun]

Finally found it. The passage in question is 2 Peter 3:8. Specifically, it reads "Beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day”. The context on this was people were asking when the end of time would be. Peter basically said that even if he was told a date, it would mean nothing since God exists beyond our universe and our frame of reference to time doesn't work with him because of this.

So within the ENTIRE Bible, you found one quote in the NEW TESTAMENT that is supposed to tie back to Genesis? Who on Earth do you think you are going to convince with that?

[Hawk]

Or maybe he does. He sure supported lots of atrocities in support of the Israelites. Lots of genocide.

Even those things can be explained...

The Israelites were God's people for a time, and so they got his special attention. This meant that they really had to go by his laws - these laws were written down for them so they wouldn't forget, and when they rebelled against God he gave them clear warnings and time to repent, and if they did repent he didn't punish them. This of the people of Nineveh (ancient Assyrian city), who were so vile that God was going to punish them, so he sent Jonah (who at first fled and was swallowed by a large fish) to warn them of this, but they were so repentant that God could no longer punish them, so he let them off.

Those who were wiped out were actually very bad, and archaeology has proven this. They were Ba'al (pronounced "Bay-all") worshipers, and a big part of their worship was to sacrifice their own children by throwing them into a furnace! They were also very immoral, and practiced revelry and drunkenness to an extreme...But not only this, they also tried to get the Israelites involved, and some did get involved. In the end these people were unrepentant and in direct contact with his people, constantly risking corrupting them, and so God took action.

[Hawk]

So within the ENTIRE Bible, you found one quote in the NEW TESTAMENT that is supposed to tie back to Genesis? Who on Earth do you think you are going to convince with that?

The Bible is one book. Half was written in Hebrew and the other half in Greek, but it's still the same book...Thus it doesn't matter whether you get the scripture from the Hebrew or Greek scriptures. But just for you, here's one in the Hebrew scriptures: Psalms 90:4.

[Black Gate of Mordor]

Those who were wiped out were actually very bad, and archaeology has proven this.

What does archaeology have to do with morality? Science and morality are separate things (the former, constant, the latter, subjective).


They were Ba'al (pronounced "Bay-all") worshipers, and a big part of their worship was to sacrifice their own children by throwing them into a furnace! They were also very immoral, and practiced revelry and drunkenness to an extreme...But not only this, they also tried to get the Israelites involved, and some did get involved. In the end these people were unrepentant and in direct contact with his people, constantly risking corrupting them, and so God took action.

YOU claim they are immoral. You are judging them by your own morals which will obviously be different to theirs. As I said above, morals are subjective, and will differ from person to person. Or are you one of those people who claim morality is objective?

[Hawk]

What does archaeology have to do with morality? Science and morality are separate things (the former, constant, the latter, subjective).

YOU claim they are immoral. You are judging them by your own morals which will obviously be different to theirs. As I said above, morals are subjective, and will differ from person to person. Or are you one of those people who claim morality is objective?

I was merely mentioning that archaeologists found that Ba'al worshipers actually did practice child sacrifice, along with other vile practices. I think we can all agree that child sacrifice is morally wrong!

I'm not the one setting the standard of what is moral for other people, nor am I the one who judged these ancient people who were wiped out...I am only attempting to explain God's reasoning from the Bible. Sure enough, since I follow the Bible I try to keep my own morals by its standards, but I don't go around telling others what to do, or judging others for their behavior. We are all free to live our lives they way we want to!

This is how one Internet definition of "Immoral" explains the meaning:
immoral [ɪˈmɒrəl]
adj
1. transgressing accepted moral rules; corrupt
2. sexually dissolute; profligate or promiscuous
3. unscrupulous or unethical
(immoral trading)
4. tending to corrupt or resulting from corruption an (immoral film immoral earnings
immorally) adv

According to God's rules that were accepted amongst the Israelites, and from an Israelite's point of view at that time (since they were following these commandments), their behavior was classed as "Immoral". They had festivals involving orgies, for example. Also their unethical practices towards children can be termed "Immoral". Their behavior and practices would definitely be considered "Immoral" by modern standards in general.

I never said that morality is objective either, yet you presumptuously assumed my character as someone who is self-righteous. I never expected this from you, Black Gate.

[kaybeebiscuits]

Thank you all for eating my finely baked Kaybee biscuits!

While the delicious meat-infused Kaybee biscuits managed to satiate the hunger of most hungry orcs and Uruks, it sadly could not prevent the demise of 2 hobbits as there was not enough to feed everyone:

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRUgxtUDrkX-plHELbgYkGPd9x3WybcmopdU-GL4ryR6Rc5Jf5Dk5GaSGV-yg

Well-fed Orc: "Yeah! Why can't we have some more kaybee biscuits?"

http://www.darksidecostumes.org/images/can't%20we%20have%20some%20meat.JPG

Well, there is always the Shire to fill your bellies next time! What a chime!

http://static.flickr.com/36/76530743_3cd8219d6a.jpg

Well-fed Uruk: "I happily concur, and in addition, I endorse kaybee biscuits, for life."

http://www.darksidecostumes.org/images/meats%20back%20on%20the%20menu.JPG

Kaybee Biscuits - the permanent solution to temporary hunger; the temporary palliative to hobbit-slaying for permanently evil orcs and Uruks.

[Hawk]

Next "contradiction"...

3. How many sons did Abraham have? heb 11:17, gen 22:2 ≠ gen 16:15, 21:2-3, 25:1-2, 4:22

There are a few more scriptures to this one, so I'll try to sum them up, but feel free to look them up yourself...

Hebrews 11:17 calls Abraham's son, Isaac, his "only-begotten son". Genesis 22:2 calls him his "only son".

Genesis 16:15 says that Ha'gar bore a son to Abraham called "Ish'mael". Now Ha'gar had not been married to Abraham, and so Ish'mael was not the legal air, and thus was not counted in the Bible, even though Abraham was his biological father. You see God invented marriage, and according to the Bible having sex with someone you're not married to is a sin (1 Corinthians 6:9). God did not condone Abraham's actions, but it was the result of the lack of faith of Sarah, when she asked him to have intercourse with one of the servants in order to produce a son (Sarah was old, and she did not believe she could have children anymore).

Genesis 21:2, 3 says that Sarah (Abraham's wife) born a son in her old age and named him "Isaac".

Genesis 25:1, 2 lists six more children to Abraham, with at least one being a son, since it states that he "became father to...". This is actually irrelevant - although I understand why it was listed - because these children came after the time when Abraham was about to offer up Isaac as a sacrifice (which God stopped him from doing, and was just a test of faith, as well as symbolism of Jesus' sacrifice, and how Jesus is God's only-begotten son). Basically at the time these children were out of the equation since they were yet to be in existence.

Genesis 4:22 is yet more irrelevant to this subject, since it's about a man named La'mech, who took a woman named Zil'lah as a wife, and had Tu'bal-cain as a son.

[stethnorun]

Next "contradiction"...

3. How many sons did Abraham have? heb 11:17, gen 22:2 ≠ gen 16:15, 21:2-3, 25:1-2, 4:22

There are a few more scriptures to this one, so I'll try to sum them up, but feel free to look them up yourself...

Hebrews 11:17 calls Abraham's son, Isaac, his "only-begotten son". Genesis 22:2 calls him his "only son".

Genesis 16:15 says that Ha'gar bore a son to Abraham called "Ish'mael". Now Ha'gar had not been married to Abraham, and so Ish'mael was not the legal air, and thus was not counted in the Bible, even though Abraham was his biological father. You see God invented marriage, and according to the Bible having sex with someone you're not married to is a sin (1 Corinthians 6:9). God did not condone Abraham's actions, but it was the result of the lack of faith of Sarah, when she asked him to have intercourse with one of the servants in order to produce a son (Sarah was old, and she did not believe she could have children anymore).

Genesis 21:2, 3 says that Sarah (Abraham's wife) born a son in her old age and named him "Isaac".

Genesis 25:1, 2 lists six more children to Abraham, with at least one being a son, since it states that he "became father to...". This is actually irrelevant - although I understand why it was listed - because these children came after the time when Abraham was about to offer up Isaac as a sacrifice (which God stopped him from doing, and was just a test of faith, as well as symbolism of Jesus' sacrifice, and how Jesus is God's only-begotten son). Basically at the time these children were out of the equation since they were yet to be in existence.

Genesis 4:22 is yet more irrelevant to this subject, since it's about a man named La'mech, who took a woman named Zil'lah as a wife, and had Tu'bal-cain as a son.

I just gotta say...the Bible is damn boring. Just you listing this stuff off...it makes my eyes glaze over. Sorry, that's not really relevant to anything, but DAMN.

[Black Gate of Mordor]

According to God's rules that were accepted amongst the Israelites, and from an Israelite's point of view at that time (since they were following these commandments), their behavior was classed as "Immoral". They had festivals involving orgies, for example. Also their unethical practices towards children can be termed "Immoral". Their behavior and practices would definitely be considered "Immoral" by modern standards in general.

I'm just saying, but the Ba'al sound very much like the antagonists of the Israelites.

Anyway, depending upon which denomination of Christianity you belong to, many say that all morality in the Bible is truth, and therefore they are saying it is all objective. The problem with the Bible is that whilst it may teach morals that are still relevant, at least half of the Old Testament is useless and outdated, using morals that would be accepted two thousand years ago, but now are just as immoral in our society as child sacrifice was then.


I never said that morality is objective either, yet you presumptuously assumed my character as someone who is self-righteous. I never expected this from you, Black Gate.

I apologise. I discussions about religion, I can get very presumptuous and hasty. 'Tis a flaw of my character.

[kaybeebiscuits]

The kaybeebiscuits has once again decided to channel the following messages!

There are matters pertaining to the intellect that are ripe for development; but there are also many other matters that the intelligent might miss in his or her quest for development: wisdom (applied knowledge), ethical living (wisdom applied to living), dialectical reasoning, matters of will-power (determinism) and volition. While isolating a fragment of a piece of knowledge to debate about is good, we, the kaybeebiscuits, must make known the fundamental inseparability of the cycle of knowledge. Intellect can be compared to the engine that empowers the generation of knowledge; will-power is the fuel that powers this engine of the intellect; volition is the purposive use of this knowledge and intelligence, and can be compared to the direction in which a car powered by an engine is moving towards; wisdom is knowledge that is refined and purified over-time through, it is the by-product of the engine of intellect, however, it is intellect given a material form, in which the knowledge funneled into this engine is evanesced in the form of a gaseous by-product. This step is necessary because wisdom is applied knowledge. Lastly, ethical living can be compared to the intent in which this gaseous by-product is used, which requires the matter of will-power and volition. Only via a well-balanced development of all of these factors can one truly be the master of the inside, and the outside. Remember that intelligence is only a small portion of human potential, and much is appreciated when participants here show development in other areas such as will through belief, and belief through volition.

Ah forget it, why is the kaybeebiscuits writing this anyway? I mean ... who the fish would listen to the ramblings of an old man like me, who is sometime serious, but mostly not! It's just rationally unjustifiable to do so!

[stethnorun]

I'm just saying, but the Ba'al sound very much like the antagonists of the Israelites.

Anyway, depending upon which denomination of Christianity you belong to, many say that all morality in the Bible is truth, and therefore they are saying it is all objective. The problem with the Bible is that whilst it may teach morals that are still relevant, at least half of the Old Testament is useless and outdated, using morals that would be accepted two thousand years ago, but now are just as immoral in our society as child sacrifice was then.

Indeed, I don't see many people (outside of maybe some Middle Eastern regions) stoning their children to death for being rebellious (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+21%3A18-21&version=KJV).

[Hawk]

I just gotta say...the Bible is damn boring. Just you listing this stuff off...it makes my eyes glaze over. Sorry, that's not really relevant to anything, but DAMN.

You wanted me to show answers for the contradictions...I was just going through them in order.

[Hawk]

I'm just saying, but the Ba'al sound very much like the antagonists of the Israelites.

Anyway, depending upon which denomination of Christianity you belong to, many say that all morality in the Bible is truth, and therefore they are saying it is all objective. The problem with the Bible is that whilst it may teach morals that are still relevant, at least half of the Old Testament is useless and outdated, using morals that would be accepted two thousand years ago, but now are just as immoral in our society as child sacrifice was then.

I apologise. I discussions about religion, I can get very presumptuous and hasty. 'Tis a flaw of my character.

The Ba'als were false gods, so yes, definitely against what the Israelites believed!

Being a Christian should be about following the Bible.

As for whether the Bible is useless and outdated, this is also inaccurate. There is a lot to this, so I'll have to continue this tomorrow, but there are so many proverbs and teachings that are still very helpful in modern times, such as being peaceable with people. Most people are interested in self-development, and the Bible really does help with this, both the Hebrew and Greek scriptures.

Don't worry, I've jumped to conclusions hastily before too, so I won't hold it against you! While we are imperfect this is a constant struggle for all of us...I've found myself wondering at times, people say "Nobody's perfect" or "I'm not perfect", which is currently true...but why shouldn't we be someday? To me being imperfect is not all that natural.

[kaybeebiscuits]

One may wonder why the Kaybeebiscuits is so free and tempted to write some posts on this forum: because the Kaybeebiscuit had a nasty sprain and is now mainly confined to the bed T_T ... The Kaybeebiscuits cannot leave his designated zone until he has fully healed.

But again, to the topic: the Kaybeebiscuits feels like Quasimodo from the Hunchback of Notre Name, or Pozzo from Waiting for Godot, or some say, Samwise Genghis Khan from the Lord of the Rings, or even the fool from King Lear ... his role is mainly relegated to that of an insignificant prop throttling in the background T_T In short, the Kaybeebiscuits is largely forgotten.

And as the Kaybeebiscuits does a somersault in mid-air, the rest of the forumites take an oblivious glance, then resume what they are doing.

Edit:

No no! No one suits the role of the Kaybeebiscuits better other than Pozzo from Waiting for Godot!

[Hawk]

Indeed, I don't see many people (outside of maybe some Middle Eastern regions) stoning their children to death for being rebellious (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+21%3A18-21&version=KJV).

As I said earlier, the Israelites were for a time God's people, and so God set high standards for them (they were representing his name), and he did intervene with them too. In this case it was regarding children who were completely disobedient and continually disrespectful to their parents, and could not be reasoned with at all, even after initial punishment dealt by the parents, and bringing the child to the elders of the city - which again they would test the child and try to reason with him/her - and the child would have no repentance what-so-ever for his/her actions. Also this child would have to be old enough to understand what they are doing is wrong.
Now, I work with children, and I have a young nephew who is particularly active. Some of the kids I work with can be very difficult to deal with, and can be disrespectful and disobedient, but even the most difficult children I've found I can reason with (I am yet to see a case this severe), so what this scripture is referring to would have to be an extreme case over a long period of time. In fact I imagine it almost never would have happened, even with the Israelite's booming population!

[kaybeebiscuits]

One may wonder why the Kaybeebiscuits is so free and tempted to write some posts on this forum: because the Kaybeebiscuit had a nasty sprain and is now mainly confined to the bed T_T ... The Kaybeebiscuits cannot leave his designated zone until he has fully healed.

But again, to the topic: the Kaybeebiscuits feels like Quasimodo from the Hunchback of Notre Name, or Pozzo from Waiting for Godot, or some say, Samwise Genghis Khan from the Lord of the Rings, or even the fool from King Lear ... his role is mainly relegated to that of an insignificant prop throttling in the background T_T In short, the Kaybeebiscuits is largely forgotten.

And as the Kaybeebiscuits does a somersault in mid-air, the rest of the forumites take an oblivious glance, then resume what they are doing.

Edit:

No no! No one suits the role of the Kaybeebiscuits better other than Pozzo from Waiting for Godot!

You are getting very obnoxious talking to yourself. Do not see? The other forumites here are malcontent ... with your soliloquy and trolling. You are warmongering ...

http://www.tk421.net/lotr/film/ttt/img/ttt0139.jpg

http://www.tk421.net/lotr/film/ttt/img/ttt0140.jpg

Now what's up with that? Sprained a leg and can't go out? And decided to embark on a monologue on a forum instead? What about the stack of books beside you right now huh? Why don't you just go back to read those books on cultural anthropology and cultural psychology instead of <beep>-ing around here?

[kaybeebiscuits]

You are getting very obnoxious talking to yourself. Do not see? The other forumites here are malcontent ... with your soliloquy and trolling. You are warmongering ...

http://www.tk421.net/lotr/film/ttt/img/ttt0139.jpg

http://www.tk421.net/lotr/film/ttt/img/ttt0140.jpg

Now what's up with that? Sprained a leg and can't go out? And decided to embark on a monologue on a forum instead? What about the stack of books beside you right now huh? Why don't you just go back to read those books on cultural anthropology and cultural psychology instead of <beep>-ing around here?

Warmongering?

http://www.tk421.net/lotr/film/ttt/img/ttt0141.jpg

How long was it since 2K Games bought you? And what was the promised price? That you would get half the price when all of this is over?

http://www.tk421.net/lotr/film/ttt/img/ttt0142.jpg

Uh oh ...

http://www.tk421.net/lotr/film/ttt/img/ttt0147.jpg

[Hawk]

Warmongering?

http://www.tk421.net/lotr/film/ttt/img/ttt0141.jpg

How long was it since 2K Games bought you? And what was the promised price? That you would get half the price when all of this is over?

http://www.tk421.net/lotr/film/ttt/img/ttt0142.jpg

Uh oh ...

http://www.tk421.net/lotr/film/ttt/img/ttt0147.jpg

Why is Kaybeebiscuits talking to himself?

[Hawk]

Let's go through some topics, and list scriptures that apply...

Self-improvement:
"listen to discipline." - Proverbs 8:33. Just like a singer listens to the advice of the judges, it helps to listen when others are pointing out how we need to improve. You see "A wise person will listen and take in more instruction," - Proverbs 1:5.
"Has presumptuousness come? Then dishonor will come; but wisdom is with the modest ones." - Proverbs 11:2. "Stop judging that you may not be judged;" - Matthew 7:1. We all get a little judgmental at times, and it's not helping us, but we can work on overcoming it, and others will appreciate this!
"He that is walking with wise persons will become wise, but he that is having dealings with the stupid ones will fare badly." - Proverbs 13:20. Most of us know this to be true, as some do have dealings with those who are into drugs, or do other stupid things, and it effects us...You see "Bad associations spoil useful habits." - 1 Corinthians 15:33. Don't let that make you avoid people all together though, since "One isolating himself will seek his own selfish longing;against all practical wisdom he will break forth." - Proverbs 18:1. So it's better for us to be around good and wise people.
Also, don't forget what Jesus said once..."Happy are those conscious of their spiritual need," - Matthew 5:4. So part of our self-development is to realize we have a spiritual need. He went onto say "Happy are those mild-tempered ones, since they will inherit the earth." And we know that being mild-tempered is good for our health anyway, so this is definitely good advice!

Helping others:
Sometimes we know someone who is depressed, so what should we do? The Bible says to "Speak consolingly to the depressed souls," - 1 Thessalonians 5:14. Speaking up-building to those who are depressed helps them a real lot, since they know that there is someone else who cares about them and who is there for them. "As apples of gold in silver carvings is a word spoken at the right time for it."
Not all of our friends and neighbours are depressed, but we should still be there for them. "You must love your neighbour as yourself." - Matthew 22:39.
We should be peaceful with others. "make peace with your brother," - Matthew 5:24. "If possible, as far as it depends upon you, be peaceable with all men." Romans 12:18, and continues to say in verse 19..."Do not avenge yourselves, beloved, but yield place to the wrath; for it is written: "Vengeance is mine; I will repay, says Jehovah." We know that when someone get revenge for something it only starts a vicious circle of hate, or ends lives, so this should be left to Jehovah to deal with.
But what about our enemies? Romans 12:20 says "if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him a drink;". What a loving attitude to have, that even if your enemies are in need you help them! This would certainly make them feel less hatred towards you, and may even lead to peace between you.

Happy family life/successful marriage:
"Continue putting up with one another and forgiving one another freely if anyone has cause for complaint against another." - Colossians 3:13. Even our closest family members will annoy us at times, so this teaches us to put up with it and forgive each other freely.
"Above all things, have intense love for one another, because love covers a multitude of sins." - 1 Peter 4:8. Notice that love covers mistakes, but does not eliminate them, which is important since no imperfect human can be completely free of error.
"Love is a perfect bond of union." - Colossians 3:14.
"You husbands, continue dwelling in like manner with your wives according to knowledge, assigning them honor as to a weaker vessel, the feminine one." - 1 Peter 3:7 (If you want to honor someone, you need to be kind towards them, as well as respectful towards their dignity and expressed views, and actually listen to what they have to say)
The wife is counselled as well, to "have deep respect for her husband." - Ephesians 5:33.
Together marriage mates should show they care for each other by "keeping an eye, not in personal interests upon just their own matters, but also in personal interests upon those of their mates." - Philippians 2:4.
When communicated to one's marriage mate "let your utterance be always with graciousness, seasoned with salt," - Colossians 4:6. In other words instead of saying "Shut the door!" we should make it "seasoned with salt" by saying "Would you mind closing the door, please?". And always remember that "and answer, when mild, turns away rage." - Proverbs 15:1. So instead of answering back in anger when your mate upsets you (or children, or siblings, or parents, etc.), wait until you have calmed down, then answer in mildness, and you will find it calms the whole situation down!

Training your children is also important. "Train up a boy according to the way for him." - Proverbs 22:6. This is more referring to training children up with Bible principles, but if these Bible principles are really beneficial then this would only help them to develop into better people. So when do you start? "from infancy." 2 Timothy 3:15 states. Babies are already learning about the world around them, and so we should already be teaching them - even if it's just be good example - to be good people!


Now this was just a taste of all the advice the Bible has to offer, and as we can see that it is "beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely quipped for every good work." - 2 Timothy 3:16, 17.


(Sorry for the long post, but there is just so much!)

[stethnorun]

As I said earlier, the Israelites were for a time God's people, and so God set high standards for them (they were representing his name), and he did intervene with them too. In this case it was regarding children who were completely disobedient and continually disrespectful to their parents, and could not be reasoned with at all, even after initial punishment dealt by the parents, and bringing the child to the elders of the city - which again they would test the child and try to reason with him/her - and the child would have no repentance what-so-ever for his/her actions. Also this child would have to be old enough to understand what they are doing is wrong.
Now, I work with children, and I have a young nephew who is particularly active. Some of the kids I work with can be very difficult to deal with, and can be disrespectful and disobedient, but even the most difficult children I've found I can reason with (I am yet to see a case this severe), so what this scripture is referring to would have to be an extreme case over a long period of time. In fact I imagine it almost never would have happened, even with the Israelite's booming population!

Again the justifications and rationalizations. If you don't see by now the mental hoops you continually jump through in order to justify this ridiculous book, then you never will. You've simply automated the justification process so much that you can't even see yourself doing it.

[Hawk]

Again the justifications and rationalizations. If you don't see by now the mental hoops you continually jump through in order to justify this ridiculous book, then you never will. You've simply automated the justification process so much that you can't even see yourself doing it.

stethnorun, we've been discussing different aspects of the Bible in this thread, from its scientific and historical accuracy, to whether or not it's beneficial to follow its teachings in our modern world. To defend the Bible I've been quote scriptures directly from the Bible and cross-referencing them to show that the whole Bible, Hebrew and Greek scriptures, is in harmony. I've even been explaining the so-called "contradictions"...After all that's been discussed, do you still believe that it's unreasonable for people to choose to follow the Bible, and to be creationists?

[Mythdracon]

Wow, really involved debate here. So far the atheists/agnostics seem to be all about strict truth and delineation, demanding all the details. Hawk has been patient and understanding, and responded to all the points raised with finesse. He's also been graceful enough to admit error.

Some minor points on this debate, and on this thread:
1. Not everything we humans live by is rational, and we often willingly engage in irrational acts, such as trusting in fellow human beings without really knowing them. That doesn't mean that way of life (living by relatively uncalled for trust) is invalid. Pure rationality is a cold, bloodless, and ultimately depressed thing, regardless of whether Evolution is king and Christianity just wrong (rationally speaking). Yes, religion is emotional, but what do you expect? It's a way of life. Science, on the other hand, is not a "way of life" per se. Now--back to my point about pure rationality. Consider Richard Dawkins. Brilliant mind, outspoken atheist. Yet he spends all his time damning religion for the sake of supposed Reason with a capital R. In my opinion, it's more wholesome to be FOR something than AGAINST something. If you disagree with a thing, let your criticism be known, but you should hardly devote so much time and attention to damning the followers of a religion for their supposedly "ridiculous" beliefs. The bile Dawkins spits out betrays his hand, and the bias he has against religion is as clear as the bias of any Christian in favor of his or her religious faith.

I'd also respect Dawkins' works more if he was more familiar with what he was criticizing--he lacks any real knowledge of religious literature or beliefs, instead taking the layman's view of religion. Several of you criticized Hawk for having a layman's view of evolutionary theory. Maybe Hawk does indeed have a layman's understanding of evolutionary theory. But frankly, very few atheists or agnostics are really familiar with Christian religious beliefs either, and yet criticize Christian beliefs all the time (and with occasionally nastier adjectives than any Biblical Hellfire, frankly).

2. Extend fairness and grace to your opponent in a religious/scientific debate, please, whether you completely disagree with him or not. Words like "mental hoops" and "ridiculous" are very harsh (even if you think the Bible is ridiculous). I don't see Hawk being that aggressive towards the naysayers in this debate. But others whom I shall not name in this debate have been and are being unduly nasty. Cut it out.

Just my 2 cents.

[Shiav]

Wow, really involved debate here. So far the atheists/agnostics seem to be all about strict truth and delineation, demanding all the details. Hawk has been patient and understanding, and responded to all the points raised with finesse. He's also been graceful enough to admit error.

Some minor points on this debate, and on this thread:
1. Not everything we humans live by is rational, and we often willingly engage in irrational acts, such as trusting in fellow human beings without really knowing them. That doesn't mean that way of life (living by relatively uncalled for trust) is invalid. Pure rationality is a cold, bloodless, and ultimately depressed thing, regardless of whether Evolution is king and Christianity just wrong (rationally speaking). Yes, religion is emotional, but what do you expect? It's a way of life. Science, on the other hand, is not a "way of life" per se. Now--back to my point about pure rationality. Consider Richard Dawkins. Brilliant mind, outspoken atheist. Yet he spends all his time damning religion for the sake of supposed Reason with a capital R. In my opinion, it's more wholesome to be FOR something than AGAINST something. If you disagree with a thing, let your criticism be known, but you should hardly devote so much time and attention to damning the followers of a religion for their supposedly "ridiculous" beliefs. The bile Dawkins spits out betrays his hand, and the bias he has against religion is as clear as the bias of any Christian in favor of his or her religious faith.

I'd also respect Dawkins' works more if he was more familiar with what he was criticizing--he lacks any real knowledge of religious literature or beliefs, instead taking the layman's view of religion. Several of you criticized Hawk for having a layman's view of evolutionary theory. Maybe Hawk does indeed have a layman's understanding of evolutionary theory. But frankly, very few atheists or agnostics are really familiar with Christian religious beliefs either, and yet criticize Christian beliefs all the time (and with occasionally nastier adjectives than any Biblical Hellfire, frankly).

2. Extend fairness and grace to your opponent in a religious/scientific debate, please, whether you completely disagree with him or not. Words like "mental hoops" and "ridiculous" are very harsh (even if you think the Bible is ridiculous). I don't see Hawk being that aggressive towards the naysayers in this debate. But others whom I shall not name in this debate have been and are being unduly nasty. Cut it out.

Just my 2 cents.

All involvement steth has ever had with a bible has been bad news. The man just reeks of atheistic super-hate for all things non-scientific.

[Mythdracon]

It seems to be that way. Regrettable. I harbor no ill-will towards atheists or agnostics, and my closest friend is an agnostic with whom I've had numerous religious debates. We occasionally get very frustrated with each other, but we don't stoop to insults.

Note also, to certain debators in this thread, that a general precept of debating or trial court is that pejorative adjectives are not welcome. They show you lack an argument. If you had a real argument, you wouldn't need (arguably EMOTIONAL) words like "ridiculous." Focus instead on the rational merits of an argument. :)

[stethnorun]

All involvement steth has ever had with a bible has been bad news. The man just reeks of atheistic super-hate for all things non-scientific.

Again, where are you getting this "hate" from? I hate nothing. If you want to keep reading extreme emotion into my posts, that's your business, but just to set you straight, I never, EVER post with anything except intellectual argument. Meaning no emotion. I would think you would know this about me by now, since you follow me around, heckling me in every thread now.

[stethnorun]

If you had a real argument, you wouldn't need (arguably EMOTIONAL) words like "ridiculous." Focus instead on the rational merits of an argument. :)

Wow, if you have to stretch THAT far to read emotion into my statements, it just goes to reinforce what I'm saying. "Ridiculous" is not an "emotional" word. It's me dismissing something as preposterous because it doesn't even come close to matching up with reality. The idea that that would be an "emotional" response is, well, ridiculous :D

[Hawk]

...Just my 2 cents.

Thank you for your input, Mythdracon. :)

For me, I've actually been enjoying this debate quite a lot - aside from the nastiness that is, but at the same time I'm quite used to it, since I had to put up with much worse during my time at school, and elsewhere (even some family members have given me a hard time in the past, so I've learnt to grow thicker skin). This has been very deep and meaningful, as well as educational, and I like to learn about the beliefs of others, so I'm happy to continue this conversation.
- Feel free to join in by the way! ;)

[kaybeebiscuits]

And so this is the plan: since this thread originally belongs to the kaybeebiscuits, the kaybeebiscuits shall now apply the analogy of property and rent to this thread! He shall now charge each new post here with +1 Rep each, oh wait, rep is disabled on this forum; instead, anyone posting a new post from now on must contain a picture of a genuine gold coin in his or her post!

http://cb.pbsstatic.com/l/29/5629/9781443805629.jpg

Profit to the max!

[tfordp]

Can I just join in by saying I haven't seen any nastiness by stethnorun yet? I must admit, I agree with his stand almost entirely, but he still hasn't been nasty.

My favorite part of the bible is Leviticus, very cushy number Aaron and his sons have going there, always good for a laugh.

[kaybeebiscuits]

The kaybeebiscuits has seriously underestimated the effects of the resurrection of this post through the digging up of the Akashic records ...

Another question arises as to why anyone would want to dig out a thread that is close to 9 months old. Whoever did it had better have a good reason for doing so, and you know who you are ...

[Shiav]

http://www.google.ca/imgres?q=gold+coin&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&biw=1366&bih=643&tbm=isch&tbnid=qSzgAYYQR7iJhM:&imgrefurl=http://www.goldmapleleafcoins.com/&docid=ktxyNWegl4sRwM&imgurl=http://goldmapleleafcoins.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/gold-maple-leaf.jpg&w=257&h=254&ei=LIKxTtWTPIaPiAKOpdUf&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=701&vpy=181&dur=3449&hovh=203&hovw=205&tx=118&ty=122&sig=114245750349206665345&page=1&tbnh=134&tbnw=137&start=0&ndsp=21&ved=1t:429,r:3,s:0
^ this is supposed to be a gold coin from google
Emotion Steth? you believe that calling all religious people "lazy couch potatoes who never think for themselves" a scientific representation? I'd love to see some of your hard scientific facts some day :p

Yeah, Leviticus is quite terrible. /meh

[stethnorun]

http://www.google.ca/imgres?q=gold+coin&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&biw=1366&bih=643&tbm=isch&tbnid=qSzgAYYQR7iJhM:&imgrefurl=http://www.goldmapleleafcoins.com/&docid=ktxyNWegl4sRwM&imgurl=http://goldmapleleafcoins.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/gold-maple-leaf.jpg&w=257&h=254&ei=LIKxTtWTPIaPiAKOpdUf&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=701&vpy=181&dur=3449&hovh=203&hovw=205&tx=118&ty=122&sig=114245750349206665345&page=1&tbnh=134&tbnw=137&start=0&ndsp=21&ved=1t:429,r:3,s:0
^ this is supposed to be a gold coin from google
Emotion Steth? you believe that calling all religious people "lazy couch potatoes who never think for themselves" a scientific representation? I'd love to see some of your hard scientific facts some day :p

Yeah, Leviticus is quite terrible. /meh

I said the concept of "religion" was like that, in an analogy. I didn't call "religious people" couch potatoes. Are you really not sophisticated enough in your thinking to see the distinction?

[Hawk]

Ok guys, we can continue this nicely. No one here is trying to force their beliefs on anyone, so let's be civil and respectful to each other.

On an interesting note, I don't know how many of you know about Nicaragua's history, but when the Spanish first arrived there, and met up with the hospitable natives that lived there, the chief, Nicarao, saw this as an opportunity to have his questions about religion and the natural world answered. Can you guess what one of his questions was? He asked if they'd heard of a great flood that destroyed all men and animals...Isn't that interesting!

[Mythdracon]

Stethnorun, you can't claim you don't have emotion injected in your posts. Virtually all of page 4 contains phrases, words and emphases that make you sound like you're demanding something loudly, and ridiculing opposing arguments with force.

Here's a sample.


So within the ENTIRE Bible, you found one quote in the NEW TESTAMENT that is supposed to tie back to Genesis? Who on Earth do you think you are going to convince with that?

Capital letters? You can't say that's not emotion here. "Who do you think you are going to convince with that?" is overly aggressive, frankly: emotional rather than objective. A more objective way to state that question would be, "I don't think you'll find many people who are convinced by your argument." See the difference?

Let's be civil here. This is an interesting topic with lots of tangents, I say we make good use of those tangents to learn things from each other and engage our ideas, rather than our stubbornness and our belief that others are wrong. Lol.

[Shiav]

Ok guys, we can continue this nicely. No one here is trying to force their beliefs on anyone, so let's be civil and respectful to each other.

On an interesting note, I don't know how many of you know about Nicaragua's history, but when the Spanish first arrived there, and met up with the hospitable natives that lived there, the chief, Nicarao, saw this as an opportunity to have his questions about religion and the natural world answered. Can you guess what one of his questions was? He asked if they'd heard of a great flood that destroyed all men and animals...Isn't that interesting!

most planetary religions have a great flood story. most also have a creation story and an end of the world story. These basic premises offer answers to questions they haven't answered. How was the world created and how will the world end being the biggest ones.

[Hawk]

most planetary religions have a great flood story. most also have a creation story and an end of the world story. These basic premises offer answers to questions they haven't answered. How was the world created and how will the world end being the biggest ones.

Exactly! You see if humans are all the descendants of Noah and his family, then it would be logical to find people all over the globe who know of it, because the story was been past down. Sure enough, just like the Chinese whisper game, each people's story would change in their own way, such as how many survivors there were, how they survived, and where they were at the time, but there is one things that doesn't change, and that is that a great flood happened. Why else would everyone have a great flood story?

[stethnorun]

Stethnorun, you can't claim you don't have emotion injected in your posts. Virtually all of page 4 contains phrases, words and emphases that make you sound like you're demanding something loudly, and ridiculing opposing arguments with force.

Here's a sample.



Capital letters? You can't say that's not emotion here. "Who do you think you are going to convince with that?" is overly aggressive, frankly: emotional rather than objective. A more objective way to state that question would be, "I don't think you'll find many people who are convinced by your argument." See the difference?

Let's be civil here. This is an interesting topic with lots of tangents, I say we make good use of those tangents to learn things from each other and engage our ideas, rather than our stubbornness and our belief that others are wrong. Lol.

Again, you are reading emotion into things. Capital letters are for emphasis, not anger. I guess I should use italics instead, but I'm lazy like that. As for words, if "ridiculous" is the most emotion-filled word you can come up with that I've said, you aren't really making your case very well.

And honestly, maybe spend less time being the civility police and more time actually contributing something substantive. I don't care if I'm offending you, especially because I'm not even really talking to you. I'm talking to Hawk and a few others and Hawk has been damn admirable in his good-natured defense of his faith. He's acting mature and dealing with me and others as an adult. You are condescending to people, assuming feelings are being hurt or whatever. How about you let people speak the way they want to, not the way you think they should.

[Mythdracon]

I'm hardly "civility police," stethnorum, and since you are now suddenly turning around and thanking Hawk for being civil, I don't think I'm going too far when I suggest you're trying to cover yourself. The fact of the matter is this: you have every right to speak as you will, but the forum guidelines don't look kindly upon people who insult others. You say the capital letters were for clarification. Why not use bolding then? Capital letters for whole words like that imply shouting, and you well know that I'm sure, since you have been on the Internet for more than a week.

You can say I'm reading emotion into it all you like. The fact is that the signs are there. Pejorative adjectives like "ridiculous" hardly help your case. Frankly, your post above simply proves my point. You like to judge claims that Christians make, but arguably worse is the way you judge people, as your post demonstrates. I'm not out to get you, but I did think you'd be a bit more receptive to my suggestion that you just try to moderate your tone.

Words like "ridiculous" don't help you when you say I should contribute something "substantive." You say I'm being condescending, but your reply called me "civility police," which is definitely condescending. [shrug]

You can say you're not "really" talking to me, but your post specifically refers to me. If that's not talking to me I don't know what is. Let me gently suggest that you be less defensive, and try not to go about name-calling. Thanks.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Now back to the main topic:

Hawk, about the Great Flood...that's one thing I think would be cool to discuss. A lot of ancient cultures had flood stories, do you think it could have been because humans shared a common problem back then? Maybe flooding was very bad in the early ages...I'm assuming terrain structure or the continental Pangaea might have meant people shared a lot of floods. But your Chinese whisper theory is interesting too...as we know from Cinderella, stories travel, even from China to Italy, Mongolia to Europe, Africa to America.

[stethnorun]

I'm hardly "civility police," stethnorum, and since you are now suddenly turning around and thanking Hawk for being civil, I don't think I'm going too far when I suggest you're trying to cover yourself. The fact of the matter is this: you have every right to speak as you will, but the forum guidelines don't look kindly upon people who insult others. You say the capital letters were for clarification. Why not use bolding then? Capital letters for whole words like that imply shouting, and you well know that I'm sure, since you have been on the Internet for more than a week.

You can say I'm reading emotion into it all you like. The fact is that the signs are there. Pejorative adjectives like "ridiculous" hardly help your case. Frankly, your post above simply proves my point. You like to judge claims that Christians make, but arguably worse is the way you judge people, as your post demonstrates. I'm not out to get you, but I did think you'd be a bit more receptive to my suggestion that you just try to moderate your tone.

Words like "ridiculous" don't help you when you say I should contribute something "substantive." You say I'm being condescending, but your reply called me "civility police," which is definitely condescending. [shrug]

You can say you're not "really" talking to me, but your post specifically refers to me. If that's not talking to me I don't know what is. Let me gently suggest that you be less defensive, and try not to go about name-calling. Thanks.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Now back to the main topic:

Hawk, about the Great Flood...that's one thing I think would be cool to discuss. A lot of ancient cultures had flood stories, do you think it could have been because humans shared a common problem back then? Maybe flooding was very bad in the early ages...I'm assuming terrain structure or the continental Pangaea might have meant people shared a lot of floods. But your Chinese whisper theory is interesting too...as we know from Cinderella, stories travel, even from China to Italy, Mongolia to Europe, Africa to America.

Again, when you become a moderator, I'll give a crap what you say on the matter. I haven't insulted anyone and therefore, I'm entirely within the guidelines. Maybe you should stop playing hall monitor before you embarrass yourself further.

I don't care about "signs". I can tell you, directly, that I have no emotions while posting. None. If you choose to believe that I'm lying about that, that's your problem. And this is the last time I'm going to address this because it's silly.

I'm talking to you now because you addressed me specifically. But in terms of the religion debate, no I wasn't talking to you. And if you would like to point out where I name-called, I'm all ears. I make it a point to never, ever name call. Not because it's "mean" (clearly I don't care about that), but because if you are reduced to that, you've lost the argument. Thus, I never do it.

[Hawk]

Hawk, about the Great Flood...that's one thing I think would be cool to discuss. A lot of ancient cultures had flood stories, do you think it could have been because humans shared a common problem back then? Maybe flooding was very bad in the early ages...I'm assuming terrain structure or the continental Pangaea might have meant people shared a lot of floods. But your Chinese whisper theory is interesting too...as we know from Cinderella, stories travel, even from China to Italy, Mongolia to Europe, Africa to America.

There would have to be something that happened. There has always been floods though, and every now and then a particular large one happens, which is still no real surprise for people, so whatever it was would've been on a much grander scale...Covering mountains - as described in the Bible - definitely matches up with a flood on a much grander scale, and if this was the case the flood would cover a humongous area, even if these mountains were small mountains...So how big is Mount Ararat in Turkey? (The place where the Bible says the ark rested as the flood waters receded) well Wikipedia says Ararat "is a snow-capped, dormant volcanic cone in Turkey. It has two peaks: Greater Ararat (the tallest peak in Turkey, and the entire Armenian plateau with an elevation of 5,137 m/16,854 ft) and Lesser Ararat (with an elevation of 3,896 m/12,782 ft)." That's quite big actually, even for a mountain! ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Ararat )
Now if the ark rested there then there would have to be evidence of this, so is there any evidence? Well they found something...
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/04/100428-noahs-ark-found-in-turkey-science-religion-culture/
Notice how it says it is "buried at 13,000 feet (4,000 meters) above sea level, near the peak of Mount Ararat" and that "radiocarbon-dated wood taken from the discovery site shows the purported ark is about 4,800 years old, which coincides roughly with the time of Noah's flood implied by the Bible."

Here's another link a posted earlier about the ark being in the news: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-04-28/noahs-ark-discovered-on-turkish-mountain/413428

[Hawk]

I haven't insulted anyone and therefore, I'm entirely within the guidelines. Maybe you should stop playing hall monitor before you embarrass yourself further.

To be fair, stethnorun, you have been insulting towards God. (For example saying "he is as insecure as a teenager." and "an attention whor." (I assume you meant that with an "e" at the end?). You may not believe he is real, but don't forget that many of us do.

[Shiav]

To be fair, stethnorun, you have been insulting towards God. (For example saying "he is as insecure as a teenager." and "an attention whor." (I assume you meant that with an "e" at the end?). You may not believe he is real, but don't forget that MOST of us do.

fixed :D seriously though. the majority of the human population believes in the God of Abraham, and the incredibly vast majority of people believe in a god of some sort.

[istry555]

Just because there is a flood myth in a lot of cultures doesn't mean that the flood myths are related to one another. Defaulting to universalism is the bane of comparative mythology. Most likely there are several independent flood myths that people are trying to find a connection between. Also, often people put something in the category of "flood myth" when the actual details of the myth are quite different. The same goes for creation and apocalypse stories; just because most cultures have one doesn't mean they're related to one another especially when the details differ. If a myth between cultures is actually related it's usually possible to find evidence of this link with comparative linguistics.

For example, take the Indo-European peoples. The Proto-Indo-European people originated somewhere between the Black and Caspian Seas. The Proto-Indo-Europeans had a myth in which the storm god fought a sea serpent. Now the Proto-Indo-Europeans migrated all over the place and became the Hittites, Indians, Greek, Persians, Norse, etc. Now everyone single one of these cultures has a variation of the myth of the storm god fighting the sea serpent--Thor vs. Jörmungandr (Norse), Tarhunt vs. Illuyanka (Hittite), Indra vs. Vritra (Vedic), Θraētaona vs. Aži Dahāka (Zorastrian), and Zeus vs. Typhon (Greek). Why? Because all these people are all descended from the same original group of people and each version of this myth is descended from the same original proto-myth. Furthermore, you can effectively prove this by not only comparing the structure of the myth but finding the large amount of linguistic cognates between them.

However, there is also the case of cross-cultural transmission. The Hittites transmitted the myth into Syria and the Fertile Crescent. Which is why a version of this myth also exists in the Afro-Asiatic language group--Baʿal vs. Yam (Canaanite), Marduk vs. Tiamat (Babylonian), Atum vs. Nehebkau (Egyptian), Yahweh vs. Leviathan (Jewish), etc.. Once again, you can effectively prove this by comparing myth structure, the dates of the known earliest versions of the myth, and most importantly linguistic cognates which show loan words. When the myth originates due to cross-cultural transmission most often they are also combined into existing myths.

Another important group is the already mentioned Afro-Asiatic peoples. They originated in the Horn of Africa and migrated and would eventually become the Jews, Berbers, Egyptians, Babylonians, Arabs, etc. Most of the time when people compare flood myths they list the Jewish, Egyptian, and Babylonian myths as the major comparisons. The Afro-Asiatic group also almost always starts their creation story with "primordial waters" (as opposed to the Indo-Europeans whose creation myth begins with human sacrifice). There's obviously a inter-related flood myth in the Afro-Asiatic group descended from the same source, especially since the idea of water being responsible for creation (and thus re-creation) is central to their world-view (and if you want to see a modern continuation of this theme look at Baptism).

Now, yes there are flood myths in some other distant cultures; certain Native American populations, Japan. But these are most likely independent myths. Who knows, maybe there was a great flood in the area at some point that inspired them also. Non-related cross cultural myths often deal with something that could commonly occur in any human population. The thing is, if these flood myths were related to the Biblical one there would be linguistic evidence connecting them. There's not. They would have similar structures. They don't (most don't feature the Ark). They're not related, people are just looking to prove the Bible.

[Hawk]

The story of the great flood is found in every continent in inhabited by humans, regardless of how different their languages and cultures are, which is fitting if they all originated with Noah.
For example, the Australian Aboriginals: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v4/n1/australian-aboriginal-flood-stories
The Inca http://meta-religion.com/World_Religions/Ancient_religions/South_america/flood_myth_of_the_incas.htm
In fact here's a couple of lists: http://www.nwcreation.net/noahlegends.html, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html

These stories often have more than a great flood involved, but have other similarities, such as the flood destroying the wicked, the flood waters rising above the mountain tops, only a small number of humans survived, etc. Still, as I explained about the Chinese whisper game, it's very easy for a story to change, so there's no surprise that the varies flood stories differ.
Thus when you say "if these flood myths were related to the Biblical one there would be linguistic evidence connecting them. There's not. They would have similar structures. They don't (most don't feature the Ark)." This is by no means proof that there was no great flood, or that the story of Noah is fictional.

You mentioned baptism. You can see the similarities between baptism and the great flood - in both cases they are regarding cleansing away badness (in baptism this just symbolism, while the flood was more literal), and both are Biblical.

[stethnorun]

fixed :D seriously though. the majority of the human population believes in the God of Abraham, and the incredibly vast majority of people believe in a god of some sort.

Again, "majority" has absolutely no impact on "right". The "majority" of people in Germany voted for Hitler.

[stethnorun]

To be fair, stethnorun, you have been insulting towards God. (For example saying "he is as insecure as a teenager." and "an attention whor." (I assume you meant that with an "e" at the end?). You may not believe he is real, but don't forget that many of us do.

Well sorry, Hawk, god isn't real so...that's like saying I was insulting to the Easter Bunny. I won't be losing any sleep over it :)

[mwallyn]

Again, "majority" has absolutely no impact on "right". The "majority" of people in Germany voted for Hitler.

...And we have reached Godwin's Law! I won't say the obvious here... :D

Again, for most peoples that have a flood story, the "world" at the time consisted of a comparatively small realm. Any large local flood could easily have been interpreted as "the whole world flooding over" and would likely have been referred to as such. Still, that doesn't mean stories like Noah's Ark are 100% false. Scaling it down significantly makes the whole idea much more feasible.

[stethnorun]

...And we have reached Godwin's Law! I won't say the obvious here... :D


Not really Godwin's law. I wasn't comparing someone's beliefs to Nazis or Hitler. I was giving a historical example of the majority being very, very wrong. But I'm sure there are thousands, if not millions, of other good examples. After all, when has a mob EVER made good decisions?

[mwallyn]

But despite those alleged millions of other good examples, you used Hitler, which is the exact point of Godwin's Law.

For your reading pleasure:

http://www.cracked.com/article_19431_5-mind-blowing-things-crowds-do-better-than-experts.html

Just a few things "mobs" are capable of doing very well.

[stethnorun]

But despite those alleged millions of other good examples, you used Hitler, which is the exact point of Godwin's Law.

For your reading pleasure:

http://www.cracked.com/article_19431_5-mind-blowing-things-crowds-do-better-than-experts.html

Just a few things "mobs" are capable of doing very well.

Uh, okay? They are also quite good at lynching innocent people based on skin color or ancestry. What's your point?

And actually, almost all of those examples are not mobs, but large collections of individuals. There's a pretty big difference there.

[Hawk]

Again, for most peoples that have a flood story, the "world" at the time consisted of a comparatively small realm. Any large local flood could easily have been interpreted as "the whole world flooding over" and would likely have been referred to as such. Still, that doesn't mean stories like Noah's Ark are 100% false. Scaling it down significantly makes the whole idea much more feasible.

The Bible does say that the waters covered the mountain tops - which a good number of these around the world flood stories also agree with, suggesting the same origin - but also back in those links I posted just before, if that is Noah's ark that they found (and so far it fits the bill), then the flood waters would have covered at least some mountains. Now Mount Ararat is the highest in Turkey, and the ark only rested there after the flood waters had receded quite a bit. If the flood waters covered the mountain top of Mount Ararat, then how much of the world would've been covered?

[kaybeebiscuits]

Millennia after the ecocollapse the Akashic Records are dug up, and learned scholars heatedly debate whether kaybeebiscuits actually existed. The prevailing hypothesis is that he was an amalgum of many people, all of whom were consumed by the Axis of Fire.

Behold! The Akashic Records!

The Akashic Records:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_aMrGNSSQ1pU/Se5FjmH5SpI/AAAAAAAACEA/6tosHOtrg8Y/s400/akashic1.jpg

I am so glad that the Akashic Records have been dug up. It seems that you humans have harnessed its power rather responsibly by utilizing the call of Rationalism to resolve differences rather than the power of zero-point energy technology granted by its rich archives. The Kaybeebiscuits thereby gives the stamp of approval for humanity to tap into this excellent wealth for all of eternity. May you all prosper in the everlasting well of knowledge of creation!

The Kaybeebiscuits Endorses this Thread
http://teamworkprogram.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/stamp-of-approval1.jpg

[Hawk]

Can you tell me more about the Akashic records?

[kaybeebiscuits]

Can you tell me more about the Akashic records?

This thread is the Akashic Records! An 8 month-old thread resurrected, rejuvenated and revitalized in every conceivable way!

[Shiav]

This thread is the Akashic Records! An 8 month-old thread resurrected, rejuvenated and revitalized in every conceivable way!

? 0.o so how are we supposed to derive the power cosmic from its teachings hmm?

O.O is it in the letter total on the first page divided by pi times root 3?

[Hawk]

These past few years I've heard more than ever before on the news that some disaster or weather happening somewhere in the world is the worst or most extreme in 50 years, 100 years, or on record. There's almost always a new natural disaster reported on the news nowadays too, and statistics show that these disasters are on the increase:
http://www.adrc.asia/publications/annual/99/1999_034.htm
http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/trends-in-natural-disasters

[tfordp]

Weather happens. Your point? A new flood, maybe? Or pest of some kind? And if that's the case, it's god's doing? I'll wager the Neanderthals would have been well pissed 30 thousand years ago if they had had the possibility to read weather like we can today.

[Hawk]

Weather happens. Your point? A new flood, maybe? Or pest of some kind? And if that's the case, it's god's doing? I'll wager the Neanderthals would have been well pissed 30 thousand years ago if they had had the possibility to read weather like we can today.

That's not what I'm trying to say. If it's global warming then it would be our doing, and this fits in with two scriptures: Ecclesiastes 9:11, and 8:9, the first one saying that "time and unforeseen occurrences" befall us all (wrong place wrong time sort of thing), the second says that "man has dominated man to his injury." (we cause a lot of the problems we face ourselves).

I actually want to discuss the beliefs of Atheists, Agnostics, and various Creationists, as to why this is happening to our planet.

From a Christian point of view we look to Matthew chapter 24, especially the later part of verse 7, which says that one of the signs that the end is near is that there will be "earthquakes in one place after another". Of course there are many signs, but this one relates directly to natural disasters being on the increase by quite a bit, which is happening.

I'm interesting in hearing what other beliefs say regarding the increase in natural disasters.

[Shiav]

That's not what I'm trying to say. If it's global warming then it would be our doing, and this fits in with two scriptures: Ecclesiastes 9:11, and 8:9, the first one saying that "time and unforeseen occurrences" befall us all (wrong place wrong time sort of thing), the second says that "man has dominated man to his injury." (we cause a lot of the problems we face ourselves).

I actually want to discuss the beliefs of Atheists, Agnostics, and various Creationists, as to why this is happening to our planet.

From a Christian point of view we look to Matthew chapter 24, especially the later part of verse 7, which says that one of the signs that the end is near is that there will be "earthquakes in one place after another". Of course there are many signs, but this one relates directly to natural disasters being on the increase by quite a bit, which is happening.

I'm interesting in hearing what other beliefs say regarding the increase in natural disasters.
<< Enlightened Christianity (that is, science that retains the belief of a God):

Science. And we deserve it.

The earth has a natural phase of cooling and warming. Thus, as the planet gets warmer, we think its our fault. It is (95% of it at least) the earth's own doing. we're just speeding it up a bit. Interesting point of note. During the Cretaceous period the mean global temperature was 18 degrees. The current mean is 14.

Earthquakes are caused by plate tectonics, the movement of the earth's crust. this also causes most volcanos.

Super bugs and viruses are caused by poor sanitation and an increase in the improper use of medication allowing for the evolution of drug-resistance in viruses.

[Hawk]

We're speeding it up quite a lot then, since if you look at graphs showing the modern history of natural disasters you can see that it's only been very recent that these disasters have shot through the roof.

We all know what causes earthquakes, but I want to discuss how they have increased dramatically in number and size.

[Shiav]

We're speeding it up quite a lot then, since if you look at graphs showing the modern history of natural disasters you can see that it's only been very recent that these disasters have shot through the roof.

We all know what causes earthquakes, but I want to discuss how they have increased dramatically in number and size.

Earthquakes are things that we can't actually affect too much. Due to the sheer scale involved humans would actually have to try and cause an earthquake in order for one to happen.

[eastkitton]

Behold! The Akashic Records!



Studies of the Akashic Records have established a timeline for the Great Purge.

The Akashic records are now known to have been the core essence of a great forum.

Long would the forum prosper, until the upstart villain stethnorum of somewhere destroyed the moderators in one shocking campaign.

[Hawk]

Earthquakes are things that we can't actually affect too much. Due to the sheer scale involved humans would actually have to try and cause an earthquake in order for one to happen.

So basically we humans don't have it in our power, either individually or collectively, to do anything to stop earthquakes from getting worse, even though we know the science behind them. So what do we do? And what of all the other disasters?

[stethnorun]

So basically we humans don't have it in our power, either individually or collectively, to do anything to stop earthquakes from getting worse, even though we know the science behind them. So what do we do? And what of all the other disasters?

To even consider affecting earthquakes is pretty downright arrogant of us. In terms of sheer cosmic power, human beings are still like fleas on the big ball we call earth.

[Hawk]

I agree, even now in the "Cyber age" we don't have the ability. But what if the earthquakes continue to get much worse and way more frequent?

[Black Gate of Mordor]

From a Christian point of view we look to Matthew chapter 24, especially the later part of verse 7, which says that one of the signs that the end is near is that there will be "earthquakes in one place after another". Of course there are many signs, but this one relates directly to natural disasters being on the increase by quite a bit, which is happening.

Then the end has been near since the creation of the tectonic plates and continents (about a billion years ago, if I remember correctly).

You do know that there are tons of earthquakes every second, right? The plates are constantly up against each other, and the smaller ones (below 2 on the Richter scale you can't feel or see) occur thousands of times each day. The larger ones occur when the plates are more violent.


We're speeding it up quite a lot then, since if you look at graphs showing the modern history of natural disasters you can see that it's only been very recent that these disasters have shot through the roof.

We all know what causes earthquakes, but I want to discuss how they have increased dramatically in number and size.

What has increased is the recording of earthquakes. With our sophisticated technology and seismometers in nearly every city along the edge of a tectonic plate, we're very unlikely to miss an earthquake (not to mention people will talk about it if it's not recorded on seismograph). The further we go back into antiquity, the less records we have of earthquakes - the only ones mentioned are the large ones that devastate the population - such as the Antioch earthquake of 526.

[Black Gate of Mordor]

I agree, even now in the "Cyber age" we don't have the ability. But what if the earthquakes continue to get much worse and way more frequent?

Too bad for us. Move away from known fault lines and tectonic edges.

Oh, and you do know that the amount of earthquakes changes every year dependent upon how active the magma in the mantle is? If the mantle heats up (as it appears to be doing so now) the movement of the tectonic plates shall increase.

[stethnorun]

Too bad for us. Move away from known fault lines and tectonic edges.

Oh, and you do know that the amount of earthquakes changes every year dependent upon how active the magma in the mantle is? If the mantle heats up (as it appears to be doing so now) the movement of the tectonic plates shall increase.

Yes but GOD makes the magma more active, you see ;) Sorry, I had to.

[Hawk]

Then the end has been near since the creation of the tectonic plates and continents (about a billion years ago, if I remember correctly).

You do know that there are tons of earthquakes every second, right? The plates are constantly up against each other, and the smaller ones (below 2 on the Richter scale you can't feel or see) occur thousands of times each day. The larger ones occur when the plates are more violent.

What has increased is the recording of earthquakes. With our sophisticated technology and seismometers in nearly every city along the edge of a tectonic plate, we're very unlikely to miss an earthquake (not to mention people will talk about it if it's not recorded on seismograph). The further we go back into antiquity, the less records we have of earthquakes - the only ones mentioned are the large ones that devastate the population - such as the Antioch earthquake of 526.

Too bad for us. Move away from known fault lines and tectonic edges.

Oh, and you do know that the amount of earthquakes changes every year dependent upon how active the magma in the mantle is? If the mantle heats up (as it appears to be doing so now) the movement of the tectonic plates shall increase.

The scripture is indicating more frequent quakes. Also notice how it doesn't need to explain what an earthquake is...People knew what earthquakes were back then, so just earthquakes happening is not the prophesy, but more often, more server even, which is what's actually happening.

Since we've started recording earthquakes they have been becoming more and more regular, and bigger to scale. http://khptech.com/blog/4/ww-earthquake-stats
This is fact.

"Too bad for us" and "Move away from known fault lines and tectonic edges" is both depressing and unrealistic to many people who live in these areas. We also have to deal with over-population, and if we move away from these regions it shrinks the area we can live on, as well as abandons quite a few cities.

[Hawk]

Yes but GOD makes the magma more active, you see ;) Sorry, I had to.

I cannot speak for all creationists, because there are many religions out there that follow different books and vary in beliefs, but for those who follow the Bible we can look to Ecclesiastes 9:11 where is says that "time and unforeseen occurrences" befall us all. In other words bad things can just happen to us without anyone behind it causing it. It doesn't say that God causes natural disasters at random.

[Hawk]

Earthquakes becoming more common is just one of the signs, and this we are actually seeing happen...So what are the other signs?

Well let's look at them again:

Matthew 24: Later part of verse 4-14 "Jesus said to them: (Sign no. 1) "Look out that nobody misleads you; for many will come on the basis of my name, saying, "I am the Christ," and will mislead many. (2) You are going to hear of wars and reports of wars; see that you are not terrified. For these things must take place, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom, (3) and there will be food shortages and (4, we just discussed about the earthquakes) earthquakes in one place after another. All these things are a beginning of pangs of distress. (5) Then people will deliver you up to tribulation and will kill you, and you will be objects of hatred by all the nations on account of my name. (6) Then, also, many will be stumbled and will betray one another and will hate one another. (7) And many false prophets will arise and mislead many; and (8) because of the increasing of lawlessness the love of the greater number will cool off. But he that has endured to the end is the one that will be saved. (9) And this good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations; and then the end will come."

So we have nine signs listed here. When you read through them ask yourself if they are happening now:
(1) People falsely claiming that they're Christ Jesus.
(2) Wars becoming more frequent and widespread.
(3) Food shortages becoming more frequent and worse.
(4) Earthquakes becoming more frequent and worse.
(5) Many people discriminating against those who stand for Jesus.
(6) Even those who are following Jesus will becoming "stumbled" because of corruption within the religion and leave, while others will betray and hate one another.
(7) False prophets misleading people.
(8) An increasing of crime, and people trusting each other less and helping each other less because of this.
(9) The "Good news" in the Bible will be taught in all the inhabited earth, to all peoples and ethnic groups.

[Black Gate of Mordor]

The scripture is indicating more frequent quakes.

So the scripture changes with time?


Also notice how it doesn't need to explain what an earthquake is...People knew what earthquakes were back then, so just earthquakes happening is not the prophesy, but more often, more server even, which is what's actually happening.

Actually, they didn't. Wagner's theory of tectonics was proposed in the 1920s and he was laughed out of science. It was only later in the fifties when they could prove what he was talking about that he was seen in a good light again. Also, before this, people had varying views on what caused earthquakes. If you were religious, you believed it was God. If you were a scientist, you didn't know (that sounds like something similar to today... I wonder what that is?).


Since we've started recording earthquakes they have been becoming more and more regular, and bigger to scale. http://khptech.com/blog/4/ww-earthquake-stats
This is fact.

All this proves is that there are a couple more earthquakes than what we think is usual. For all we know, the previous period is the unusual one.


"Too bad for us" and "Move away from known fault lines and tectonic edges" is both depressing and unrealistic to many people who live in these areas. We also have to deal with over-population, and if we move away from these regions it shrinks the area we can live on, as well as abandons quite a few cities.

But it's the sobering truth. If you feel that earthquakes are getting too destructive and there are too many people living there, the only solutions is either the people move (if you want to save lives easily) or build earthquake-proof buildings (the only cities in the world like this are San Francisco and Japanese cities such as Osaka and Tokyo. Cities such as Seattle, which definitely require them, do not have any).

Also, I think we've finally found the point back to the topic at hand, religion. The thoughts of "Too bad" may be depressing, but that's the problem with religion. It places us in a special place in a universe* and makes life a huge game of karma.

* It has been theorized that we may infact live in a peculiar place in the universe. This has nothing to do with religion, but if you're interested a PM would be helpful.

[slowtarget]

Ugh. I don't mean to marginalize anyone's religious beliefs, but when attempting to convince others, you need to at least acknowledge scope, history, and the scale of the "world" due to communication.



So we have nine signs listed here. When you read through them ask yourself if they are happening now:
(1) People falsely claiming that they're Christ Jesus.
(2) Wars becoming more frequent and widespread.
(3) Food shortages becoming more frequent and worse.
(4) Earthquakes becoming more frequent and worse.
(5) Many people discriminating against those who stand for Jesus.
(6) Even those who are following Jesus will becoming "stumbled" because of corruption within the religion and leave, while others will betray and hate one another.
(7) False prophets misleading people.
(8) An increasing of crime, and people trusting each other less and helping each other less because of this.
(9) The "Good news" in the Bible will be taught in all the inhabited earth, to all peoples and ethnic groups.

Okay, next question: Find me a time in history when these things couldn't be seen. "False Prophets" have existed since as early as 100CE. Wars have been waged for millennia --and on a long-term, global scale-- their frequency has been increasing along with the number of people in the world. Earthquakes have been reported throughout all of history and even pre-history. However, the reports are spotty, localized, rarely spread in any timely manner and not quantified. Religious discrimination has been occurring since religion was created and no religion has been immune. Similarly, religion has been corrupted by people with selfish intentions since religions was created and, again, no religion has been immune. The amount of crime in the world is primarily dependent on the number of people in the world, with additional dependence on population density. Thus, an increase in crime is expected with an increase in population. The widespread teaching of Christianity has happened, though this is largely due to the development of communication technology.

Unfortunately, as you look at these things, nearly all of them have either been happening for centuries, and those that haven't (#9) are cases where the original writers didn't realize the scope of the statement and likely would have felt the statement fulfilled a long, long time ago. The result: These criteria were easily met (in spirit, at least) sometime between 900CE and 1300CE.

So, let's try to actually use a bit of logic rather than fitting the evidence to our hypothesis:

If we account for the dilation of history due to technology and growth in population, then the last few decades and even the last century (with all the wars, atrocities and claims of local violence) are among the most peaceful times in human dominance, easily surpassing every century between now an the creation of Christianity. While there may be more people who are short on food, there are far more people in the world, and on the whole they eat far, far better than any other time in history. Earthquakes are reported more frequently now than they were in the past, but this is due entirely to better technology. We have global surveillance systems now. And one thing they prove to us is that the activity flows in natural cycles and those cycles are neither increasing or decreasing in intensity over a geologic timescale. As much as you might feel its not true, we have less crime now than previous ages, people work together more than they used to (just not in the way you expect), and religious tolerance is greater now than it has been for the history of Christianity. And as for the global teaching of Christianity, that is true. However, its also true of all non-restrictive religions including Islam and Buddhism. Even Judaism and Wicca can make the same claim. I'm sure if we checked, Shinto and Sikhism would work, too. This isn't meant to downplay Christianity, just to make the point that it was a simple prediction to fulfill.

A number of intelligent people have said: CNN is the greatest tool of promoters of the Apocalypse. With global reporting of events and disproportionate reporting of disasters, all you need to do is turn on your TV and you can easily spot whatever signs you want of the coming Apocalypse. Of course, that's only because your view is so dramatically widened. The same things have been happening for centuries, but we were ignorant of them. That sort of ignorance is fine. The problematic form is when you suddenly are able to see things you haven't and conclude that the only explanation is that they never existed before.

[kaybeebiscuits]

Wow the Akashic Records has become a magnet for highly evolved souls to congregate together in harmony. When sages such as slowtarget start to appear, we won't want to be missing any of the action in this heated debate!

I have to agree with many of the points brought up here regarding evolutionary theory. However, it is equally essential that we avoid being misinformed about the fundamentals of evolutionary theory before we proceed. And thus, here is a brief evolution 101 recap for everyone:

The Evolution of Mankind
Kaybeebiscuits
Google University

http://mylifeourhealth.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/evolutionofman-pig-789071.jpg?w=300&h=149

As you all can see, humans evolved only about 5000 years ago from our closest relatives, the chimpanzee. Man started to evolve from chimps not because of natural selection, but because of the increased usage of one's cerebral capacity. The brain is like a muscle - the more you use it, the larger it becomes. And when it has swelled in size, this memory is passed down via genes to the next generation, where it grows with the retention of the previous size generated (Lamarckism). This is the fundamental basis of brain enlargement. Because chimpanzees were forced to go through this process, the brain eventually enlarged, causing an unprecedented evolution into human beings.

This logic appears to the present as well as to the future as well. We foresee that based on the already proven theory of Lamarckism, human beings will gradually become fatter because we use our stomachs more often to process foods with lots of calories. This high calorie intake enlarges not just our digestive tracts, but also the amount of fat in our body, which is in turn passed down through genes to fatten the next generation. The final result, as most scientists concur, is that humans will eventually evolve into pigs, as seen in the diagram. We are already witnessing this happening now - because pigs and humans are co-existing together, this correlation must necessarily entail cause, and that means that our evolution into pigs is already happening.

So much for applying Lamarckism for most of us humans are going through the fattening process. But what of those who continuously use their brains, in the same way that our chimpanzee ancestors did? This is the projected outcome of our evolution for those who do, in the not so distant future (circa 200 years):

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_mNHAJ04OdjM/SwMFkUEJfHI/AAAAAAAABOk/e20edj8l1nc/s1600/cage.jpg

This is an image of the distinct, contextual evolutionary pathways that we have extrapolated for many countries. We note that future evolution is dependent upon the present, and that nomothetically, there is no all-encompassing law that applies to every case.

**removed**

This concludes the lecture on evolutionary theory. It is hoped that this lecture has cleared most of the misconceptions on evolution, as well as having illuminated the rubrics of everything known to date.

References

Google G.G. (2011). Evolution of Mankind. Google Search. Retrieved from http://www.google.com.

For those who are curious, this is the evolutionary pathway of Kaybeebiscuits:

http://alexlod.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/evolution.jpeg

[Shiav]

wow... just wow..

[tfordp]

well, I LOL´d :)

[Hawk]

Glake Gate and slowtarget, I'll have to give you more of an answer latter, but I don't have much time at the moment...

Even if crime and food shortages are becoming worse because of more population the prophecy is still fulfilled, and the same goes for the earthquakes, even if this is just a height in the cycle, and we've had it easy for a bit, they have become more common, thus the prophecy is being fulfilled to that extent. You see it doesn't say how these signs will occur.
Another thing is (and I'd quote the scripture, but as I said, I don't have much time), Jesus said that they'd all be occurring at once. So even though we know that they've always been happening, it's not about that, but it's about them getting worse, and happening together.

And Black Gate, the scriptures don't change.

Slowtarget, I'll talk more about sign no. 9 later, but this is an interesting one!

[Hawk]

As you all can see, humans evolved only about 5000 years ago from our closest relatives, the chimpanzee. Man started to evolve from chimps not because of natural selection, but because of the increased usage of one's cerebral capacity. The brain is like a muscle - the more you use it, the larger it becomes. And when it has swelled in size, this memory is passed down via genes to the next generation, where it grows with the retention of the previous size generated (Lamarckism). This is the fundamental basis of brain enlargement. Because chimpanzees were forced to go through this process, the brain eventually enlarged, causing an unprecedented evolution into human beings.

This logic appears to the present as well as to the future as well. We foresee that based on the already proven theory of Lamarckism, human beings will gradually become fatter because we use our stomachs more often to process foods with lots of calories. This high calorie intake enlarges not just our digestive tracts, but also the amount of fat in our body, which is in turn passed down through genes to fatten the next generation. The final result, as most scientists concur, is that humans will eventually evolve into pigs, as seen in the diagram. We are already witnessing this happening now - because pigs and humans are co-existing together, this correlation must necessarily entail cause, and that means that our evolution into pigs is already happening.

So much for applying Lamarckism for most of us humans are going through the fattening process. But what of those who continuously use their brains, in the same way that our chimpanzee ancestors did? This is the projected outcome of our evolution for those who do, in the not so distant future (circa 200 years):

This is an image of the distinct, contextual evolutionary pathways that we have extrapolated for many countries. We note that future evolution is dependent upon the present, and that nomothetically, there is no all-encompassing law that applies to every case.

This concludes the lecture on evolutionary theory. It is hoped that this lecture has cleared most of the misconceptions on evolution, as well as having illuminated the rubrics of everything known to date.

Back for a bit, and just read through your post.

That's interesting about evolving into pigs, especially since we do use pig organs with some organ transplants for humans, as well as pig valves, but we don't use ape organs. What of rats though? They have been the subject for scientific studies to help humans time and time again...Why rats? It has to be more than just the fact that they are vermin and very common.

Thank you for posting up this information for everyone! :)

[Shiav]

Back for a bit, and just read through your post.

That's interesting about evolving into pigs, especially since we do use pig organs with some organ transplants for humans, as well as pig valves, but we don't use ape organs. What of rats though? They have been the subject for scientific studies to help humans time and time again...Why rats? It has to be more than just the fact that they are vermin and very common.

Thank you for posting up this information for everyone! :)

No, its because theyre very very common and small enough to be able to store hundred of them in small spaces

[Black Gate of Mordor]

Back for a bit, and just read through your post.

That's interesting about evolving into pigs, especially since we do use pig organs with some organ transplants for humans, as well as pig valves, but we don't use ape organs. What of rats though? They have been the subject for scientific studies to help humans time and time again...Why rats? It has to be more than just the fact that they are vermin and very common.

Thank you for posting up this information for everyone! :)

In all seriousness, scientific studies usually use mice (not rats) because they are extremely common (so animal rights protesters aren't as common as if they were using, say, the orangutan) and because their brains, and I believe other parts of the body, are extremely similar to ours. So therefore, they can test these drugs on mice and see what the effects are. If it has the desired effect, they move to humans, as it is quite likely at this stage that it won't kill people, but they're got to see anyway.

[Hawk]

In all seriousness, scientific studies usually use mice (not rats) because they are extremely common (so animal rights protesters aren't as common as if they were using, say, the orangutan) and because their brains, and I believe other parts of the body, are extremely similar to ours. So therefore, they can test these drugs on mice and see what the effects are. If it has the desired effect, they move to humans, as it is quite likely at this stage that it won't kill people, but they're got to see anyway.

Hmm, that is interesting. How similar exactly are mice to our genetic make up by the way?

[Hawk]

Actually, they didn't. Wagner's theory of tectonics was proposed in the 1920s and he was laughed out of science. It was only later in the fifties when they could prove what he was talking about that he was seen in a good light again. Also, before this, people had varying views on what caused earthquakes. If you were religious, you believed it was God. If you were a scientist, you didn't know (that sounds like something similar to today... I wonder what that is?).

Sorry, worded it wrong. I'm focusing on that they would have known of earthquakes back then - known what one is, as in they knew that the earth would shake, so they obviously had earthquakes back then, since they were mentioned in the Bible. In other words the Bible means more then just that earthquakes will be happening during that time, but that earthquakes would become a big deal.

[Black Gate of Mordor]

Hmm, that is interesting. How similar exactly are mice to our genetic make up by the way?


Fourteen genes on mouse chromosome 16 are not found in humans. All the others—more than 700 mouse genes—have counterparts in the human genome, most of which are grouped together and in the same order as in the mouse genome.

From here (http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/05_02/mouse_053102.shtml).

Of course, that's only one mouse chromosome, but I'm fairly sure the rest are just as similar.

[Hawk]

From here (http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/05_02/mouse_053102.shtml).

Of course, that's only one mouse chromosome, but I'm fairly sure the rest are just as similar.

Wow, that's quite a lot! What about pigs though? Since we have used their organs for human organ transplants, so there must be some compatibility there.

[kaybeebiscuits]

After some thorough research through the trillions and trillions of neural network fibers within the earth super intelligence matrix (google), I managed to uncover a disturbing piece of evidence suggesting that panspermia theory might actually be correct as opposed to evolutionary theory. It might sound silly, but in light of the new evidence, it seems nearly impossible to refute the fact that our planet might actually have been seeded. Now this raises some doubt about evolutionary theory: is it still compatible with the new model; and if it is, is it just another parallel theory that is still correct, with the exception that the vast variance of the explanandum is to be explained away using panspermic theory instead?

It also raises another tantalizing conundrum. It was also proven from biblical knowledge that all man descended from Adam and Eve. This evidence here proves that the many 'races' on earth have all arrived from many different planets, bringing into question on whether or not Noah's Ark really did existed, or perhaps another reasonable speculation was that Noah's Ark might actually be an armada of several ships conjoined together since its conception, but was forced to break up into several smaller flotillas that colonized other parts of the world ... but wait, how do we explain the huge space ship there? Oh ... please don't tell me ... Noah's Ark was a spaceship?

Behold! A startling and poignant counter-evidence to the theory of evolution (of man) and to the uni-linear model of descend from the bible:

http://www.galactic-server.com/rune/kolraser2.jpg

[Hawk]

Now on the ninth sign recorded in Matthew 24:14, which says "And this good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations; and then the end will come."

Is this being fulfilled?

Well, last year the "good news of the kingdom" was being preached to in at least 236 Lands around the globe, and this number continues to grow. Currently "The Watchtower" (published by Jehovah's Witnesses), is the most widely distributed magazine in the world, and is printed in around 188 languages. Other Bible-based literature is available in at least 500 spoken languages, as well as in Sign languages and in Braille. The Bible is available in over 2,400 languages.
Sure enough, there is still some small regions left in the world that are yet to hear the good news, but as time passes the good news is preached in more Lands, and the Bible and Bible study aids are translated into more languages. Not only this, but anyone with a connection to the internet can get access to the Bible from online Bibles.

So what is the "good news of the kingdom" exactly?

[Hawk]

After some thorough research through the trillions and trillions of neural network fibers within the earth super intelligence matrix (google), I managed to uncover a disturbing piece of evidence suggesting that panspermia theory might actually be correct as opposed to evolutionary theory. It might sound silly, but in light of the new evidence, it seems nearly impossible to refute the fact that our planet might actually have been seeded. Now this raises some doubt about evolutionary theory: is it still compatible with the new model; and if it is, is it just another parallel theory that is still correct, with the exception that the vast variance of the explanandum is to be explained away using panspermic theory instead?

It also raises another tantalizing conundrum. It was also proven from biblical knowledge that all man descended from Adam and Eve. This evidence here proves that the many 'races' on earth have all arrived from many different planets, bringing into question on whether or not Noah's Ark really did existed, or perhaps another reasonable speculation was that Noah's Ark might actually be an armada of several ships conjoined together since its conception, but was forced to break up into several smaller flotillas that colonized other parts of the world ... but wait, how do we explain the huge space ship there? Oh ... please don't tell me ... Noah's Ark was a spaceship?

Understanding DNA can help us with this. Humans are one species, and thus started from one point, or one human - I'd just like to say that this is something that both evolutionists and creationists agree on, although, as we know they differ, with evolutionists believing that the first human evolved from another species altogether, while creationists (in general) believe that the first human was created by God.

What evidence is there of a space ship? Surely there would be some if we got here originally from other planets. Also, don't you think that we would have in our stories or myths that we "came from the stars" or something alike to that?

[Black Gate of Mordor]

What evidence is there of a space ship? Surely there would be some if we got here originally from other planets. Also, don't you think that we would have in our stories or myths that we "came from the stars" or something alike to that?

Assuming that alien spaceships arrived 500 million years ago to start the Cambrian explosion, if they remained on Earth they would have probably dissolved by now.

Of course, the Cambrian Explosion wasn't caused by aliens.

[Hawk]

So, let's try to actually use a bit of logic rather than fitting the evidence to our hypothesis:

If we account for the dilation of history due to technology and growth in population, then the last few decades and even the last century (with all the wars, atrocities and claims of local violence) are among the most peaceful times in human dominance, easily surpassing every century between now an the creation of Christianity. While there may be more people who are short on food, there are far more people in the world, and on the whole they eat far, far better than any other time in history. Earthquakes are reported more frequently now than they were in the past, but this is due entirely to better technology. We have global surveillance systems now. And one thing they prove to us is that the activity flows in natural cycles and those cycles are neither increasing or decreasing in intensity over a geologic timescale. As much as you might feel its not true, we have less crime now than previous ages, people work together more than they used to (just not in the way you expect), and religious tolerance is greater now than it has been for the history of Christianity. And as for the global teaching of Christianity, that is true. However, its also true of all non-restrictive religions including Islam and Buddhism. Even Judaism and Wicca can make the same claim. I'm sure if we checked, Shinto and Sikhism would work, too. This isn't meant to downplay Christianity, just to make the point that it was a simple prediction to fulfill.

A number of intelligent people have said: CNN is the greatest tool of promoters of the Apocalypse. With global reporting of events and disproportionate reporting of disasters, all you need to do is turn on your TV and you can easily spot whatever signs you want of the coming Apocalypse. Of course, that's only because your view is so dramatically widened. The same things have been happening for centuries, but we were ignorant of them. That sort of ignorance is fine. The problematic form is when you suddenly are able to see things you haven't and conclude that the only explanation is that they never existed before.

Yes, let us use logic. The facts show that since we have developed the technology to pick up on earthquakes, and other natural disasters, we have seen that they are on the increase. Regardless of what the Bible says, this is happening, but it does predict this in the Bible, which is incredible, since it was written so long ago, and logically no human back then would've just known for a fact that some day earthquakes would become more and more common, and a lot more destructive - especially with the level of scientific knowledge they had back then, and their limited understanding of how the world works...I mean, we are still learning about this sort of stuff now and we have advanced so much in technology!

So let's try to look at this from a third person point of view...If an ancient book which agrees with modern science, and has proven to be historically accuracy, has made predictions that have always turn out to be true in the past, and we start to see scientific, readable evidence that another bunch of its predictions are starting to happen now, logically you would believe these predictions.

Discrimination against religious groups is getting much worse. Years ago if you went door knocking about religion you would always find someone to talk to peacefully, now you are lucky to get one who is just nice to you about saying "not interested", while most slam the door in your face, or worse. Many countries have religions under ban, such as Russia and China, and many more discriminate those who hold firm to their religious beliefs not to participate in wars, among other beliefs.

[Hawk]

Assuming that alien spaceships arrived 500 million years ago to start the Cambrian explosion, if they remained on Earth they would have probably dissolved by now.

Of course, the Cambrian Explosion wasn't caused by aliens.

True, that is a long period of time! But still if we have plenty of fossils from the Cambrian period ( http://www.trilobites.info/geotime.htm, http://eonsepochsetc.com/Paleozoic/Cambrian/cambrian_home.html), so if we did get here by space ship then you would think it would be possible to find evidence of this. Again, if it is the Cambrian period when we got here via space ships, wouldn't there be more humanoid looking fossils as well? I mean, who piloted these ships?

[Black Gate of Mordor]

True, that is a long period of time! But still if we have plenty of fossils from the Cambrian period ( http://www.trilobites.info/geotime.htm, http://eonsepochsetc.com/Paleozoic/Cambrian/cambrian_home.html), so if we did get here by space ship then you would think it would be possible to find evidence of this. Again, if it is the Cambrian period when we got here via space ships, wouldn't there be more humanoid looking fossils as well? I mean, who piloted these ships?

What? No, I was going along with the idea of alien generated life. As in, the aliens forced the Cambrian explosion, and then left Earth, leaving no trace today. I would never propose the idea of human existence in its current form (homo sapiens) before 200,000 BP and no human (the homo genus) before 2 million BP.

[Hawk]

What? No, I was going along with the idea of alien generated life. As in, the aliens forced the Cambrian explosion, and then left Earth, leaving no trace today. I would never propose the idea of human existence in its current form (homo sapiens) before 200,000 BP and no human (the homo genus) before 2 million BP.

I'm talking hypothetically.

I'm not clear on what kaybeebiscuits was getting at, but he said in his post "This evidence here proves that the many 'races' on earth have all arrived from many different planets" and went on to say "perhaps another reasonable speculation was that Noah's Ark might actually be an armada of several ships conjoined together since its conception, but was forced to break up into several smaller flotillas that colonized other parts of the world ... but wait, how do we explain the huge space ship there?"

Of course, if aliens started life here and left, not living here themselves, then there wouldn't be evidence of ships or fossilized humanoids...Unless a ship crashed, or some of them died here.
According to this my next question would be: Why would they just create life, leave and never return?

[Black Gate of Mordor]

I'm talking hypothetically.

As was I.


According to this my next question would be: Why would they just create life, leave and never return?

To propagate life. They may be explorers who choose good-looking worlds and give them life. Hypothetically, of course.

[Hawk]

To propagate life. They may be explorers who choose good-looking worlds and give them life. Hypothetically, of course.

Of course. ;)

But I still imagine they'd return at some point. What about if it was to terraform the planet? But then they should still want to come back..

[kaybeebiscuits]

o_O lol you all can't be real about me being serious right? I'm officially still in "Joker form".

[Hawk]

o_O lol you all can't be real about me being serious right? I'm officially still in "Joker form".

Mostly I just found the subject you brought up interesting enough to discuss. It's probably a good idea to eventually cover all ideas anyway, although there are so many!

Just out of curiosity, are you ever serious? Let us know when you are being serious, ok? I think we would all like to hear what you have to say when you do.

[Black Gate of Mordor]

o_O lol you all can't be real about me being serious right? I'm officially still in "Joker form".

Technically, if you were in joker form, you would be joking, and therefore can't be serious about the above statement. This of course, would mean all of the above is a joke. Not a good one, however.

Or, you're going to try and kill us all. "Why so serious?"

[Black Gate of Mordor]

Of course. ;)

But I still imagine they'd return at some point. What about if it was to terraform the planet? But then they should still want to come back..

If they're an intergalactic civilisation, I'd imagine our little planet wouldn't concern them much. They probably have other, more important planets to talk about. We're just some upstart youngsters who celebrate when we get an unarmed craft into orbit and back.

[kaybeebiscuits]

Mostly I just found the subject you brought up interesting enough to discuss. It's probably a good idea to eventually cover all ideas anyway, although there are so many!

Just out of curiosity, are you ever serious? Let us know when you are being serious, ok? I think we would all like to hear what you have to say when you do.


Technically, if you were in joker form, you would be joking, and therefore can't be serious about the above statement. This of course, would mean all of the above is a joke. Not a good one, however.

Or, you're going to try and kill us all. "Why so serious?"

You won't like it when a Joker gets serious because this is what happens:

http://www.neonpunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/joker.jpg

lol, but to be serious, I seldom take things seriously nowadays, preferring to spend much of the day goofing around instead. There was a time when I enjoyed intellectual discussions with a few close ones, to such an intensity whereby 10,000-20,000 word mails were exchanged every time we communicated, but I think I no longer have the intellectual stamina of my younger years, or it's probably just that I have gotten so sick and tired of engaging in thought-provoking intellectual stimuli. I guess I can be compared to a rubber band that has been continuously pulled and released several thousand times - the end result is that the rubber band will start getting micro-creases that become a point of weakness whereby the rubber-band eventually loses its elasticity through continued attrition. I had that euphoric intellectual 'high' in my younger days whereby it felt as though there was a tremendous surge of energy pulsating up my head whenever I engage in heightened intellectual discourses or activity, but gradually, one suffers from the pain of wanting more and more intellectual stimulation, but is subject to the state of diminishing returns whereby one simply does not get the same amount of euphoria as compared to previous situations - one just starts to wane and wither when the added effort of bringing oneself to think does not yield as much reward as before, and to add salt to injury, one is compared to Sisyphus - having to push a boulder up a hill for all eternity, but is left with the lingering feeling of boredom with each succession that one tries to assert more strength to do something lucrative. In addition, one feels the pain and long-term agony of not being able to retain everything that one has achieved or has asserted in the past in working memory. It is this chasm between one's state of developed potential, and the lack of immediacy or proximity to be able to tap into this already developed potential that makes one cringe with a state of pessimism and diminished enthusiasm for all things. It's all part of aging I suppose, and I am no longer as youthful as I had used to be. This sounds more like a typical case of burnout, or it is merely just a world-weariness and boredom that comes with too much learning. Perhaps when Plato and Aristotle reminisced about the development of human potential in concordance with a natural law that every mentally and physically fit human should try to transcend as much of his potential as possible, they might have failed to take into consideration about the agony of having stretched one's potential to the point of breaking, and failed to provide a solution as to how to resolve the problem posed when one is simply incapable of overcoming the limitations of one's body.

I think that eventually some of you will get what I mean in several decades' time. To reiterate, the feeling is comparable to a swollen balloon that is filled with air inside. It wishes to expand, but is at pivotal point whereby any expansion may not be physically possible as it would explode in an abrupt burst of [revelation?]. The skin or surface of the balloon has outlived its current purpose and for the air to expand, the balloon would have to either find a way to maintain its elasticity, such as by applying another layer of molten rubber that will solidify on its surface, and make it appropriate for further expansion, or simply give in. Unfortunately, given the limitations of the intellectual capacity of the human brain, I do not have some an optimistic outlook on how this limitation is to be overcome. Some of you will eventually have to find a way out this problem, but for me, it largely involves retreatism ... or more precisely, the adorning of a new cape of fun-loving goofiness that focuses more on the present than in the past or the future, maintaining a desire to simply 'go with the flow' with the way things are, and the cherish the moment knowing that it will soon be forgotten.

[slowtarget]

Understanding DNA can help us with this. Humans are one species, and thus started from one point, or one human - I'd just like to say that this is something that both evolutionists and creationists agree on, although, as we know they differ, with evolutionists believing that the first human evolved from another species altogether, while creationists (in general) believe that the first human was created by God.

No. You misunderstand the whole point of Evolution.

Evolution states that there was no "first human". There was no point at which an animal was born and was perceptibly more human than its parents. Evolution is a process. The idea that a "species" is discrete is based on old ideas that have been discarded long ago. Polar Bears and Kodiak Bears are different species, officially. Yet, they aren't. They can breed with Kodiak Bears. Kodiak Bears are just a variety of brown bears. Brown bears can apparently mate with black bears, but polar bears can't. So are polar, brown and black bears three species or one? The answer is useless, because it's trying to draw lines in places where it doesn't make sense.

To make this more clear (or less, actually) let's look at the red wolf. It shares unique genetic traits with both wolves (and thus, dogs) and coyotes. So, is it a wolf or a coyote? Er... Neither... or Both. Behavior and morphology say they are wolves. Genetics says they are more coyote... then pokes everyone in the eye and says that there's nothing significant enough to say its even a unique species.

In both cases, evolution states that we're looking at evolving, emerging (or possibly converging) species. That is how species are created. People want to think that there is a simple break (and this misconception is often used by uninformed opponents in counterarguments), but that's just not the way it works. So, like polar bears and red wolves, a species doesn't start from one individual, it starts from thousands of individuals. And if those thousands of individuals share something in common that starts to separate them from the rest of their "species" (geography, behavior, appearance, etc), they will eventually drift off to become their own species.

[stethnorun]

No. You misunderstand the whole point of Evolution.

Evolution states that there was no "first human". There was no point at which an animal was born and was perceptibly more human than its parents. Evolution is a process. The idea that a "species" is discrete is based on old ideas that have been discarded long ago. Polar Bears and Kodiak Bears are different species, officially. Yet, they aren't. They can breed with Kodiak Bears. Kodiak Bears are just a variety of brown bears. Brown bears can apparently mate with black bears, but polar bears can't. So are polar, brown and black bears three species or one? The answer is useless, because it's trying to draw lines in places where it doesn't make sense.

To make this more clear (or less, actually) let's look at the red wolf. It shares unique genetic traits with both wolves (and thus, dogs) and coyotes. So, is it a wolf or a coyote? Er... Neither... or Both. Behavior and morphology say they are wolves. Genetics says they are more coyote... then pokes everyone in the eye and says that there's nothing significant enough to say its even a unique species.

In both cases, evolution states that we're looking at evolving, emerging (or possibly converging) species. That is how species are created. People want to think that there is a simple break (and this misconception is often used by uninformed opponents in counterarguments), but that's just not the way it works. So, like polar bears and red wolves, a species doesn't start from one individual, it starts from thousands of individuals. And if those thousands of individuals share something in common that starts to separate them from the rest of their "species" (geography, behavior, appearance, etc), they will eventually drift off to become their own species.

Bingo. Again, Hawk, you really need to read "The Greatest Show on Earth". All of your questions and misconceptions about evolution are answered there. You just don't understand even the basics of modern evolutionary theory (or even Darwinian natural selection). I don't think anyone here would blame you for ignorance, but the information IS out there, if you care to look at it. And unlike the Bible, there's no faith required :)

[stethnorun]

Of course. ;)

But I still imagine they'd return at some point. What about if it was to terraform the planet? But then they should still want to come back..

This is the same line of thought that makes you want to believe that a "god" that created us would care deeply about us. The fact is, even if a god-like being created earth and then life on earth, chances are we are just one among billions of such worlds, and he probably forgot about us long ago. Even if he didn't forget, we probably aren't the most interesting anyway.

[istry555]

Evolution states that there was no "first human". There was no point at which an animal was born and was perceptibly more human than its parents. Evolution is a process. The idea that a "species" is discrete is based on old ideas that have been discarded long ago. Polar Bears and Kodiak Bears are different species, officially. Yet, they aren't. They can breed with Kodiak Bears. Kodiak Bears are just a variety of brown bears. Brown bears can apparently mate with black bears, but polar bears can't. So are polar, brown and black bears three species or one? The answer is useless, because it's trying to draw lines in places where it doesn't make sense.

They've also found genetic evidence that modern Homo Sapiens interbred with Neanderthals for quite a while and anyone that's not of Sub-Saharan or Australian Aboriginal descent has a great deal Neanderthal DNA in them.

[Hawk]

No. You misunderstand the whole point of Evolution.

Evolution states that there was no "first human". There was no point at which an animal was born and was perceptibly more human than its parents. Evolution is a process. The idea that a "species" is discrete is based on old ideas that have been discarded long ago. Polar Bears and Kodiak Bears are different species, officially. Yet, they aren't. They can breed with Kodiak Bears. Kodiak Bears are just a variety of brown bears. Brown bears can apparently mate with black bears, but polar bears can't. So are polar, brown and black bears three species or one? The answer is useless, because it's trying to draw lines in places where it doesn't make sense.

To make this more clear (or less, actually) let's look at the red wolf. It shares unique genetic traits with both wolves (and thus, dogs) and coyotes. So, is it a wolf or a coyote? Er... Neither... or Both. Behavior and morphology say they are wolves. Genetics says they are more coyote... then pokes everyone in the eye and says that there's nothing significant enough to say its even a unique species.

In both cases, evolution states that we're looking at evolving, emerging (or possibly converging) species. That is how species are created. People want to think that there is a simple break (and this misconception is often used by uninformed opponents in counterarguments), but that's just not the way it works. So, like polar bears and red wolves, a species doesn't start from one individual, it starts from thousands of individuals. And if those thousands of individuals share something in common that starts to separate them from the rest of their "species" (geography, behavior, appearance, etc), they will eventually drift off to become their own species.

At some point in history (according to evolution) there would have to be a first human once the gradual process just on finishes at where we are now for the first time. The humanoids beforehand are not called "Human", but are called things like "Homo eretus", etc. They don't all change at once either.
Unless this is one of the issues that evolutionists differ with belief in?

I wanted to point that out, because people always like it when they see things in common with each other, and if we all believe that it all started as just one, then that's something in common. ;)

[Hawk]

Bingo. Again, Hawk, you really need to read "The Greatest Show on Earth". All of your questions and misconceptions about evolution are answered there. You just don't understand even the basics of modern evolutionary theory (or even Darwinian natural selection). I don't think anyone here would blame you for ignorance, but the information IS out there, if you care to look at it. And unlike the Bible, there's no faith required :)

I do intend to read that book, but you can't say that I don't even understand the basics of modern evolution...Even if I never studied it at all, it would still have been pumped down my throat from an early age just by watching TV and going to school.
I am happy for the parts that I am yet to learn to be explained to me - so by all means enlighten me - but assuming I'm ignorant just because I don't believe in it isn't a fair assumption, because yes, just like the Bible faith is required. Don't get me wrong, I understand why so many people believe in it, and I respect that, but evolution doesn't have an answer for why there was a sudden occurrence of several complex lifeforms in the Cambrian period - which has plenty of fossils, yet no fossils showing their development. Not only that but there are no fossils that show how gills gradually changed into lungs. There are different versions of the theory of evolution as well, because evolutionists can't agree on everything. For example, how did the first cell develop? What are the odds? Did it develop in the organic soup or in the sun? Did the atmosphere at the time of first life contain oxygen or not? Which leads to another dilemma - If oxygen was in the air, the first amino acid would never have gotten started, but without oxygen it would've been wiped out by cosmic rays.
What about how the organic soup formed? According to Richard Dawkins, the Earth had an atmosphere of carbon dioxide, methane, ammonia and water, and the energy of the sun broke these compounds apart and they formed into amino acids, which, over time, accumulated in the sea and formed the organic soup. So what's the problem here? Well that energy from the sun that broke these compounds apart in the atmosphere would even more quickly decompose any amino acids that formed. However, it is assumed that somehow these amino acids made it to the oceans without being destroyed, so what then? There's another problem...Beneath the surface of the water there would not be enough energy to activate further chemical reactions - the water inhibits the growth of more complex molecules. Basically once they are in the water they must get back out of it again so they can form into large molecules and evolve onward to become proteins that are useful to form life, but unless when they got out again there was shade they would be destroyed by the sun, as mentioned before.

Now don't get me started on these proteins, and the odds of them falling in the exact order needed to form life...The odds are ridiculous! And that's nothing to the process of developing deoxyribonucleic acid!

[Hawk]

This is the same line of thought that makes you want to believe that a "god" that created us would care deeply about us. The fact is, even if a god-like being created earth and then life on earth, chances are we are just one among billions of such worlds, and he probably forgot about us long ago. Even if he didn't forget, we probably aren't the most interesting anyway.

Isaiah 40:26 "Raise your eyes up and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who is bringing forth the army of them even by number, all of whom he calls even by name. Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one of them is missing."
This scripture refers to the stars, and how God calls them all by name, and "not one of them is missing". He would never forget creating humans.

[Hawk]

They've also found genetic evidence that modern Homo Sapiens interbred with Neanderthals for quite a while and anyone that's not of Sub-Saharan or Australian Aboriginal descent has a great deal Neanderthal DNA in them.

And Neaderthals made super glue, spoke words, played games, and made clothes too! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7YT2HxWPVU

[slowtarget]

At some point in history (according to evolution) there would have to be a first human once the gradual process just on finishes at where we are now for the first time. The humanoids beforehand are not called "Human", but are called things like "Homo eretus", etc. They don't all change at once either.
Unless this is one of the issues that evolutionists differ with belief in?

No.

There is no contention on this issue. Evolution is defined by the belief that there is no "first human". There was no point where you can draw a line between Homo sapiens and Homo ergaster (which may or may not have been the same as Homo erectus). This is a common stumbling block for people struggling to understand the simple basis of evolution: genetic evolution is a continuum; there is no way to define discrete stages along an evolutionary continuum. Thus, there was absolutely no point in time when you could differentiate a group of contemporary hominids into Homo sapiens or Homo ergaster. There was a time when there was only H. ergaster and a time when their was only H. sapiens. Between that time, there was a population which had traits in common with both H. sapiens and H. ergaster. No matter how much you want to point to a single first ancestor, it simply won't exist. Genetic analysis has already confirmed this. The world population of Homo sapiens comes from thousands of individuals.

Perhaps you are being confused by the Mitochondrial Eve? There is strong evidence that all humans living today share a single female ancestor. However, this is more coincidental than indicative of origin. There were other humans as evidenced by multiple male ancestors. The other genetic lines were pruned through any of a number of events. Note, the existence of Mitochondrial Eve does not imply that she was the first human, the only human, or even the only human which all humans are descended from. Evidence shows that Mitochondrial Eve lived with a population of humans (Homo sapiens) which numbered in the tens of thousands.

[Hawk]

Hmm, ok, I think what your saying is sinking in. Would you say that all evolutionists believe this?

[Hawk]

So what exactly is the "good news of the kingdom" that is mentioned in the Bible, and that is supposed to be preached "in all the inhabited earth" before the end comes?

Well let's focus first on what this "kingdom" is. In Jesus' model prayer (also known as the Lord's prayer, or the Our Father), Jesus said to pray to God "Let your kingdom come", so what is God's kingdom? God's kingdom is a government established by God with a King chosen by God. Jesus, of course, is this King chosen by God, and is called "the King of those who rule as kings and Lord of those who rule as lords." (1 Timothy 6:15).
From where will God's kingdom rule? Well think of where Jesus is now...You will remember that he was put to death on a torture stake, and was resurrected, and soon after ascended to heaven. Thus the "kingdom" is in heaven. That is why the Bible calls it a "heavenly kingdom" (2 Timothy 4:18).
Daniel 2:44 explains "And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite." So who are these kings that it will put an end to and replace? This I shall raise to discuss later, since it's a subject all on its own, and I have more to discuss about the kingdom...

Now, although Jesus is King, he will not rule alone, but will have "co-rulers". The apostle Paul told Timothy "If we go on enduring, we shall also rule together as kings." (2 Timothy 2:12), which means that they had been selected to rule with Jesus. Who else has this privileged? The apostle John had a vision and wrote it in the Bible where he said he saw "the Lamb (Christ Jesus) standing upon Mount Zion (Jesus' royal position in heaven), and with him a hundred and forty-four thousand having his name and the name of his Father on their foreheads." 144,000 altogether then. So who are these 144,000? The apostle John explained "These are the ones that keep following the Lamb no matter where he goes. These were bought from among mankind as firstfruits to God and to the Lamb." (Revelation 14:1, 4) So faithful followers of Jesus that were specially chosen to rule in heaven with him. "they are to rule as kings over the earth" (Revelation 5:10). Since the days of Jesus' apostles, God has been selecting faithful Christians in order to complete the number 144,000.
This works out perfectly for rulers, since these humans know what it's like to be a human, and know what we've gone through, since they have been chosen from all walks of life (1 Corinthians 6:9-11), so there is "not one who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has been tested in all respects like ourselves" (Hebrews 4:15).

A King must have subjects as well, and since only 144,000 are going to heaven, and are ruling over earth, the rest of us get to live on earth as a perfect world, and we will also be perfect humans instead of suffering with all kinds of sicknesses and growing old and dying (Psalms 37:9-11, 29).

So is this being preached in all the inhabited earth? The "good news of the kingdom" can be read about in any Bible, and the Bible is translated in more than 2,400 languages, and is spread world wide, as well as on the Internet with online Bibles. This shows you that there are many who are willing to preach, and are preaching it in so many languages, including Braille for the blind! Nearly all the earth is being preached to about this "good news of the kingdom".