Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

70 (27.6%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

113 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (24%)

Total Members Voted: 249

[MonkeyHead]

Origamiscienceguy, I suggest you read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Bible#New_Testament

Basically, current scholarly thinking throws serious doubt if any of the authors/compliers of the gospel had any direct connection to Jesus or any of the disciples.

Lots of "ifs and maybes" in your source. Interesting claim though it is, the page itself warns about rushing to conclusions regarding the date.

[Frumple]

Matthew Mark Luke and John

Are these their actual names?

... haven't you actually had that question answered before? I could have sworn you were participating when someone brought up the apparent oddity of Matthew('s anglicizing).

But if not, no. They're not. They're just the modern english rendition.

[origamiscienceguy]

God created Adam and Eve with the ability to speak and hear. Humans have always been able to talk and listen. If you want to look at the original Hebrew text, the word "pə-rū" is a word explicitly used to mean "to bear many offspring" so it is impossible to interpret that any other way.

Given that evolution would very heavily imply humans, and indeed all beings, started without such senses, do you believe evolution is, for lack of a better word, false?

I believe in micro evolution (giraffes grow longer necks in areas with taller trees). It has been proven. What has not been proven is that an ape can turn into a human.
I believe that god created several distinct "kinds" of animals (cats, wolfs) which then evolved into the different spices of cats and dogs (lions, tigers, foxes, dogs)
It was these "kinds" of animals that Noah took on the ark, so the evolution happened again.

Spoiler: example (click to show/hide)

[Rolan7]

But... birds being descended from dinosaurs is one of the coolest things about birds!

[penguinofhonor]

.

[MonkeyHead]

Meh. Evolution only within "Kinds" is a double standard argument. Micro and Macro evolution is also a double standard. Both are potentially special pleading. Little changes add up into big ones. Giraffes compared to Tapirs, for example.

Creationists have been unable to specify with consistency what the created kinds are. If kinds were distinct, it should be easy to distinguish between them. Instead, we find a nested hierarchy of similarities, with kinds within kinds within kinds. For example, the twelve-spotted ladybug could be placed in the twelve-spotted ladybug kind, the ladybug kind, the beetle kind, the insect kind, or any of dozens of other kinds of kind, depending on how inclusive the kind is. No matter where one sets the cutoff for how inclusive a kind is, there will be many groups just bordering on that cutoff. This pattern exactly matches the pattern expected of evolution. It does not match what creationism predicts.

Helacyton gartleri shows one example of change that would be hard to call anything other than a change in kind. It is an amoeba-like life form that came from a human (Van Valen and Maoirana 1991; evolved from a carcinoma, it spreads by taking over other laboratory cell cultures).

Creationists have never hinted at, much less shown, any mechanism that would limit variation. Without such a mechanism, we would expect to see kinds vary over time, becoming more and more different from what they were at a given time in the past. All life is one, and much diverged. Speciation has been observed.

[Bohandas]

It was written by FOUR different primary sources who witnessed the event. All within their lifetime. This is the best kept record of any event at the time. It is more proven then the battle of Troy but people still have a hard time believing it for some reason.

Jospeh Smith had eight. I guess you'd better become a Mormon.

[origamiscienceguy]

Then how come their book has been changed throughout history?

[Bohandas]

It is more proven then the battle of Troy but people still have a hard time believing it for some reason.

I'm pretty sure that there's much better evidence for the siege of troy than mere hearsay.

Actual artifacts are worth more than the testiony of a hundred people.

[Bohandas]

Then how come their book has been changed throughout history?

How come the Bible has?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls#Biblical_significance

[origamiscienceguy]

to my knowledge, there have been no artifacts. Just some literature written between 300 and 600 years after the event.

[TD1]

Then how come their book has been changed throughout history?

Well, considering you have the Old and New Testaments you can understand how messages can be altered and the religion changed.

[Bohandas]

It is more proven then the battle of Troy but people still have a hard time believing it for some reason.

The four primary sources could have been falsified years later or maybe just the written compilation of a bunch of things falsely attributed to a spiritual leader who lived a few generations ago.

Its not that I disagree with you, I am a Christian, but I'm saying your reasoning here is faulty.

Also, IIRC, no one's FOUND Troy yet and its widely regarded as a non-historical event made up as a story or a legend. Not sure though.

to my knowledge, there have been no artifacts. Just some literature written between 300 and 600 years after the event.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy#Korfmann
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Iliad#Geological_evidence

[TD1]

God created Adam and Eve with the ability to speak and hear. Humans have always been able to talk and listen. If you want to look at the original Hebrew text, the word "pə-rū" is a word explicitly used to mean "to bear many offspring" so it is impossible to interpret that any other way.

Given that evolution would very heavily imply humans, and indeed all beings, started without such senses, do you believe evolution is, for lack of a better word, false?

I believe in micro evolution (giraffes grow longer necks in areas with taller trees). It has been proven. What has not been proven is that an ape can turn into a human.
I believe that god created several distinct "kinds" of animals (cats, wolfs) which then evolved into the different spices of cats and dogs (lions, tigers, foxes, dogs)
It was these "kinds" of animals that Noah took on the ark, so the evolution happened again.

Spoiler: example (click to show/hide)

Somehow missed this post.

If you're going to have any sort of biological stance, then Noah's ark is out the window anyway. Two of every animal? Not a big gene pool.

I think it was Dawkins that used the example of a mountain cliff. You look up, and see the height many many feet above. You walk around to the other side and see the slope leading to the top of the mountain. Creationists tend to see the cliff, but not the slope.

If you accept micro evolution, it automatically makes macro evolution feasible. Have one species, separate them (e.g. continental drift) and wait a few thousand years. Their micro evolutions over a laaaaaarge amount of time will make two different species.

[origamiscienceguy]

That's the thing, if the genealogy of Adam and Eve are accurate, then the earth has only been around for 6000ish years (4000ish years after the flood) So the animals didn't have time to undergo macro evolution, even if it is possible.