Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

San Diego Zoo + Evolution

Most people take their tonsils and/or appendix out. After years and years, people are still born with them. No evolving. How many fish that became birds died trying to learn to fly? Anything that evolved and grew wings would have died at first flight and ended that species. No missing links have ever been found, the ones that have, have been proven false by science. The genes of plants, animals, and humans are continually becoming worse, not improving. Species are becoming extinct, not evolving.


Schizophrenia is defined as a mental illness in which one keeps doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result. The sufferer has hallucinations, delusions, and a failure to separate false mental thoughts from reality.
 
EESCHMan said:
Sorry, but you don't understand evolution.
Read an evolutionary biology textbook and you'll understand why your examples against evolution are wrong (don't rely on Of Pandas to People either)
Click to expand...

Sometimes common sense out-rules science. Evolution is based on a theory that has never been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Biology was great. I liked learning how things work but i wouldn't personally waist my own time trying to prove that some guys theory is right. Carbon dating has been used to support the theory but sadly disproves it. Every bit of science that has been used as proof has also been used to disprove it. I've never read or seen anything that proves evolution, and I understand and have studied the theory.
 
omni said:
Sometimes common sense out-rules science. Evolution is based on a theory that has never been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Biology was great. I liked learning how things work but i wouldn't personally waist my own time trying to prove that some guys theory is right. Carbon dating has been used to support the theory but sadly disproves it. Every bit of science that has been used as proof has also been used to disprove it. I've never read or seen anything that proves evolution, and I understand and have studied the theory.
Click to expand...

1. Show me the evidence of carbon dating disproving evolution
2. Show me "every bit of science that has been used as proof has also been used to disprove it"
3. What are you reading that doesn't prove evolution? Answers in Genesis or the Discovery Institute Website?

You can't just blurt out statements like this without any facts.
As least give a quote or link (that isn't some Christian/Creationist Website)
 
omni said:
(1) Most people take their tonsils and/or appendix out. After years and years, people are still born with them. No evolving. (2) How many fish that became birds died trying to learn to fly? Anything that evolved and grew wings would have died at first flight and ended that species. (3) No missing links have ever been found, the ones that have, have been proven false by science. The genes of plants, animals, and humans are continually becoming worse, not improving. (4) Species are becoming extinct, not evolving.
Click to expand...

I've numbered your "points" above and have responded below:

(1) The appendix is now considered useful:
"The lowly appendix, long-regarded as a useless evolutionary artifact, won new-found respect two years ago when researchers at Duke University Medical Center proposed that it actually serves a critical function. The appendix, they said, is a safe haven where good bacteria could hang out until they were needed to repopulate the gut after a nasty case of diarrhea, for example."

And if you knew anything about evolution, it usually takes a LONG time.
Long enough that you're not going to see it

(2) "He (Ken Dial, Division of Biological Sciences,The University of Montana) said the evolution of flight in birds was a messy affair that likely happened during a span covering tens of millions of years. The first bird-like fliers began appearing 150 million years ago.
But just imagine this: There was a time before flying birds, a time when reptilian things on two legs screeched and flapped their suddenly useful forelimbs to escape predation, reach safer habitats and rise above the competition to survive and reproduce. According to Dial’s theory, there was a period before true bird flight when, for proto-birds at least, WAIR (wing-assisted incline running) and its related behaviors were the only show in town.
For a time, half a wing was good enough, and it became the stepping stone nature needed to populate the skies."
full article:
Invalid Link Removed

(3) I've given you just two of the many "missing links" before...
Here they are again, with some others:

Tiktaalik - Discovered in Arctic Canada in 2004, 375 million-year-old Tiktaalik had not only gills and scales but traits of a tetrapod (four-legged land animal), including limblike fins, ribs, a flexible neck, and a croc-shaped head

Archaeopteryx - This earliest known flying bird was discovered within two years of the publication of On the Origin of Species, fulfilling Darwin's prediction of fossil creatures that would link major species groups—in this case, dinosaurs and birds.
Luis Chiappe, director of the Dinosaur Institute at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, says this classic missing link shares features with both meat-eating dinosaurs—in the wrist, snout, tail, and pelvis—and birds, "such as asymmetrical, vaned feathers and very long, feathered wings."

Ambulocetus: The Walking Whale - Discovered in Pakistan in 1992, the fossil skeleton of 50-million-year-old Ambulocetus ("walking whale") suggests it was able to walk on four legs—on land and in the water.
Fossil expert Donald Prothero of Occidental College says Ambulocetus is the "most complete, best studied, and clearest case of something with a whale's head, the beginnings of an aquatic lifestyle with webbed hands and feet, but still fully quadrupedal."

Homo Ergaster - Homo ergaster was a small-brained but tall human species with body proportions similar to our own. Known largely from a 1.6-million-year-old fossil of a child found in 1984 near Lake Turkana, Kenya, the species is often called simply Turkana Boy.
Fred Spoor of University College London said that, whereas fossils of our earliest human ancestors "can very much be seen as apes who adopted a bipedal gait," Turkana Boy "is a true intermediate between modern humans and other primates."

Thrinaxodon - Identified from fossils in South Africa and Antarctica, this archaic proto-mammal emerged on a reptile-ruled Earth some 245 million years ago.
An almost perfect intermediate between mammals and reptiles, Thrinaxodon has played a key role in unveiling the evolution of mammals. Descended from a reptile group called cynodonts, Thrinaxodon was a cat-size burrower that had scales and laid eggs. But, like mammals, it had whiskers, warm blood, and, scientist suspect, a fur coat.
"Thrinaxodon shows mammal-like features beginning to kick in," said paleontologist Paul Barrett of the Natural History Museum in London. "The origin of mammals is exceptionally well understood, and there is a whole series of fossils forming a nice transformation series that shows how mammals evolved a bit at a time."

Please give ANY evidence that have been proven false by science.

(4) Species aren't becoming extinct because of evolution.
They're becoming extinct because of man
 
The archaeopteryx is younger than the first recorded bird record. Its age is 25-80 million years old. The bird is 150 million years old. The archaeopteryx was its own species.
The Ambulocetus, take a look at the ages of whale fossil records. There just simply isn’t enough time for there to be a record of whale evolution. There is a huge difference in size. For example, the ambulocetus was about 7-12 feet long, the basilosaurus was about 70 feet long. This size difference isn't usually compared in evolution because it would bring the ‘smooth’ transition into question.
The only skull of a Homo Ergaster found was probably a retarded kid since no others have been found, and probably died because he was retarded.
As for carbon dating, most authorities agree that C-14 decays at such a rate that half of it will be gone in approximately 5,730 years. This means if a specimen contained, say, a pound of C-14 (to make things understandable), in 5,730 years, half of it will be gone, and in another 5,730 years, half of the remaining C-14 will disappear. After about 8 half-lives, the remaining amount of C-14 (if there is any remaining) is too small to be measured. For this reason, it is simply impossible for carbon dating to give dates as old as millions of years. Instead, it can only give up to approximately 50,000 years. So the dates being used by evolutionists are speculation and not accurate. The examples you stated are good examples and I respect that you went through the trouble of posting them, but I believe they were their own species that didn't evolve but became extinct.
 
omni said:
The archaeopteryx is younger than the first recorded bird record. Its age is 25-80 million years old. The bird is 150 million years old. The archaeopteryx was its own species.
Click to expand...

Where is this 25-80 million year age coming from?

"A particulary important and still contentious discovery is Archaeopteryx lithographica, found in the Jurassic Solnhofen Limestone of southern Germany, which is marked by rare but exceptionally well preserved fossils. Archaeopteryx is considered by many to be the first bird, being of about 150 million years of age. It is actually intermediate between the birds that we see flying around in our backyards and the predatory dinosaurs like Deinonychus. In fact, one skeleton of Archaeopteryx that had poorly preserved feathers was originally described as a skeleton of a small bipedal dinosaur, Compsognathus. A total of seven specimens of the bird are known at this time.

It has long been accepted that Archaeopteryx was a transitional form between birds and reptiles, and that it is the earliest known bird. Lately, scientists have realized that it bears even more resemblance to its ancestors, the Maniraptora, than to modern birds; providing a strong phylogenetic link between the two groups. It is one of the most important fossils ever discovered."
 
I like it how the TS set this up and then bailed :popcorn:

Seriously though, this discussion was pointless from the get go. The whole premise of faith is belief or acceptance contrary to or in the absence of some sort of objective evidence.

Trying to talk a religious person out of their beliefs by using scientific arguments just doesn't work. Conversely, converting a scientifically minded atheist using biblical teachings isn't likely either.

How we think plays a big part in forming our identities and by implying that one needs to change his or her beliefs it also implies that there is some fault with who they are.
 
Last edited:
Nitrox said:
I like it how the TS set this up and then bailed :popcorn:

Seriously though, this discussion was pointless from the get go. The whole premise of faith is belief or acceptance contrary to or in the absence of some sort of objective evidence.

Trying to talk a religious person out of their beliefs by using scientific arguments just doesn't work. Conversely, converting a scientifically minded atheist using biblical teachings isn't likely either.

How we think plays a big part in forming our identities and by implying that one needs to change his or her beliefs it also implies that there is some fault with who they are.
Click to expand...

I agree with what your saying and although I will never believe in evolution, EESMAN has posted a lot of interesting things that I hadn't heard or read in a long time. I'm enjoying the dialog and seeing someone defend their beliefs makes me respect the man. I don't have to agree with everything but a fact is a fact, we just interpret it differently.
 
EESCHMan said:
Where is this 25-80 million year age coming from?

"A particulary important and still contentious discovery is Archaeopteryx lithographica, found in the Jurassic Solnhofen Limestone of southern Germany, which is marked by rare but exceptionally well preserved fossils. Archaeopteryx is considered by many to be the first bird, being of about 150 million years of age. It is actually intermediate between the birds that we see flying around in our backyards and the predatory dinosaurs like Deinonychus. In fact, one skeleton of Archaeopteryx that had poorly preserved feathers was originally described as a skeleton of a small bipedal dinosaur, Compsognathus. A total of seven specimens of the bird are known at this time.

It has long been accepted that Archaeopteryx was a transitional form between birds and reptiles, and that it is the earliest known bird. Lately, scientists have realized that it bears even more resemblance to its ancestors, the Maniraptora, than to modern birds; providing a strong phylogenetic link between the two groups. It is one of the most important fossils ever discovered."
Click to expand...

All links say about 150 million years. I got species mixed up. Here's a link that shows birds were here 75 million years earlier than the Archaeopteryx.

Invalid Link Removed
 
Just thought I would throw my .02 cents in about so called transitional fossils from transitional creatures. IF there were such creatures they would FAR outnumber the amount of recognizable species that we are familiar with according to the slow process of evolution. We do however find in large quantities the animals we have become familiar with, along with varieties pertaining to that animal,not the slow gradual changes of hybrid type animals that should be there according to the evolutionist theory. Thus the fossil record supports sudden appearance/disappearance and variety of these animals and not the slow transition.
 
I am a structural engineer so I consider myself a scientifically minded individual. Moreover, I have studied both science and the Bible for over 35 years and I don’t find any conflicts between either. In fact science only bears out scripture as evidenced by the many studies conducted by the Moody Bible Institute. Evolution is the only religion that eliminates the possibility of a supreme being therefore atheists must find a way of proving their theories or accept the possibility of a divine creator. It is easy to hide behind millions of years of evolution this makes their theory impossible to prove and easy to accept for many. It is a dangerous religion because they are risking their eternal state. Some of the most ardent supporters of scripture were once atheists or agnostics. Satan is in the business of blinding people to the truth but once their eyes are opened their lives are forever changed.
 
Logic would tell us that if evolution were a valid theory there would be some evidence of its existence today. However all evidence is to the contrary. The Bible tells us that God made all living creatures each after their own kind (i.e. different species). If evolution were true we would be able to breed genetically different species, for instance a dog with a cat, a horse with a cow and so on (macro evolution). But modern science shows that this cannot be done. We can however breed within a species. We can make a dog that resembles a cat or a horse that resembles a cow but the original species remains. God allowed each species to adapt to its environment (micro evolution). Any major alterations within the DNA are called mutations. In every case a mutated gene is always weaker than the original and seldom survives. Experiments have shown that if you allow a given species to uncontollably inner breed they will, in a very short period of time, resort back to their original unaltered state. For instance if pigeons are allowed to inner breed with other varieties of pigeons within a few generations they evolve, if you will, back to the original Blue Rock pigeon. Science also verifies that any alteration, even within the species, is always weaker than the original. The Blue Rock is dominant because it is stronger than any of its genetically altered cousins so the survival rate is greater. In my part of the world, cattle country, we occasionally breed hybrid cattle with the genetically dominant Longhorn to increase the strength of the herd and increase the survival rate during the hard Midwest winters. Here again it is well known that if hybrids were allowed to uncontrollabley inner breed with Longhorns or other varieties of cattle, they would evolve back to the Longhorn within a relatively short period of time. It would not take billions or even millions of years but a few generations.
 
BBB said:
I am a structural engineer so I consider myself a scientifically minded individual. Moreover, I have studied both science and the Bible for over 35 years and I don’t find any conflicts between either. In fact science only bears out scripture as evidenced by the many studies conducted by the Moody Bible Institute. Evolution is the only religion that eliminates the possibility of a supreme being therefore atheists must find a way of proving their theories or accept the possibility of a divine creator. It is easy to hide behind millions of years of evolution this makes their theory impossible to prove and easy to accept for many. It is a dangerous religion because they are risking their eternal state. Some of the most ardent supporters of scripture were once atheists or agnostics. Satan is in the business of blinding people to the truth but once their eyes are opened their lives are forever changed.
Click to expand...

structural engineer <> evolutionary biologist.

Moody Bible Institute is your source for your argument, really?

"the Moody Bible Institute in Chicago, where all students and professors had to sign a document attesting that they believed the Bible to be the inerrant word of God, and was a divinely inspired document from beginning to end."

Ugh...

"Satan is in the business of blinding people to the truth but once their eyes are opened their lives are forever changed"

Dang that Satan for planting all those fossils!

Also, evolution is not a religion
 
I'm sure you feel you are right on this issue and that I am a idiot for beleiving the Bible is the Word of God however, I have spent years studying both sides of this argument. I have listened to numerous debates covering both sides of this issue. I have studied the Bible for over 35 years. How many chapters of the Bible have you read let alone studied? Can you really say that you have made you decision based on a balanced approach to this issue or have you just accepted mans "so called" scientific explanation as fact? Many of our greatest minds have accepted the notion of a divine creator, Albert Einstine, Steven Hawking, Abraham Lincoln and countless others so it's not a matter of intellect it's a matter of where you place your faith.
 
BBB said:
I'm sure you feel you are right on this issue and that I am a idiot for beleiving the Bible is the Word of God however, I have spent years studying both sides of this argument. I have listened to numerous debates covering both sides of this issue. I have studied the Bible for over 35 years. How many chapters of the Bible have you read let alone studied? Can you really say that you have made you decision based on a balanced approach to this issue or have you just accepted mans "so called" scientific explanation as fact? Many of our greatest minds have accepted the notion of a divine creator, Albert Einstine, Steven Hawking, Abraham Lincoln and countless others so it's not a matter of intellect it's a matter of where you place your faith.
Click to expand...

Divine creator does not mean your Christian God.
I'm not even sure your examples believed in your type of god

Lincoln may have even been an agnostic/atheist:

"it was well known that Abraham Lincoln did not profess religion, though he occasionally accompanied Mrs. Lincoln to the First Presbyterian Church, of which she was a member. It was well known among his intimate friends that he was a Deist, after the manner of Thomas Paine, and that in early life he had written a pamphlet criticising the Bible and Orthodoxy. This, while yet in manuscript, was thrown in the fire by one of his friends, who feared it would injure him professionally and politically. In those days he was outspoken in his unbelief. Later he became more cautious.

In 1846, when he was a candidate for Congress against a Methodist minister, the Rev. Peter Cartwright, his opponent openly accused him of being an unbeliever, and Lincoln never denied it. A story is told of Mr. Cartwright's holding a revival meeting while the campaign was in progress, during which Lincoln stepped into one of his meetings. When Cartwright asked the audience, "Will all who want to go to heaven stand up?" all arose except Lincoln. When he asked, "Now, will all who want to go to hell stand up?" Lincoln still remained in his seat. Mr. Cartwright then said, "All have stood up for one place or the other except Mr. Lincoln, and we would like to know where he expects to go." Lincoln arose and quietly said, "I am going to Congress," and there he went.

On March 26, 1843, at the time Lincoln was attempting to obtain the nomination for Congress, he wrote to Martin M. Morris, of Petersburg, Ill.:

"There was the strangest combination of church influence against me. Baker is a Campbellite; and therefore, as I suppose with few exceptions, got all of that Church. My wife had some relations in the Presbyterian churches, and some in the Episcopal churches; and therefore, wherever it would tell, I was set down as either one or the other, while it was everywhere contended that no Christian ought to vote for me because I belonged to no Church, was suspected of being a Deist and had talked about fighting a duel." (Complete Works of Abraham Lincoln, Nicolay & Hay edition, vol. 1, p. 80.)"

Einstein:

Albert Einstein: God is a Product of Human Weakness

The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.

Letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind, January 3, 1954

Albert Einstein: It is a Lie that I Believe in a Personal God

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

- Albert Einstein, letter to an atheist (1954), quoted in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas & Banesh Hoffman

Albert Einstein: Idea of a Personal God is Childlike

I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.

- Albert Einstein to Guy H. Raner Jr., Sept. 28, 1949, quoted by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic magazine, Vol. 5, No. 2

Steven Hawking:

"What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary. [Stephen W. Hawking, Der Spiegel, 1989]"

"One does not have to appeal to God to set the initial conditions for the creation of the universe, but if one does He would have to act through the laws of physics. [Stephen Hawking, Black Holes & Baby Universes]"

Evolution believer...
"We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the Universe. That makes us something very special.
- Stephen Hawking, Der Spiegel, 1989
 
Pretty in depth ideas flowin in, fellas.

I'm gonna throw in Part 2, in order to 'lighten up' the mood a bit!

Invalid Link Removed
 
Big A:

Einstein did not believe in a personal God. It is however, interesting how he arrived at that conclusion. In developing the theory of relativity, Einstein realized that the equations led to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning. He didn't like the idea of a beginning, because he thought one would have to conclude that the universe was created by God. So, he added a cosmological constant to the equation to attempt to get rid of the beginning. He said this was one of the worst mistakes of his life. Of course, the results of Edwin Hubble confirmed that the universe was expanding and had a beginning at some point in the past. So, Einstein became a deist - a believer in an impersonal creator God:

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

However, it would also seem that Einstein was not an atheist, since he also complained about being put into that camp:

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."

Stephan Hawking:

God not only plays dice. He sometimes throws the dice where they cannot be seen.

Abraham Lincoln:

The will of God prevails. In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be, wrong.
--September 1862 Meditation on the Divine Will

Nevertheless, amid the greatest difficulties of my Administration, when I could not see any other resort, I would place my whole reliance on God, knowing that all would go well, and that He would decide for the right.
--October 24, 1863 Remarks to the Baltimore Presbyterian Synod

We hoped for a happy termination of this terrible war long before this; but God knows best, and has ruled otherwise. We shall yet acknowledge His wisdom and our own error therein.
--September 4, 1864 Letter to Eliza Gurney

All the good the Saviour gave to the world was communicated through this book. But for it we could not know right from wrong. All things most desirable for man's welfare, here and hereafter, are to be found portrayed in it.
--September 7, 1864 Reply to Loyal Colored People of Baltimore upon Presentation of a Bible

It is obvious that we can continue this debate for a long, long time. Moreover, what others believe on this matter is irrelevant, faith is a personal issue. Let me conclude by saying ... choose you this day whom ye will serve; . . . but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord" (Josh. 24:2, 15). This is one of my favorite verses in the Bible. Let me further say that I don't think that I'm right on this matter, I know it. God has worked miracles in my life. I have been in your shoes and know where you are coming from. I will pray that one day you will be able to see God as clearly as I.
 
BBB said:
However, it would also seem that Einstein was not an atheist, since he also complained about being put into that camp:

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

Stephan Hawking:

God not only plays dice. He sometimes throws the dice where they cannot be seen.

Abraham Lincoln:

The will of God prevails. In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be, wrong.
--September 1862 Meditation on the Divine Will

It is obvious that we can continue this debate for a long, long time. Moreover, what others believe on this matter is irrelevant, faith is a personal issue.
Click to expand...

Yes, in fact it would go on for eternity for the brilliance of religion based on eternal afterlife is that it cannot be proved or disproved. As you said faith is a personal issue - religion is 100% faith. As such, god does exist in the psyche of those who believe.

The fact that some of the greatest minds have used the term is no more evidence for the concrete existence of god than the discussion here or the bible itself. Historically unexplained events and phenomena have been attributed to magical or divine action. As scientific jargon, 'god does not throw dice' simply means 'we don't understand it yet but there has to be some logic behind the subject.'
 
BBB said:
Big A:

It is obvious that we can continue this debate for a long, long time. Moreover, what others believe on this matter is irrelevant, faith is a personal issue. Let me conclude by saying ... choose you this day whom ye will serve; . . . but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord" (Josh. 24:2, 15). This is one of my favorite verses in the Bible. Let me further say that I don't think that I'm right on this matter, I know it. God has worked miracles in my life. I have been in your shoes and know where you are coming from. I will pray that one day you will be able to see God as clearly as I.
Click to expand...

I agree that this debate would continue (endlessly!) and it's why I TRY not to get into these anymore, but oh well.

I'm always bothered by the:
"I will pray that one day you will be able to see God as clearly as I" statements made by Christians as it always seems so condescending.
"Oh, you're not to my level yet, so I'll pray that eventually you'll come around"

I would like to know what "miracles" have happened in your life.

Seems those who "find god" always have something bad going on in their lives (drugs, drinking, crime, bad upbringing) and then decide to turn it around and credit god.

This may or may not be your miracles, but it seems god always gets the credit when something is positive, but anything negative...

"oh, we have free will"
"god doesn't intervene during natural disasters"
"we can't understand god" (except when something good happens to you!)
"he works in mysterious ways"
"there can't be good without evil"
 
i dont understand why accepting science as to why and how the majority of things work is so hard, everything came from a precursor. At the beginning of earths creation life forms where primitive cell structures, over time (at least i believe) they did evolve into other structs, i mean **** the AID's virus has evolved and mutated a ton since its original discovery.

I do also believe in a god (i am catholic), and as for the reason events where set in motion where this appears to be the only planet in which life has occured could be considered an act of god or creation.

Science is how i understand the world in which i live, my reiligious beliefs only govern how i act and my moral obligation to my friends family and surroundings.
 
I thought this might be of interest. It's worth the read IMHO. (it's the interview of Douglas Adams by American Atheists)

AMERICAN ATHEISTS: Mr. Adams, you have been described as a "radical Atheist." Is this accurate?
DNA: Yes. I think I use the term radical rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as "Atheist," some people will say, "Don't you mean 'Agnostic'?" I have to reply that I really do mean Atheist. I really do not believe that there is a god - in fact I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one. It's easier to say that I am a radical Atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it's an opinion I hold seriously. It's funny how many people are genuinely surprised to hear a view expressed so strongly. In England we seem to have drifted from vague, wishy-washy Anglicanism to vague, wishy-washy Agnosticism - both of which I think betoken a desire not to have to think about things too much.

People will then often say, "But surely it's better to remain an Agnostic just in case?" This, to me, suggests such a level of silliness and muddle that I usually edge out of the conversation rather than get sucked into it. (If it turns out that I've been wrong all along, and there is in fact a god, and if it further turned out that this kind of legalistic, cross-your-fingers-behind-your-back, Clintonian hair-splitting impressed him, then I would choose not to worship him anyway.)

Other people will ask how I can possibly claim to know. Isn't belief-that-there-is-not-a-god as irrational, arrogant, etc., as belief-that-there-is-a-god? To which I say no for several reasons. First of all I do not believe-that-there-is-not-a-god. I don't see what belief has got to do with it. I believe or don't believe my four-year-old daughter when she tells me that she didn't make that mess on the floor. I believe in justice and fair play (though I don't know exactly how we achieve them, other than by continually trying against all possible odds of success). I also believe that England should enter the European Monetary Union. I am not remotely enough of an economist to argue the issue vigorously with someone who is, but what little I do know, reinforced with a hefty dollop of gut feeling, strongly suggests to me that it's the right course. I could very easily turn out to be wrong, and I know that. These seem to me to be legitimate uses for the word believe. As a carapace for the protection of irrational notions from legitimate questions, however, I think that the word has a lot of mischief to answer for. So, I do not believe-that-there-is-no-god. I am, however, convinced that there is no god, which is a totally different stance and takes me on to my second reason.

I don't accept the currently fashionable assertion that any view is automatically as worthy of respect as any equal and opposite view. My view is that the moon is made of rock. If someone says to me, "Well, you haven't been there, have you? You haven't seen it for yourself, so my view that it is made of Norwegian beaver cheese is equally valid"-then I can't even be bothered to argue. There is such a thing as the burden of proof, and in the case of god, as in the case of the composition of the moon, this has shifted radically. God used to be the best explanation we'd got, and we've now got vastly better ones. God is no longer an explanation of anything, but has instead become something that would itself need an insurmountable amount of explaining. So I don't think that being convinced that there is no god is as irrational or arrogant a point of view as belief that there is. I don't think the matter calls for even-handedness at all.

AMERICAN ATHEISTS: How long have you been a non-believer, and what brought you to that realization?

DNA: Well, it's a rather corny story. As a teenager I was a committed Christian. It was in my background. I used to work for the school chapel, in fact. Then one day when I was about eighteen I was walking down the street when I heard a street evangelist and, dutifully, stopped to listen. As I listened it began to be borne in on me that he was talking complete nonsense, and that I had better have a bit of a think about it.

I've put that a bit glibly. When I say I realized he was talking nonsense, what I mean is this. In the years I'd spent learning history, physics, Latin, math, I'd learnt (the hard way) something about standards of argument, standards of proof, standards of logic, etc. In fact we had just been learning how to spot the different types of logical fallacy, and it suddenly became apparent to me that these standards simply didn't seem to apply in religious matters. In religious education we were asked to listen respectfully to arguments that, if they had been put forward in support of a view of, say, why the Corn Laws came to be abolished when they were, would have been laughed at as silly and childish and - in terms of logic and proof - just plain wrong. Why was this?

Well, in history, even though the understanding of events, of cause and effect, is a matter of interpretation, and even though interpretation is in many ways a matter of opinion, nevertheless those opinions and interpretations are honed to within an inch of their lives in the withering crossfire of argument and counterargument, and those that are still standing are then subjected to a whole new round of challenges of fact and logic from the next generation of historians - and so on. All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated, and well-supported in logic and argument than others.

So I was already familiar with and (I'm afraid) accepting of, the view that you couldn't apply the logic of physics to religion, that they were dealing with different types of "truth." (I now think this is baloney, but to continue…) What astonished me, however, was the realization that the arguments in favor of religious ideas were so feeble and silly next to the robust arguments of something as interpretive and opinionated as history. In fact they were embarrassingly childish. They were never subject to the kind of outright challenge which was the normal stock in trade of any other area of intellectual endeavor whatsoever. Why not? Because they wouldn't stand up to it. So I became an Agnostic. And I thought and thought and thought. But I just did not have enough to go on, so I didn't really come to any resolution. I was extremely doubtful about the idea of god, but I just didn't know enough about anything to have a good working model of any other explanation for, well, life, the universe, and everything to put in its place. But I kept at it, and I kept reading and I kept thinking. Sometime around my early thirties I stumbled upon evolutionary biology, particularly in the form of Richard Dawkins's books The Selfish Gene and then The Blind Watchmaker, and suddenly (on, I think the second reading of The Selfish Gene) it all fell into place. It was a concept of such stunning simplicity, but it gave rise, naturally, to all of the infinite and baffling complexity of life. The awe it inspired in me made the awe that people talk about in respect of religious experience seem, frankly, silly beside it. I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day.

AMERICAN ATHEISTS: You allude to your Atheism in your speech to your fans ("…that was one of the few times I actually believed in god"). Is your Atheism common knowledge among your fans, friends, and coworkers? Are many people in your circle of friends and coworkers Atheists as well?

DNA: This is a slightly puzzling question to me, and I think there is a cultural difference involved. In England there is no big deal about being an Atheist. There's just a slight twinge of discomfort about people strongly expressing a particular point of view when maybe a detached wishy-washiness might be felt to be more appropriate - hence a preference for Agnosticism over Atheism. And making the move from Agnosticism to Atheism takes, I think, much more commitment to intellectual effort than most people are ready to put in. But there's no big deal about it. A number of the people I know and meet are scientists, and in those circles Atheism is the norm. I would guess that most people I know otherwise are Agnostics, and quite a few are Atheists. If I was to try and look amongst my friends, family, and colleagues for people who believed there was a god, I'd probably be looking amongst the older and (to be perfectly frank) less well-educated ones. There are one or two exceptions. (I nearly put, by habit, "honorable exceptions," but I don't really think that.)

AMERICAN ATHEISTS: How often have fans, friends, or coworkers tried to "save" you from Atheism?

DNA: Absolutely never. We just don't have that kind of fundamentalism in England. Well, maybe that's not absolutely true. But (and I'm going to be horribly arrogant here) I guess I just tend not to come across such people, just as I tend not to come across people who watch daytime soaps or read the National Enquirer. And how do you usually respond? I wouldn't bother.

AMERICAN ATHEISTS: Have you faced any obstacles in your professional life because of your Atheism (bigotry against Atheists), and how did you handle it? How often does this happen?

DNA: Not even remotely. It's an inconceivable idea.

AMERICAN ATHEISTS: There are quite a few lighthearted references to god and religion in your books ("…two thousand years after some guy got nailed to a tree"). How has your Atheism influenced your writing? Where (in which characters or situations) are your personal religious thoughts most accurately reflected?

DNA: I am fascinated by religion. (That's a completely different thing from believing in it!) It has had such an incalculably huge effect on human affairs. What is it? What does it represent? Why have we invented it? How does it keep going? What will become of it? I love to keep poking and prodding at it. I've thought about it so much over the years that that fascination is bound to spill over into my writing.

AMERICAN ATHEISTS: What message would you like to send to your Atheist fans?

DNA: Hello! How are you?
 
omni said:
I watched this a while back. Not sure what to think anymore...

Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

There's no evidence of the existence of any of the "so-called" deities mentioned while there is much evidence of the existence of Christ and all of his disciples. Without evidence anything can be claimed. These are all myths that have died out over time. Christianity has survived the test of time and much ridicule. What other Book has had so much impact on the world? People have tried to destroy it, discredit it, disprove it and it still remains. The Holy Bible is the number one selling book in the world. I have copies of many books but I have multiple copies of the Bible. Jesus’ disciples were so convinced that he was the Son of God that they suffered imprisonment and even death for his cause. This is a matter of record. Jesus’ crusification is a matter of record. His resurrection is a matter of record. I have a copy of a report written by Pontius Pilot to Caesar describing the events leading up to and surrounding the crucifixion of Jesus. If you want evidence of the accuracy of scripture study eschatology, the study of the last days as depicted in the Bible. Studying about the Bible is not the same as studying the Bible itself. The Bible changes lives, just talk to anyone who has been saved. Their lives are forever changed, what other Book can have such an effect?

P.S. I recently saw pictures of gold plated chariot wheels found at the bottom of the Red Sea. Very interesting.
 
BBB said:
There no evidence of the existence of any of the "so-called" deities mentioned with exception of Jesus while there is much evidence of the existence of Christ and all of his disciples. Without evidence anything can be claimed. These are all myths that have died out over time. Christianity has survived the test of time and much ridicule. What other Book has had so much impact on the world? People have tried to destroy it, discredit it, disprove it and it still remains. The Holy Bible is the number one selling book in the world. I have copies of many books but I have multiple copies of the Bible. Jesus’ disciples were so convinced that he was the Son of God that they suffered imprisonment and even death for his cause. This is a matter of record. Jesus’ crusification is a matter of record. His resurrection is a matter of record. I have a copy of a report written by Pontius Pilot to Caesar describing the events leading up to and surrounding the crucifixion of Jesus. If you want evidence of the accuracy of scripture study eschatology, the study of the last days as depicted in the Bible. Studying about the Bible is not the same as studying the Bible itself. The Bible changes lives, just talk to anyone who has been saved. Their lives are forever changed, what other Book can have such an effect?

P.S. I recently saw pictures of gold plated chariot wheels found at the bottom of the Red Sea. Very interesting.
Click to expand...


not trying to get too involved here, however, when you say that the ressurrection is a m atter of record, I am curious what record you are referring to? The NT? Or maybe the Apocrypha texts? I ask as the nT would most certainly not be an unbiased source of information and therefore not a legitimate source to backup your argument.

Additionally, when the reference is made to christianity being based on earlier pagan beliefs, there is a tremendous amount of evidence to support that. In fact, look at the story of the great Christian emperor Constantine and the results of the Council of Nicea and Hippo. Furthermore, look at the pagan origin of Christian holidays like Christmas and Easter. It makes a great deal of sense that it would be "borrowed".

One final note......you make reference to the wheels in the red sea, my assumption is you are making a play to the exodus, correct? I would love to hear your thoughts on this, as the Egyptians were meticulous record keepers, and I have studied their civilization for years.
 
omni said:
I watched this a while back. Not sure what to think anymore...

Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

I've seen that before.
I knew there were other "religions" that had similar aspects to Christianity (and existed before Christianity) but didn't know just how many there were until seeing this.
After watching, I asked myself how any Christian could believe that their religion was the "one."

Thanks for posting, and glad you are at least opening your mind to other beliefs (whether or not they change)
 
BBB said:
Jesus’ disciples were so convinced that he was the Son of God that they suffered imprisonment and even death for his cause. This is a matter of record.
Click to expand...

Dedication does not prove anything. Scientology being a perfect example. There are people who have bankrupted themselves to this "church," because they know it is right and their contributions raise their thethan(sp?) levels.

You can't simply dismiss the idea of all of those "myth" religions not being the source of plagarism by christianity because they didn't stand the test of time. The stories are spot on, and frankly based on astrology.

Think about the killing of christ in a different way. In todays world, if a man claimed to be the son of God, he would be ridiculed, and attacked by other religions. He might be able to get some people to follow and give their lives (giving your life for a religion is common throughout history), but he would be mocked and not taken seriously by 99.9% of the public. Now put this "god's son" in the middle east, or any other religious based society. He would be stoned to death. Now is he a martyr? Is the dedication of his followers who died at his side proof that his sense of religion is real?

Next time you are in a city and a man walks around rambling about the world ending tomorrow, remember, he could possibly be on to something, if his religion is correct. Unfortuantely, it is not.

Also, could the people "saved" also not be considered a testament? There are millions "saved" by self help books, none of the authors claim to be a god/messiah.
 
You folks are asking deep questions for which there are no short answers, however
you are correct in that most of our holidays were once pagan holidays converted to Christian holidays. For instance we know that Christ was not born on Dec 25th this date was chosen for convenience. It was a pagan holiday set aside to worship the pagan god Baal. It was later converted to a Christian holiday as were many others. The Bible puts know emphasis on holidays we are told not to esteem on day above another, however we are to remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy.

The Romans and the Jews are both meticulous record keepers and there is much evidence concerning Christ and his disciples kept by both. Do some research on archeology and the Bible if you are really interested. If you watched the history channel the other night they concluded that the shroud of Turin was the burial cloth of Jesus Christ, for numerous reasons. In the end faith plays a big part but as I said I have studied these issues for over 35 years and the more I study the less faith it takes.
 
BBB said:
You folks are asking deep questions for which there are no short answers, however
you are correct in that most of our holidays were once pagan holidays converted to Christian holidays. For instance we know that Christ was not born on Dec 25th this date was chosen for convenience. It was a pagan holiday set aside to worship the pagan god Baal. It was later converted to a Christian holiday as were many others. The Bible puts know emphasis on holidays we are told not to esteem on day above another, however we are to remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy.

The Romans and the Jews are both meticulous record keepers and there is much evidence concerning Christ and his disciples kept by both. Do some research on archeology and the Bible if you are really interested. If you watched the history channel the other night they concluded that the shroud of Turin was the burial cloth of Jesus Christ, for numerous reasons. In the end faith plays a big part but as I said I have studied these issues for over 35 years and the more I study the less faith it takes.
Click to expand...

the only issue I have with the shroud (aside from carbon dating, which is not an exact science imo) is the height of the individual. Jesus must have been very tall ;)

I dont doubt Jesus' existence, in fact, I would not be surprised that he was a very special person, however, it is his divinity that I have trouble with.
 
You obviously don’t understand the concept of salvation. For the first 21 years of my life I believed as you. The Bible was a book just like any other. It existed but it held no special place in my life. One day I met the girl of my dreams and I ask her to marry me. She agreed (today is our 39th wedding anniversary) and we went to see a preacher at a local church. That night he shared the gospel and God’s plan for salvation. Latter that night his words kept lingering in my mind, I couldn’t sleep and I had to work the next day. About 3:00 AM I gave in to the calling of the Holy Spirit and as I said my life was forever changed. As the scripture says in second Corinthians 5:17 “Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold all things have become new.”
The best analogy I can think of is that for 21 years I was living in a very large room (the world) that was dimly lite and I had a flashlight. I could use the flashlight to see only those things that were of interest to me. And then on day someone turned on the light(the Holy Spirit) and I saw that there was much more in this room than I could have ever imagined.
 
For those who may be interested this is a good website for beginning to look into how archeology ties into scripture. Invalid Link Removed

There are so many more, for instance the historical accuracy of Dabiel's prophecy in the first part of chapter eleven describing in minute detail the future exploits of each world leader, the battles engaged, and the ensuing intrigue. In fact, the meticulous and historically accurate nature of these verses can be nothing short of divine inspiration. The first thirty-five verses of this chapter eleven include 135 prophecies-each completely fulfilled down to the smallest detail.

Then there is the Book of Revelation that descripes many future evens that are happening even as we speak. For instance we are told that Isreal will eventually isolate herself for the rest of the world. If you are watching current headlines you will see evidence of this nearly every day. We told that eventually the entire world will turn against her during the battle of Armagedon and she will win. God will protect her. We are told of a nuclear war, we are told of a one world leader that will decieve the nations of the world, we are told of famine and disease, we are told of a cashless society and the mark-of-beast. All of these things are nearly in place today. Don't take my word study for yourself.
 
BBB said:
For those who may be interested this is a good website for beginning to look into how archeology ties into scripture. Invalid Link Removed

There are so many more, for instance the historical accuracy of Dabiel's prophecy in the first part of chapter eleven describing in minute detail the future exploits of each world leader, the battles engaged, and the ensuing intrigue. In fact, the meticulous and historically accurate nature of these verses can be nothing short of divine inspiration. The first thirty-five verses of this chapter eleven include 135 prophecies-each completely fulfilled down to the smallest detail.

Then there is the Book of Revelation that descripes many future evens that are happening even as we speak. For instance we are told that Isreal will eventually isolate herself for the rest of the world. If you are watching current headlines you will see evidence of this nearly every day. We told that eventually the entire world will turn against her during the battle of Armagedon and she will win. God will protect her. We are told of a nuclear war, we are told of a one world leader that will decieve the nations of the world, we are told of famine and disease, we are told of a cashless society and the mark-of-beast. All of these things are nearly in place today. Don't take my word study for yourself.
Click to expand...

See again one could consider this source a bit bias, which I am sure you can admit to as well? Remember the argument presented here is that because of these mostly natural occurances the stories must be true. All the while, those who doubt religion note the fact that religions were used to explain historical events. The world flood = The great flood (to a christian). The Great flood = How religions explain a natural occurance such as a world flood (to an athiest).

Also the foresight of future occurances a not specific enough to be deemed worthy of attention. Let's not forget how many people believe in the predictions of Nostradamus. This doesn't make him a God.
 
BBB said:
For those who may be interested this is a good website for beginning to look into how archeology ties into scripture. Invalid Link Removed

There are so many more, for instance the historical accuracy of Dabiel's prophecy in the first part of chapter eleven describing in minute detail the future exploits of each world leader, the battles engaged, and the ensuing intrigue. In fact, the meticulous and historically accurate nature of these verses can be nothing short of divine inspiration. The first thirty-five verses of this chapter eleven include 135 prophecies-each completely fulfilled down to the smallest detail.

Then there is the Book of Revelation that descripes many future evens that are happening even as we speak. For instance we are told that Isreal will eventually isolate herself for the rest of the world. If you are watching current headlines you will see evidence of this nearly every day. We told that eventually the entire world will turn against her during the battle of Armagedon and she will win. God will protect her. We are told of a nuclear war, we are told of a one world leader that will decieve the nations of the world, we are told of famine and disease, we are told of a cashless society and the mark-of-beast. All of these things are nearly in place today. Don't take my word study for yourself.
Click to expand...
My issue as someone who studies ancient Egypt is trying to connect Senmut to Moses is fruitless. Senemut was no crown prince, he was the lover of Queen hatshepsut, as well as her chief architect.

Also, trying to make him Tutmose I is not feasible either.

Then the reference to the sea floor and chariots? Really? That is the only possible explanation....the Exodus? How about the Syrian version of the stroy with a man named Mises, roughly 1000 years prior.

Sorry, it just doesnt work.

HereToStudy said:
See again one could consider this source a bit bias, which I am sure you can admit to as well? Remember the argument presented here is that because of these mostly natural occurances the stories must be true. All the while, those who doubt religion note the fact that religions were used to explain historical events. The world flood = The great flood (to a christian). The Great flood = How religions explain a natural occurance such as a world flood (to an athiest).

Also the foresight of future occurances a not specific enough to be deemed worthy of attention. Let's not forget how many people believe in the predictions of Nostradamus. This doesn't make him a God.
Click to expand...

I would agree, the website has its own agenda
 
I am impressed with everyone's historical knowledge.

However, right or wrong, none of it is directly transferable to scientific fact because none of it is reproducible. Consequently, from a scientific standpoint, it cannot be used to prove the existence of god.
 
I’m just curious, what have you to say about the book of Daniel. Daniel written thousands of years before the events actually occurred, predicted( with the help of God)the seven major world kingdoms in such detail that it continues to confound today’s skeptics.

There was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews.
This man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, "Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him."
Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
 
BBB said:
I’m just curious, what have you to say about the book of Daniel. Daniel written thousands of years before the events actually occurred, predicted( with the help of God)the seven major world kingdoms in such detail that it continues to confound today’s skeptics.

There was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews.
This man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, "Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him."
Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
Click to expand...



"However, some investigators maintain that the Book of Daniel is a forgery written by an unknown author or authors between 168 and 164 long after the events "foretold" in the alleged prophetic visions had already occurred. It is also widely believed that the "prophet Daniel" is a fictitious character who, in reality, never existed.

Literary Style: The Book of Daniel is written in both Hebrew and Aramaic. These language did not came in to general use among the Jewish people until long after the Babylonian exile. Also, the book contains several Persian and Greek words that were not known in ancient Babylon.

In Daniel 9:2, Daniel is pictured studying "the books," wherein the prophecies of Jeremiah are contained. There was no such collection of sacred books in the alleged time of Daniel.

Daniel Not Among the Prophets: In the Christian Bible Daniel is considered a major prophet. In the Hebrew Bible, however, Daniel is not included among the prophets. This exclusion indicates that both the book and its author were unknown as recently as 200 when the prophetic canon was fixed.

Daniel is not mentioned in the Old Testament: Outside of the Book of Daniel the name "Daniel" never appears in the Old Testament. There are, however, several references to a Dan'el. These references point, not to the Babylonian Daniel, but to a very ancient king who is classified with the likes of Noah and Job. Scholars suggest that these references are most likely based on King Dan'el mentioned in the Canaanite Ras Shamra tablets of the fourteenth century.

No Reference to Daniel Before 200: There is no reference to Daniel in any non-canonical literature before the second century. There is also no reference to Daniel on Babylonian, Median, or Persian monuments and inscriptions. This is an odd omission indeed considering Daniel's purported high rank plus his alleged service under four kings as is claimed in the Book of Daniel.

Theology is too Advanced: The theological ideals and conceptions of Daniel more closely resemble Jewish teachings and writings of the second and first centuries than of the time of the exile. For example Daniel's idea of a heavenly kingdom more closely resembling that of the New Testament.

Historical Inaccuracies: The historical blunders evident in the Book of Daniel are not only numerous they are also very revealing because they are ones that a person living in that age would never have made. For example, Daniel gives the succession of Babylonian kings as 1) Nebuchadnezzar 2) Belshazzar, whom he misidentifies as the son of Nebuchadnezzar, 3) Darius the Mede, and 4) Cyrus the Great. The historically accurate sequence is 1) Nebuchadnezzar, 2) Evil-Merodach, 3) Neriglassar, 4) Nabonidus, 5) Belshazzar, son of Nabonidus, and 6) Cyrus the Great. Nebuchadnezzar's reign was not succeeded by that of Belshazzar's as Daniel claims.

The most obvious historical error, however, concerns the fictitious Darius the Mede. The writer of Daniel mistakenly inserts Darius the Mede as king of Babylon between the reigns of Belshazzar and Cyrus the Great (Daniel 5:30-31). All efforts to identify Darius the Mede as an actual historical person have thus far failed. There were Babylonian kings known as Darius but they came after Cyrus.

Daniel's Predictions Analyzed: The most conclusive evidence for a Maccabean date for the writing of the Book of Daniel is found in the analysis of Daniel's visions and the prophecies arising from them. The visions pertaining to events between the fifth and third centuries are brief, sketchy, and historically unreliable. Actually, they amount to no more than clumsy attempts to portray known historical events in a prophetic style. The writer did not predict the future so much as he reiterated the past. As the author approaches his own era, however, the details in the visions and the events they claim to prophesy become much more precise. The events immediately prior to and including the reign of Antiochus IV (175-164) and his persecution of the Jews are historically accurate. But, events extending into the author's immediate future do not agree at all with known history. For example, instead of dieing in a battle somewhere between Jerusalem and the Mediterranean Sea as the writer predicted (11:40-45), Antiochus IV actually died far to the east in modern day Iran."
 
If Adam and Eve were the first two humans on Earth, after spawning, down the line it would mean that we are creations of incest?
 
Harry Manback said:
If Adam and Eve were the first two humans on Earth, after spawning, down the line it would mean that we are creations of incest?
Click to expand...
also, whats funny, is that after hte expulsion, Cain and Able get married to some random women. WHere did they come from? :hmmm:

HereToStudy said:
You sir are correct. But don't say we evolved from monkeys, thats disgusting.
Click to expand...

reps, as that is funny as hell
 
EESCHMan said:
"However, some investigators maintain that the Book of Daniel is a forgery written by an unknown author or authors between 168 and 164 long after the events "foretold" in the alleged prophetic visions had already occurred. It is also widely believed that the "prophet Daniel" is a fictitious character who, in reality, never existed.

"
Click to expand...

The author of the book of Daniel may be irrelevant. I believe that we can agree that it exits so someone obviously wrote it. Moreover, even if the date of this composition is off a bit the fact that Daniel predicted all five world kingdoms in order; including the current one, is amazing to say the least. The first world kingdom was Babylon, the kingdom at the time of Daniel, depicted by the head of gold. Babylon was conquered by the Medes and Persians, depicted by the chest and arms of silver, who were conquered by the Greeks, depicted by the stomach of brass, who were conquered by the Romans, depicted by the legs of iron, who were never conquered but fell from within just as Daniel predicted. The current world kingdom is a mixture noted by the iron mixed with clay and it will be the final world kingdom until Christ’s return.
 
This thread needs to die, it will never be settled. The fact of the matter is religion is theory and man created. Even the books were written by man. Science can have the same argument, it is theory and man created, however it at least uses some form of rational thought besides "just because" or "it is."

Religion has caused war, hatred, murder, govermental corruption, and caused people to make choices they wouldn't have otherwise because they believe it is the will of God.

Even if a God existed, remember your God is not the only god that people believe in or have for a long time, the world would be a better place ignoring him. Instead the opium of the masses has created a business model.

Also, if you are going to pray for anything, please pray for the children molested by these "people of christ," and I'll pray to science that your current pope doesn't pass the survival of the fittest test, since he isnt man enough to do something about this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top