Giant Human Skeleton

[Code_2025]

I wonder if this is real or phtoshoped?

Recent gas exploration by ARAMCO in the southeast region of Saudi Arabia, has uncovered this skeleton

The desert region is called Rab-ul-Khalee (empty quarter).

Saudi theologians believe this body to belong to the AAAD nation.

Saudi military has taken over this entire area, and only Saudi ARAMCO personnel are allowed. This discovery is meant to be kept secret.

This picture was taken from a helicopter overhead. (Notice the tiny people working in between the skeleton)

Please note that the Bible refers to the Canaanites as giants and that was the reason the Israelites were so scared of entering the promised land. And then the story of David and Goliath.



:cool2:

[Benman]

Originally posted by Code_2025

Please note that the Bible refers to the Canaanites as giants and that was the reason the Israelites were so scared of entering the promised land. And then the story of David and Goliath.



:cool2:
Nothing is impossible, but my guess is photoshop.

The Bible accounts of the Giant people (Canaanites), is real, but evidence suggests these giants were in the range of 8 1/2' - 9 1/2', not the 20+' this pic would suggest.

Also, the nephilim were giants, but again, evidence suggests they were in the 9-10 foot tall range. But then, there's a first time for everything.:D

Ben:addict:

[JavierNuvolari]

Originally posted by Benman
Also, the nephilim were giants, but again, evidence suggests they were in the 9-10 foot tall range. But then, there's a first time for everything.:D

Ben:addict:

Hi...and how many metres is that for us metric guys??

I'd say it's a photoshop


Javier

[AndyBG]

I am open to every posibility, but this just looks to obvious for one spy picture.

But, ...

[Benman]

Originally posted by JavierNuvolari
Hi...and how many metres is that for us metric guys??

I'd say it's a photoshop


Javier

8.5 feet = 2.6 meters
10 feet = 3.05 meters

In other words, big.:p

Ben:addict:

[Erik]

I say Photoshop. :bye2:

[Code_2025]

Originally posted by Erik
I say Photoshop. :bye2:

Yeah, probably could be but then evolution has created quite unique pieces through time. Lord of the rings had the Hobbits and most people might think thats just a fictional work but in fact the evolutionary evidence proves the real existence of Hobbits. Humans are decendents of Hobibits after further evolution. Hobbits were the decendents of evolved apes. It is theorised that through time "humans" have been evolving and their body size has been varying according to natures influences. At stages, "humans" have been very short and at other times giants. Present "human" is yet again another product of evolution and with time, even the present "human" form would change.

Photoshop could be!!,, but there might be evidence out there in support of these giants . i.e. if they did exist.


:bye:

[Benman]

Originally posted by Code_2025
Yeah, probably could be but then evolution has created quite unique pieces through time. Lord of the rings had the Hobbits and most people might think thats just a fictional work but in fact the evolutionary evidence proves the real existence of Hobbits. Humans are decendents of Hobibits after further evolution. Hobbits were the decendents of evolved apes. It is theorised that through time "humans" have been evolving and their body size has been varying according to natures influences. At stages, "humans" have been very short and at other times giants. Present "human" is yet again another product of evolution and with time, even the present "human" form would change.



You may have come from monkeys, but I sure didn't!:D

Finding a skeletons of "hobbits" from the past (heard that same "newsworthy" story), hardly proves hobbits were a different race than humans. For example, consider this article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11261633/

My point, four hundred, or four thousand years later, when her skeleton is found, will the scientists think she too was a "hobbit" just because she was freakishly tiny and her body is distorted? Who knows. Me, I call that bad science (and my linked article really does a good job of bringing this point home).

Also, in London during the times of "Jack the Ripper" men were very small, averaging just 58 inches (1.47 meters) - 64 inches (1.63 meters). So now, the average height being much taller for the London man, are scientists telling me that the average Briton has "evolved"? I think not, nutrition and other factors have a lot to do with it. But there is no evidence of evolution.

Humans will continue to change or adapt to their environment, but we're not growing any extra sets of arms any time soon.:cheers:

Ben:addict:

[CarbonFibre]

Looks so fake, I'd bet money this is total BS.

[Code_2025]

Originally posted by CarbonFibre
Looks so fake, I'd bet money this is total BS.

You probably might be right!! This could be a photoshopped...but the possibility of this fact is open to crticism and healthy debate and a fact finding mission....but hell who got the time...

:s4addict:

[clam]

The mechanism of evolution is random genetic mutation. You have people that grow to be 7ft, and you've got ones that are 3ft. It's called a disease sometimes, but it is evolution. Each child has a unique genetic code (even single cell twins aren't a perfect match), and is in fact a mutant. If they manage to create offspring they can pass on this random mutation. Some mutations are beneficial, and will lead to more offspring, some are bad and will lead to less or no offspring. After a few generations, the bad mutation will be a minority, and the good one will prevail.

Selective breeding of animals has been going on for millenia, and is the practical application of the evolution theory. From a single genetic mutation, whole breeds of muscular cows, or tiny dogs, have been created. The first domesticated dog was a wolf, and from this one species, through random mutation, and selective breeding, came all the different dog breeds. Evolution has been observed, measured, and applied.

Genetic science is based on the evolution theory. Genetics = evolution. If you deny evolution, you have to deny genetics, and that has huge implications. Physical features would not be passed on. Two europeans could have african or asian offspring. Hell, two europeans could have a dog as a child, if genes didn't exsist.
It would all be the choice of the creator, who makes different kinds of animals day in day out. Some tall, some small, some retarded, some ginger, some born dead,... And that animals have their parents features is merely the choice of the creator.
The argument of creationists is that life is so complex, it has to be designed. If life is so complex, then the designer himself must be so much more complex. Especially since he managed it in 6 days. So he has to be designed too, right? Following through with the 'complex = designer' theory, the creator was created by another creator. Who is even more complex, b/c he created a creator. So he too would need a creator, to justify his complexcity. And so on, and so on. The logic of the creationists leads to an infinite number of creators.

If you want to be a creatonist, it's best not to venture into scientific/logical territory.

There have been "hobbits". People, and other animals, have multiplied in an enviornment where the smaller ones were more likely to survive. When there is little food, for instance, a big animal will die before it is able to mature, and create offspring. The smaller ones will survive, breed amongst themselves, and create a smaller variation of the original animals.

The reason why western people are growing taller, is because during childhood disease stunts the growth. With injections, hygene, and such, children are not sick as often, and when they are it is for a shorter amount of time. So they are allowed to grow to their full potential. It's not evolution, b/c it is not likely that a whole generation has the same random genetic mutation.
If taller people somehow have a greater chance on producing offspring, then generation by generation, the race will get taller. But since humans regenerate at a slow pace, it will take a long time.

And to get back to the picture, it is most likely not real. Dinosaures were able to get really big b/c they had a special bird-like lightweight build, and there was lots of O2 in the air. A human this size could not carry its own weight, and since humans are walking the planet there is not enough O2 in the air to be able to get that big.
Off course, that's just science. If I follow the creationist logic, then I have no reason to believe that it is a fake. A creator could have easliy created this specimen. Perhaps as an experiment. A one-off concept. It wouldn't need parents, b/c according to the creation theory, everything is the offspring of the creator's mind. Perhaps it never lived, and he just created a skeleton under the ground to see how we would react. Kinda like what he did with the dinosaures, right. Perhaps the huge human never learned about the bible, didn't know that he should worship the creator, so he killed it.

Creationism is fun, but I'm not a sheep, and I'm not able to lie to myself, so I'll stick with the scientific conclusion that the photo is a fake. Not as much fun though. Big things are cool.

[Benman]

Originally posted by clam

If you deny evolution, you have to deny genetics, and that has huge implications.
I respectfully disagree.

Hundreds and hundreds of dogs can come from one breed, but they are all, in the end, still dogs. True, they have adapted from their original form, but dogs they all still are.

Ben :addict:

[Code_2025]

Originally posted by Benman
I respectfully disagree.

Hundreds and hundreds of dogs can come from one breed, but they are all, in the end, still dogs. True, they have adapted from their original form, but dogs they all still are.

Ben :addict:

True...but then hundreds of dogs of one breed will obviously produce dogs of the same breed...try cross breeding them and you get dogs...but not of the same breed...:eye:

I am a skeptic....its not that I dont believe in the creationist theory coz I do....and its not that I deny evolutionary theory....I am open to knowledge....and would leave the final decision to my own discretion.

Here are two points to ponder on:vhmmm: :

1] Humans have appendix...whats the purpose....in cows it has a purpose....but why in humans...its a redundant structure of the intestine...it is considered a vestigial remnant of some previous organ having a digestive function?

2] Animals have tails extending from the base of the spine from a bone called the coccyx....why do humans have this bone....whats the purpose?


Yet again...I dont deny creationist theory and I dont expell the evolutionary theory...

Einstein once said:

Science without religion is lame..religion without science is blind.



:idea:
:bye:

[Benman]

Originally posted by Code_2025

Einstein once said:

Science without religion is lame..religion without science is blind.



:idea:
:bye:
And Einstein was a wise man.:thumb:

As for dogs: I've bred thousands of rats over the years (had a big Boa population to feed, don't ask :D ), and noticed that from the very same stock, you could experiment, by breeding certain rats with unique traits with others. Because rats breed so darn fast (hence why scientists use them for experiments), you can watch them "evolve" (as some call it) to something very different than what you started with in a matter of years vs decades and centuries. Some I bred for size, build and strength, some for unique colors and appearance, some for no hair at all.

Looking back at pictures I had of the original parents, and then years later at some of my "original" lines, it was almost scarey how much some how changed. Yet this doesn't prove to me evolution, quite the opposite. It simply confirms animals ability to adapt to an incredible amount of different environments and conditions. Many looked different, but all came from same stock and this was observed by some ametuer in his garage over just a short period of time. Now consider dog breeding has been occuring for millennia and it's not far fetched that the original stock has changed dramatically. In the end though, they are all dogs just as my rats (although very different looking) were all rats.

For example, why would only some apes evolve into humans? Why didn't all of them evolve? Better yet, why aren't we observing existing apes evolving into men? Yes, their apperance can change, but although we've been watching them for millennia, they're still apes. Just a friendly debate.:thumb:

Ben:addict:

[Code_2025]

Originally posted by Benman
And Einstein was a wise man.:thumb:

Better yet, why aren't we observing existing apes evolving into men? Yes, their apperance can change, but although we've been watching them for millennia, they're still apes. Just a friendly debate.:thumb:

Ben:addict:

Consider this fact...at times we gain few pounds and we cant notice them...coz we always see ourselves...it is only when we see a family or friend after a long time...then we realise we had put on weight coz they usually go"hey you put on weight"....this is a simple scenraio....we dont usually se changes in front of us if that thing is always around....the apes are evolving but slowly...we dont usually go deep in the forests to see these colonies of apes and their living...recently there was a documentary on national geo where they have seen apes working in groups...damn they were even using baits to catch fish...they were using sharp stones to break coconuts....this just goes to show that these species of apes are now getting smarter day by day....this is due to the fact that they are learning as to how to get the food from the sources they have and how to go about it...now the generation after these apes will knwo these techniques and they will refine....and who knows a day might come when these apes will be seen living in shelters built by them and stumbled upon these colonies in forests by researchers!! This is a wild imagination but then evolution is an undeniable fact. Some apes are now even turing to protein diet...and I mean full protein diet...this has implications as protein will start growing their brain size through time...

Humans are evolving...a reecnt study by some british scientists proved that the 23rd pair of chromosome in human males were changing. what they found was that the "Y" chromosome in the 23rd pair has been decresing in size through years....this concludes that the chances of a male offspring is decreasing day by day as 'X" chromosome of the 23rd pair has unchanged and there will come a time when there wont be a "Y" in the 23rd pair...the outcome would be only female offsprings....this would be natures way of getting rid of humans...I know this sounds quite sci fi...but then yesterdays fiction is todays fact....and todays sci fi is most probably futures fact!

See this......if you have had any recent new borns in your family.....are they female or male offspring...and if you havent had one...then just wait and see the future offspring...chances are more of females....damn I had few cousins marrying recently and they all have baby daughters....even some of my friends have daughters....

Humans have reached the evolutionary peak....and we might not notice the change now......but sit back and enjoy the show after few millenia...

This is good debate...Thanks. Very mind stimulating.

Regards
:thumb:

[AndyBG]

My nowledge on this theme is not big enough so i can't get involved in any serious discusion, but theory that apes will evolve mutch furder then they are so far IMO is not in place, why?

We humans are dominant enhabitans of planet Earth, so we are ''crushing'' anything that is even litle on are way, so i am afraid that apes don't have enough time to show their full potential, they will be ''terminate'' on first glimbs of some serious evolving.

Insects are present on Earth seems like forever, yet they changed very litle, allmost not at all, only few of them are disapierd over milions of years.
Few days ago i watched on National Geographic something about insects and they showed a bug fossil (roach i think) from dinosaur age and its exatcly same as today.

Andy

[Code_2025]

Embryonic Similarities.

:hihi:

[CarbonFibre]

Originally posted by Benman
For example, why would only some apes evolve into humans? Why didn't all of them evolve? Better yet, why aren't we observing existing apes evolving into men? Yes, their apperance can change, but although we've been watching them for millennia, they're still apes.
Some apes went in one direction (where we are today) while other apes evolved in different directions to some of the other primates we see today. It's easy to say that right now they're all "just apes" as they have been for many years, but a lot of evolution is very gradual and takes many many years depending on which type of evolutionary theory you subscribe to.

[Benman]

Originally posted by CarbonFibre
depending on which type of evolutionary theory you subscribe to.
Key word evolutionary theory and is called such for a reason.

As for recent daughters in our family, 3 daughters 7 boys in the last 8 years, so I guess it doesn't work with everyone.:p Having duaghters and boys has more to do with time of sexual intercourse and diet than anything else. Female sperm lives much longer and is much slower (and more durable) than male sperm and therefor if sex occurs 3 or 4 days before ovulation, bingo, your chances for a girl just shot way up (cause all the guy sperm died days ago whereas the girl sperm just finally made it on time). Having sex only 24 hours or less before ovulation greatly increases your chances of a boy (your betting the "boys" will get there way before the girls do and therefor get the job done days bfore the girls got a shot at things). Next time we have a kid, I'll let you know how it goes.:D

Again, I have no doubts to an animal's (or human's) ability to adapt to our/their environment. That is indeed a fact. But for me, it doesn't prove the theory of evolution. Why is it so difficult to believe in a creator for some? No one has ever seen a house and said, "that pile of wood must have slowly formed itself into a home, or that car must have been a pile of metal that slowly evolved into something better. No one ever questions those things. Yet on something infinitely more complicated (life) people so easily assume that the theory of evolution is fact. This is curious. An example:

If I dissasemble a blender, take all of its parts (maybe 20 or 25), put it into a washing machine and then turn on the washing machine, how many years will it take for those parts to come together and form a blender? 10 years? 1000 years? 1,000,000,000,000,000 years? Answer: never. It would never happen, ever. Yet I am to believe that all the needed ingredients to form life (infinitely more complicated) just "came together"? A tough pill to swallow.

Yet that is the reverse argument of evolutions about a creator. All creatures must have a creator so that proves God had a creator. Does it? If I am to expect that life could just form itself (even though we all have no problem admiting the blender theory shows this to be questionable at best), than why is it so far fetched that their could be something that actually doesn't have a creator? Something that actually never had a starting point?

Think about this because it applies just as much to ones who believe in the theory of evolution. Ok, the evolution theorist say, we came from acids and protiens. Ok. So where did they come from? And what did that come from? And then what didTHAT come from? To infinity. So a creator isn't a "creationist" question. It is a question that ALL mankind must ask. What started everything? What was there in the beginning? What existed before anything else?

A friendly debate that I am also enjoying.:cheers:

Ben:addict:

[sturs6]

Originally posted by Code_2025


See this......if you have had any recent new borns in your family.....are they female or male offspring...and if you havent had one...then just wait and see the future offspring...chances are more of females....damn I had few cousins marrying recently and they all have baby daughters....even some of my friends have daughters....

Regards
:thumb:
Sorry I do not help to confirm this... I have two sons and my cousin has two sons and a third on the way. I have a friend that has 6 kids and four of the six are boys.

[clam]

For example, why would only some apes evolve into humans? Why didn't all of them evolve? Better yet, why aren't we observing existing apes evolving into men? Yes, their apperance can change, but although we've been watching them for millennia, they're still apes. Just a friendly debate.

The 'why' is "survival of the fittest". You can't look for a logical reason, b/c genetic mutations happen at random. I think that's one of the biggest misunderstandings of evolution. A series of random genetics mutations ended in the human race. Another series of mutatons ended with another species. There is no reason for it. It just happened.

And we did not evolve from current apes, we evolved with them, from a common anchestor. We are actually part of the bonobos family, who's behaviour is practically the same as ours. Including the whole walking upright part. The talent that sets us apart is complex communication. Like the written word. Imagine what the world would be like if we didn't write anything down. We'd have to hear and remember everything. It would be hard to build a car if you had to calculate and store all the numbers in your head.

http://theol.uibk.ac.at/cover/gallery/atlanta_bonobos.jpg

http://deni.typepad.com/the_beautiful_life/images/bonobos-thumb.jpg

http://gwenaelle.blogspirit.com/images/medium_bonobo.jpg

http://www.rolexawards.com/laureates/img/laureate-77-4.jpg


No one has ever seen a house and said, "that pile of wood must have slowly formed itself into a home, or that car must have been a pile of metal that slowly evolved into something better. No one ever questions those things. Yet on something infinitely more complicated (life) people so easily assume that the theory of evolution is fact. This is curious.

If I am to expect that life could just form itself (even though we all have no problem admiting the blender theory shows this to be questionable at best), than why is it so far fetched that their could be something that actually doesn't have a creator? Something that actually never had a starting point?


You see the contradiction yourself.

A blender is a mechanical device, while organisms are elaborate chemical reactions (DNA is a single molecule, from which you can create a whole organism. Dolly the sheep came from a single nipple-cell.). If you take a blender apart, than the seperate bits have no function. Their exsistance is related to the other parts, and without them they have no function. This is not the case with an organism. Every part of an organism has a history. Every part has a function, that it can perform without the other parts. If you take someone's legs, the arms will still work. The brain can still live on for a while without heart beating. But if you take a mechanical bit out of the blender, it won't work.

One creationist "scientist" thought he had disproven evolution with a microscopic organism that has a tail that can spin around like a rotor. He argued that evolution could not have created this, b/c the different parts of the mechanism -seemingly- had no function on their own. His theory was disproven however, b/c a evolutionist dismantled the organism, and was able to demonstrate that they continued to perform a task without the other bits.

There is no intelligence behind evolution, and that means that organism are a collection of random independent bits that have evolved to work together. If they were not independent, then there would have been a creator that put them together. If you can find an organism in nature that has this feature, then you will have disproven evolution.

Also note that even if evolution is disproven, which is not likely, it does not prove any religious theory. You can not prove one of the genesis stories (yes, there are two contradicting beginnings in the bible), by disproving evolution.

I also understand that the sex a child is determined by the sex of the sperm cell. (I tried to find more information on google, but the search for 'sperm and sex' did not lead me to scientific reports)That's why you can choose the sex of the baby with invetro vertilisation. The lab worker selects male or female sperm. Some men only have female sperm, like famously King Henry 8th who went through 6 wives in an effort to have a son. The Vatican didn't allow it, so he created his own version of catholicism that did. So god created king Henry, and king Henry created god. Christianity has always been the tool of the aristocracy. Even now that aristocracy has been renamed as 'the economy', they still successfully use it. The president of america, leader of the world, was selected by Jezus himself.

Great discussion. :0:

http://www.wimp.com/toes/ = tribe with double feet, random genetic mutation survives through inbreeding.

[Benman]

Originally posted by clam
And we did not evolve from current apes, we evolved with them, from a common anchestor. We are actually part of the bonobos family...

Or... maybe just maybe, there are so many similarities between our species and others because we share the same creator. I mean, it's not such a stretch. So most mammal embryos look similar. So? Most Audis look similar. Most BMWs look similar. So we share common traits (as your pictures show). So? So do Audis (Car journalists are always complaining about Audi's poor steering in all of their cars! :D). My point is that if creationism is true (which I believe it to be), it would make sense that certain creatures share traits and apperances. Not so unbelievable...


Originally posted by clam
You see the contradiction yourself.

A blender is a mechanical device, while organisms are elaborate chemical reactions...

Actually, I think you see the contradiction better than I. A "simple" blender can not even reassemble itself by aggitation and external stimuli, yet we are to expect that from life? Does that not show how much more complicated it is? Does that that prove how advanced life is over "machines"? Therefor, if a house can not build itself, a blender reassemble itself, why can life? Sure, scientists can "build" a sheep from base stem cells, etc... but they must first have and use a starting point that is already alive! They can not create it by themselves. Life is to advanced for that. All designs are intelligent, I propose that life is also a design. An intelligent creation.



Originally posted by clam
There is no intelligence behind evolution... Got that right! :D



Originally posted by clam
Also note that even if evolution is disproven, which is not likely, it does not prove any religious theory. You can not prove one of the genesis stories (yes, there are two contradicting beginnings in the bible), by disproving evolution.

So god created king Henry, and king Henry created god. Christianity has always been the tool of the aristocracy. Even now that aristocracy has been renamed as 'the economy', they still successfully use it. The president of america, leader of the world, was selected by Jezus himself.

Great discussion. :0:

http://www.wimp.com/toes/ = tribe with double feet, random genetic mutation survives through inbreeding.

I was not aware that there were contradictory beginnings in Genesis? Could you elaborate?

And BTW, King Henry was a nob, just like our current leaders...:D

And I will not argue even one bit about the religous aspects of our world. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, they have all commited acts that are evil in no other terms. The "purging" of millions commited by "Christians" during the "Holy Crusades", the genocide's commited by the Jewish nation, the terrorists acts commited by the Nation of Islam, the list goes on and on... Not to mention that soldiers in our modern era ask for God's blessings before they go out onto the battlefield and then proceed to annihilate their fellow believers all because they were born in the wrong country!

But, religion is one of the taboo subjects here, so for a further debate on that topic, we would need to go the PM route (Moderators, please take that into consideration...).

Needless to say, Creationism is and can be totally separate from Religion. Just like Evolutionism can be totally seperate from the theory of "since I evolved, I am not held accountable to no one, after all, it is killed or be killed, 'survival of the fittest' ".

:cheers:

Ben:addict:

[clam]

Originally posted by Benman
Or... maybe just maybe, there are so many similarities between our species and others because we share the same creator. I mean, it's not such a stretch. So most mammal embryos look similar. So? Most Audis look similar. Most BMWs look similar. So we share common traits (as your pictures show). So? So do Audis (Car journalists are always complaining about Audi's poor steering in all of their cars! :D). My point is that if creationism is true (which I believe it to be), it would make sense that certain creatures share traits and apperances. Not so unbelievable...

It could be, but you can't prove the exsistance of a creator from a position that already assumes there is a creator.




Actually, I think you see the contradiction better than I. A "simple" blender can not even reassemble itself by aggitation and external stimuli, yet we are to expect that from life? Does that not show how much more complicated it is? Does that that prove how advanced life is over "machines"? Therefor, if a house can not build itself, a blender reassemble itself, why can life? Sure, scientists can "build" a sheep from base stem cells, etc... but they must first [B]have and use a starting point that is already alive! They can not create it by themselves. Life is to advanced for that. All designs are intelligent, I propose that life is also a design. An intelligent creation.


A human cannot reassemble him/herself either. Just like the blender, you'd need an intelligence to do it. Perhaps its own intelligence, or that of a doctor.

The thing about the blender is that the origin of its parts, and their union, cannot be explained without a creator. It didn't come from anywhere. Maybe your parents didn't tell you, but babies do come from somewhere. :hahahehe:
The problem is you're trying to understand life from a mechanical standpoint. Life is chemical. Chemical reactions take place 24/7 without any intelligence behind it. Back and forth, from one state of being to the next. And one of those reactions resulted in an organism. No reason for it, just random. A really simple organism, perhaps only made up from a few molecules. And it was a chain reaction. The organism recreated itself over and over again, each time a little different. Each time a little more elaborate. We can trace our selves back to a random event. The blender cannot. A blender is build, but a child starts out as the fusion of two DNA molecules. Then the women eats and breaths more chemicals, to feed the chemical reaction taking place in her woomb. Nowhere in this process can one see the hand of the creator. The process that can be traced back to a random event. Unlike the 'spontanious' blender, we did come from somewhere.

But from our human perspective it's hard to comprehend. We do things for a reason, so we look for the same thing in nature. Random-ness is not something we are made to understand. People with random minds get locked up.
And the millions of years it took for a chemical reaction to become so elaborate is also something we can't get our heads around. From our perspective a year is a long time. In evolution, it's not even a second. Creationism is an attempt to make the universe fit into our human experience.
You could call the random chemical reaction that started it all "the creator", but it'll be hard to have a human relationship with it.

Evolution goes against our programming, but everything we see and find backs up the evolution theory. The foundation of many sciences is evolution. Before the theory, people thought the man had the seed, and the woman just firtile ground. Noone knew what microbes were, and what made people sick. Noone knew about bloodtypes. Birth defects were a punishment from the creator. I don't know what they thought of dinosaur bones, but I bet it scared the ish out of them.
Like I said before: genetic science = evolution. Genetic science has been around for a long time, but only recently have we been able to see an actual DNA strand with fancy microscopes. Before that, everything that involved genetics was founded on the evolution theory. Noone had ever seen a DNA strand, but if evolution was correct, then DNA had to exsist. So the practical application of DNA, proved the evolution theory.

Creationism works with our programming, but nothing can back it up. No logic, observation, measuring, re-creating,... lead to a creator. Only our human desire to make the universe fit with the human experience.
Every attempt to prove a creator so far, has started with the assumption that there is a creator. It's like a court case that assumes guilt before the procedings start. The result will always be guilty, b/c you're not even considering that the accused is not guilty.



I was not aware that there were contradictory beginnings in Genesis? Could you elaborate?


Do you have a bible at hand? Genesis chapter one discribes how god created the world in 6 days, people and all, and took a brake on day 7. Then chapter 2 "garden of eden" discribes how god created everything in one event. How he made man from clay, and woman from rib. And the whole talking snake thing.
One genesis takes six days, the other is one event.

The bible is a collection of stories, from different religions/cultures. That's why it contradics itself so much. Did you know the original 10 commandments tell you to sacrifice your first born. Luckily there are 3 versions in the bible, and they didn't go with the first one. It's amasing that the ramblings from some guy in a hut 1800 years ago, have caused so much misery.

Jezus is also not a historical figure. His biography was actually copied from an earlier religion where he was the god of the winter solstice. An astronomical event that usually takes place on 25dec.

http://www.atheists.org/christianity/
... a great site for christians who want to test their faith.
http://www.ministerturnsatheist.org/
... a christian fanatic who tried to prove christianity, and ended up an athiest.

[R8isGreat]

To begin...It has been posted on page 1 that "If you want to be a creatonist, it's best not to venture into scientific/logical territory." This is obviously an ad hominem (against the man) attack, coupled with a red herring attack, which has no place in a civilized discussion, which I withold judjment whether or not this discussion falls into that catagory or not.

clam...I have to disagree with you when you say "Chemical reactions take place 24/7 without any intelligence behind it." I believe that the reason you and others like you hold to this mantra is that a designer so great knowingly keeps all physcial and biological functions regulated. For example...the 2nd law of thermodynamics otherwise known as the law of entropy states that energy is degraded irreversibly. This is the principle of the degradation of energy. This law when coupled to the first law, is the backbone of how we understand all the energy transfers inthe universe (including biological ones). Yet we see that while throughout the billions of years that our universe (which remains a closed system) has existed, the whole system runs like clockwork. Why is that? Why do saturns rings not lose the energy they possess and fall into the planet? WHy does our planet revolve around the sun, which revolves as well, not lose energy and break apart. It is either because there is a greater force holding all things together, or because our understading of energy and how it is transfered is fundementally flawed. As a result of eiher, science as we kno it has limits.

As to the anti-christian comments concrning the Bible being errant, and a trichotamy of texts, and all sorts of other comments, I have no response. Ultimatly people will believe whatever they desire to. I could type for hours and disprove all your claims about Biblical errancy, but it would ultimatly waste my effort and not convince you, or others who hold to your beliefs, or lack thereof.

There are 2 world views that exist. Those who willingly submit themselves to God, and those who submit themselves to no one other than themselves. I take it that you are the latter, due to you incorrectly titleing the Creator with a lowercase g. Some will claim that ths is a redusctionist philosphy, but time will tell, and the truth will be made manifest to all.

[sturs6]

Originally posted by clam

http://www.atheists.org/christianity/
... a great site for christians who want to test their faith.
http://www.ministerturnsatheist.org/
... a christian fanatic who tried to prove christianity, and ended up an athiest.
Do not leave anyone out clam...
http://www.caseforacreator.com/home.php ...the name speaks for itself!

[Code_2025]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by R8isGreat
[B]
clam...I have to disagree with you when you say "Chemical reactions take place 24/7 without any intelligence behind it."

R8isGreat, sorry dude....but that is the fact. chemicals reactions do occur 24-7 without any intelligence behind it. Atoms are in constant motion and when they collide they impart energy on each other and if this energy exceeds the activation energy then a reactant complex forms which eventually form the product. there are billions of atoms around us and in us...and the chances of them colliding and imparting sufficient energy to form a product is immense....no intelligence form behind this!

This does not go to say that i dont believe in God....coz I do...I am just a person who questions things and wants to know more...I just dont take things as it is and accept them unless I make up my mind that its is right and has a logic behind it.

I like to question. I am a christian by faith and this i believe should not stop one from questioning. I do pray and I do believe in God.

I just want to know more and understand more. science at the moment is still in its nutshell and we are understnading more each day. people turn to god for answers when they cant find answers themselves...I am not saying we can find all answers, but we can try nonetheless.

If we consider the whole creator scene...that there was a creator who made all these then I do get curious about few things.

I do believe in bible but dont understand few things:

a human male has an :"x" and a "y" chromosome in their 23rd pair. The females always give "x" whereas the male can give either "x" or "y". If male gives "x" then we have a baby gal but if the male gives "y" then we have a boy. Mary was a virgin and jesus was of virgin birth. If he was of a virgin birth and jesus was a guy then where did the "y" chromosome come in his chromosome pattern....mary just gave "x"....there was no guy...he was of a virgin birth...so where did the "y" chromosome come from?

we might say "divine intervention"...but I am sorry it does not justify a thing!

2nd point is that if God made earth and placed adam and eve here....then why did he put "lucifer" here as well? Was it some kinda test to see if humans could withstand the satans influences which even the angels of heaven couldnt?

As for evolution, explain why different species have the same embroyonic structure during early stages of development.....give me an answer from creationist point of view....

Again, I would like to tell all friends here, that I am enjoying this debate and find it very educational from both religious and scientific point of view.


[QUOTE]Originally posted by R8isGreat
[B]
For example...the 2nd law of thermodynamics otherwise known as the law of entropy states that energy is degraded irreversibly. This is the principle of the degradation of energy. This law when coupled to the first law, is the backbone of how we understand all the energy transfers inthe universe (including biological ones). Yet we see that while throughout the billions of years that our universe (which remains a closed system)...


How can you say that the system is closed? Do you have an explaination that there is something out of this universe...otherwise you shouldnt say its closed....I really wanna know whats outside this universe...coz you mention its closed...

Laws of thermodynamics....there were just three laws...now a fourth as well: the zeroth law of thermodynamic....bro we are still in the process of understanding the world around us.

:bye:

[R8isGreat]

"...bro we are still in the process of understanding the world around us..."
-My friend you are correct. We have barley breached the surface of understanding anything about our world. And because of this we cannot simply dismiss a creator, who by definition is greater than understanding.

When you claim "...chemicals reactions do occur 24-7 without any intelligence behind it..." I have to disagree and so does my friend. His name is Aristotle. He was a secular philosipher who wrote a work entitled Physics. He concluded there must be an unmoved mover. He believed that since everything is moved by something and since motion is eternal, Aristotle concludes that there must be something that imparts motion without itself being moved; otherwise, there would be an infinite regress of movers, the moved and instruments of moving, which is unacceptable (Physics 8.5). (An axiom for Aristotle is that an infinite regress is impossible.) According to Aristotle, all movable things are only potentially in motion, and require something else to act upon them in order to be set in motion: "So it is clear that in all these cases the thing does not move itself, but it contains within itself the source of motion—not of moving something or of causing motion, but of suffering it." (Physics 8.4; 255b 29-31). So by that supurb logic, no movement at all occurs without a prime mover begining it all.

"I do believe in bible but dont understand few things:"
-As I have studied the Bible I find that any apparant contradiction is caused by either my ignorance, or an unclear reading. That is why I have studied both Hebrew and Greek. Not that todays translations lack in accuracy, but I want the original language to aid me. God has not called for complete understanding in our relationship with Him. Otherwise there would be no faith in our Faith. We err when we apply our rules to Him that is not known to us without revelation in the first place.

-Paul tells us in Romans that "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse." This means that God has made Himself known to us already by His creation. This is general revelation. The fact that we are having this discussion means that He has been revealed. And He is not revealed by any agent other than Himself.

-Some seek proof. John the Baptist did. He sent his diciples to Jesus to see if He was the real Christ. Jesus said "Go your way, and tell John what things ye have seen and heard; how that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, to the poor the gospel is preached." Matthew wrote those words, and died for the case of Christianity. Matthew spent 24 hrs a day, 365 days a year, for 3 years with Jesus. If He had seen Jesus as a fraud, then He would not have died for serving Him. And Matthews gopel was published within the lifetime of all those who knew Jesus, and If he would have lied, then his Gospel account would not have survived.

-The whole Satan question is that Satan, Like us has the option to follow the Lord or not. He chose not to, and 1/3 of the angels in heaven followed him. God has given us free will, and we chose to follow Him or not. He says in Revelation "I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me." So not only does He desire you to follow Him, but His hand is reaching out.

-The difference is that so many here and elsewhere demand emperical proof of everything. Knowledge of God cannot come from anywhere but God Himself. That is why it is called special revelation. The truth is that in a court of law, it is possible to meet the burdan of proof to proove Jesus existed. We have many eyewitness accounts, we have supporting evidence, we have a continuing following. Some Greek Philosphers have less than 100 manuscripts recording their words and they are redaly accepted as true. But we have over 5000 copies of the New Testament. There is only a fraction of copies of Shakespere compared to the New Testament. Yet we acept Shakespere. Again, those who want to believe do, and those that dont want to believe will not.

-Again Paul said in Romans "Let God be true but every man a liar." I side with His wisdom over my own any day. And John said in Revelation " Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. Even so, Amen."

[clam]

Originally posted by R8isGreat
To begin...It has been posted on page 1 that "If you want to be a creatonist, it's best not to venture into scientific/logical territory." This is obviously an ad hominem (against the man) attack, coupled with a red herring attack, which has no place in a civilized discussion, which I withold judjment whether or not this discussion falls into that catagory or not.

More advice than an attack. Science follows strick rules to achieve the truth, beyond a reasonable doubt. "Sience" means knowledge. A theory is not science. If you have a theory, you have to prove it before it becomes science. Something creationists as of yet, have not able to do. Yet, they demand their theories to be excepted as sience. You have to know, not think you know.
Creationism is Philosophy. Sience has its roots in Philosophy, but they are not the same.




clam...I have to disagree with you when you say "Chemical reactions take place 24/7 without any intelligence behind it." I believe that the reason you and others like you hold to this mantra is that a designer so great knowingly keeps all physcial and biological functions regulated. For example...the 2nd law of thermodynamics otherwise known as the law of entropy states that energy is degraded irreversibly. This is the principle of the degradation of energy. This law when coupled to the first law, is the backbone of how we understand all the energy transfers inthe universe (including biological ones). Yet we see that while throughout the billions of years that our universe (which remains a closed system) has existed, the whole system runs like clockwork. Why is that? Why do saturns rings not lose the energy they possess and fall into the planet? WHy does our planet revolve around the sun, which revolves as well, not lose energy and break apart. It is either because there is a greater force holding all things together, or because our understading of energy and how it is transfered is fundementally flawed. As a result of eiher, science as we kno it has limits.

You do not understand the basic laws of physiscs.

Newton's 1st law of motion:
Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.

Your version:
Every object in a state of uniform motion will slow down and stop unless an external force is applied to it.

The reason why planets keep moving, is not b/c there is a force that moves them, but the opposite, it's a lack of a force to stop them. The reason why they revolve around heavy objects is b/c both gravity and centrifugal forces are working on them. The earth can't fly away b/c of the gravity, but it can't fall into the sun b/c of the centrifugal force. So it revolves around it.

And the universe does not run like clockwork. It's a violent distructive place. We happen to be in a safe place region, were for instance the gravity of Jupiter prevents stuff in space from hitting the earth.

Thermodynamics deal with the movement of molecules, but they pretty much follow Newtons laws of physics. Temperature is the movement of molecules. They will only pass on their thermo-dynamic energy when they come in contact with each other (you can't burn your hand unless you come in contact with something hot). If you want to apply this to the earth, then their have to be other objects for the earth to come in contact with. If the earth bounces off another object, it will loose energy, and maybe fall into the sun. This object is the external force.

Energy is never lost. It is transfered onto different objects, and into different states.



As to the anti-christian comments concerning the Bible being errant, and a trichotamy of texts, and all sorts of other comments, I have no response. Ultimatly people will believe whatever they desire to. I could type for hours and disprove all your claims about Biblical errancy, but it would ultimatly waste my effort and not convince you, or others who hold to your beliefs, or lack thereof.

There are 2 world views that exist. Those who willingly submit themselves to God, and those who submit themselves to no one other than themselves. I take it that you are the latter, due to you incorrectly titleing the Creator with a lowercase g. Some will claim that ths is a redusctionist philosphy, but time will tell, and the truth will be made manifest to all.

I submit to reality.

http://www.churchofreality.org/wisdom/welcome_home/
I'm not a member, but it is amusing.

I write 'god' instead of 'God', because I wasn't talking about a specific one. Christianity alone has hundreds of versions of god, that all have different agendas. I use Jahweh, if I want to be specific, and talk about the true biblical version of god.


Originally posted by sturs6 Do not leave anyone out clam...
http://www.caseforacreator.com/home.php ...the name speaks for itself!

I didn't find "the case" on the website. They just want me to buy stuff. He's lawyer (degree in BS) and he wants my money for "his case". Must be one fantastic case then that it costs money, while results of scientific research are published for free.
He must not be aware of a story in the new testament where a character named Jezus chases away merchants from the temple, b/c Jezus didn't think it was right to profit from faith. Maybe our lawyer friend didn't get that far yet.
If the the bible is truth, then I'll meet up with him in hell.

The Devil is a contradiction. He is supposed to be Jahweh's enemy, yet in hell he does Jahweh's work. If the Devil is evil, then hell should be a reward for the evil. Not a punishent for the evil. It does not make sense that the Devil endorses evil, and at the same time is the one that punishes it.

[R8isGreat]

"...Science follows strick rules to achieve the truth, beyond a reasonable doubt." The earth is flat beyond all reasonable doubt. That is a fact. Oh wait it isnt. Galileo, if you dont quit saying unscientific things like the Earth revolves around the sun then you are going to jail. Oh wait the earth does revolve around the sun. Everyone was wrong about those "facts" but science is much better now.

"...Newton's 1st law of motion:
Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.
Your version:
Every object in a state of uniform motion will slow down and stop unless an external force is applied to it."
-Not true. Do not restate my apology ina way I didnt state it. My claim is very consistant with Newton's laws. There are massive forces pulling against every planet, every star, and every piece of debris in the universe, and yet it is all balanced like a tank on a pin. Oh yea...that was an accident I forgot. And orbital decay does not occur where it should...But that is a gravitational accident too.
-Also...dont forget the opposite implications as well...that an object staye at REST unless acted on by another object. Pelase refer to my diaogue concerning Aristotles Prime Mover above to answer any questions. If you disagree with, this forum will be of no aid for a rebuttle since he no longer is with us.

"...And the universe does not run like clockwork. It's a violent distructive place. We happen to be in a safe place region.."
-How fortunate that an ecosystem developed here that is more complicated than math can compute, not to mention billion celled intelligent life that accedently came from some random amino acids. Otherwise we would have been destroyed long ago.

"... I submit to reality."
-You mean your perception of it. From creation to the aopclypse I have a much different reality than you do. One that Beethoven counted as his highest Joy in his 9th symphony. One that Michelangelo thought was his lifes work representing the creation of Adam. Leonardo di Vinci with his Last Supper captured the last monments of CHrist on this Earth. The majority of Rembrants works were of Christ or Biblical accounts. These were nor foolish people. They were not "simple" because they do not live in todays postmodern society. The Billions of Christians who have lived have not all been "duped" by some secret society. The 12 Apostles did not die for something they knew to be false. The Jews did not strictly follow the TANAK (Old Testament) because it was but one of many Old Testaments they had. It was an unbroken chain from Moses to the Intertestamental period. Any sort of form critical nonsence, or any Deuteronmistic Theory mumbo jumbo does not hold up, and any comparison of Isaiah from the Masoretic Text (the codex Leningradensis) and the DSS 1QaIsa will put to rest any text deqradation issues. Especially when you compare the LXX with the resuts. And in any New Testament basic book you will find that in the 5,000+ fragments that we possess, there is not one varience that affects any doctrinal or theoligal tenit the Christian Faith clings to. As a matter of SCIENCE, the veracity of the Bible we have today is complete and anyone who says differently is either not qualified to speak on the issue, has a rival adgenda, or is trying to make money. It is completly unnecessary to park your brain to believe in God, and the truth is that those following the teachings of the Bible tend to be smarter than others because they have to read for themselves, dot their own work, and not rely on the musings of a disgruntled pastor who didnt feel he was loved and quit the church to become a cynic.

"...Christianity alone has hundreds of versions of god..."
-This is untrue in every way. While Yahweh is the covenant name for the Lord, it is but one of His names to reveal his Character to His people. His title Lord of Hosts is used, His title God that Heals is used, His title Prince of Peace, Everlasting Father is used. These are not different gods. These are diferent ways to refer to the same person. I can call you a car fan, a computer savy guy, an American, and a citizen of humanity and still refer to the same person. Any belief that CHristianity serves many gods is a FUNDAMENTAL lack of understanding of the following, as well as a cause to believe the Bible did not lead you to this conclusion, but an interesting website.

-This discussion will never be resolved. If I responded to every minutiae that you or everyone else found on a website concerning my faith my Apology would be longer than Plato's. The scripture speaks for itself. 2 Timothy 3:16 tells us that All scripture in the Bible is God breathed. Psalm 19:1 tells us that the Law of the Lord is perfect. Psalm 2 speaks of how the Kings of the world unite in their "wisdom" and the Lord in His Heaven laughs at them. For all our intelegence we are not wise. We think we have replaced God but we are fools. I will never convince you or anyone else who does not believe. But please remember that the God that you do or do not believe in is not impressed by humanity figuring out that humans and monkeys look similar in embryonic form.

[Benman]

Originally posted by clam
Jesus is also not a historical figure.


First, to even question the historical existence of Jesus, would show you are trying to be particularly obtuse. In fact, the evidence of Jesus existence is hardly limited to the Bible. The Jewish historian Josephus (Hebrew name: Joseph ben Mattathias) circa 37-100 AD, who wrote the twenty volume Jewish Antiquities of Jewish History mentions John the Baptist, Jesus of Nazareth, and Jesus' brother James in his work. Documented writings from a professional historian to name just one example of his existence. BTW, December 25th does indeed have pagan origins but has nothing to do with Creationism so I won’t go into detail.


Originally posted by clam
One genesis takes six days, the other is one event.


The Hebrew word yohm, translated “day”, can mean different lengths of time and can also be used in a figurative and even symbolic sense. Elsewhere in the Bible, the same word day (yohm) has even been likened to a thousand years (Psalms 90:4; 2 Peter3:8,1) so it would be more than reasonable to conclude that the same “day” or yohm, symbolized a time period much longer than a 24 hour period (more than likely, each “day” was several thousand years in length). Now, as for why one verse calls it one event, the other, several days, that isn’t really so hard to explain is it? Didn’t we just have the Geneva Auto Show? Wasn’t it one “event”? Yet, it took place over a course of many “days” so it most certainly would not be contradictory to say that it was one event that took place over many “days”. Quite reasonable actually. Again, just common sense.


Originally posted by clam
the original 10 commandments tell you to sacrifice your first born.
That is simple not true (and ridiculous too boot), all the Commandments are as follows:
1:Must not have other gods
2:Must not make carven images
3:Must not take up name of Jehovah (Yahweh, YHWH, JHVH) in a worthless way
4: Sabbath day sacred
5: Honor your father and mother
6:Must not murder (kinda hard to sacrifice your kid with that one)
7: Must not commit adultery
8:Must not steal
9:Must not testify false witness
10: Must not covet

Nowhere is the mention of sacrificing a first born. Perhaps you have that confused with the account of Baal worship (which did practice child sacrifice).


Originally posted by clam
How he made man from clay, and woman from rib.

So you’re saying it is likely to come from apes, yet it is not likely for God to use parts of the Earth to form Man? Or that for matter, his spouse? That doesn’t seem reasonable, since if evolution is true, all matter came from “dust”. Sort of contradictory, no?


Originally posted by clam
It's amusing that the ramblings from some guy in a hut 1800 years ago, have caused so much misery.

I’m glad Moses (the human writer of Genesis) is amusing for you. However, getting back to the “Creation vs Evolution discussion, the bringing up of Moses is a very good point and I’m glad you did. When Moses wrote Genesis (most believe it to be completed @ 1513 B.C.E. or so), he listed in order the account of the Creation “Days” and what took place. In order, he lists:

1: A beginning
2: Primitive Earth in darkness and enshrouded by heavy gases and water
3: Light
4: An expanse or atmosphere
5: Large areas of dry land
6: Land plants
7: Sun, moon and stars discernible in the expanse
8: sea monsters and flying creatures
9: Wild and tame beasts, mammals
10: Man

Now, for some “ramblings” as you call it, I’d say the man did pretty good! Don’t you? After all, even evolutionists agree with this general order. So what are the chances this man Moses just “rambled” all ten in correct order on his first try (after all, he did have scientific study groups to act as a sounding board)? Statistics (a favorite of evolutionists) show the odds to be 1 in 3,628,800! Not likely, unless he had some inspiration.


Originally posted by clam
Evolution goes against our programming

Agree with you there, although an evolutionist shouldn’t use the word programming so loosely, would suggest to one that we had a programmer to begin with. After all, every program needs a creator. :D



Originally posted by clam
Creationism works with our programming…

Again, agree with you, but there’s that use of the word “program” again. Again, such words suggest Creator. :D


Originally posted by clam
…but nothing can back it up

I would disagree. I would venture that there is a multitude of intelligence behind the design of creatures on Earth and with the cosmos in general.


Originally posted by clam
So the practical application of DNA, proved the evolution theory
Hardly. It just as much “proves” the existence of a highly advanced Creator as it does evolution.

Evolution still lacks a foundation. The original theory of Evolution by Charles Darwin in his “Origin of Species” didn’t even give us the “origin”. A London Times writer, Christopher Booker wrote, “It was a beautifully simple and attractive theory. The only trouble was that it was full of holes. Here, we have the supreme irony that a book which has become famous for explaining the origin of species in fact does nothing of the kind”.

Another scientific quote was by David Raup of Chicago’s Field Museum, “Some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record… have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information” (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, 1979 pg 25). As this was even nearly thirty years ago!

In Evolution from Space, authors Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe state: “The problem for biology is to reach a simple beginning. Fossil residues of ancient life-forms discovered in the rocks do not reveal a simple beginning so the evolutionary theory lacks a proper foundation.”

Interestingly, like you mention, evolution goes against our “programming”, so that is why scientists have tried so hard to “prove” its existence. Creationism on the other hand, doesn’t seem too hard at all to prove. The main, and dare I say, only hang up with Creationism, is that some do not simply want to believe that a being could have always existed. It is “impossible” in their minds eye. Yet, all these same people that say it is impossible for a God to have always existed without a beginning, expect people who believe in Creationism to accept that matter had always existed without beginning. That life itself had always existed! No, evolutionist do not come right out and say this, but it is implied. How else can life start, unless something was first. Some that it “evolved” from. So again, where is the foundation, the missing link. The “faith” needed for Creationism is no different than for evolutionism.

An interesting side note on “origin” of life, remember that there are over 100 amino acids, yet only 20 are required for life’s proteins (since you brought up the difference of mechanical vs chemical reactions). These amino acids come in two shapes Some are (figuratively speaking) “right handed”, some “left handed”. Should they be formed at random (evolutionary theory of the “organic soup”) it is highly likely that some (if not half) would be “left handed” and some or half would be “right handed”. Yet, of the 20 amino acids used in producing life’s proteins, all twenty are “left handed! How is that possible by “chance”? The Origin Of Life by Physicist John D. Bernal admits, “It must be admitted that the explanation still remains one of the most difficult parts of the structural aspects of life to explain”.

Enjoying the discussion


Originally posted by clam
The Devil is a contradiction. He is supposed to be Jahweh's enemy, yet in hell he does Jahweh's work. If the Devil is evil, then hell should be a reward for the evil. Not a punishent for the evil. It does not make sense that the Devil endorses evil, and at the same time is the one that punishes it.

A question easily answered, but I'll have to do it by PM as the public forum won't allow it.

BTW, as for Code_2025, I would be happy to answer all those questions, but it would be best to do so by PM. Believe me, it would be easier to do so on a public forum for all to see, but that is clearly against the rules of rs6.com “no religion or politics” (and this thread is getting reeeeaaal close to being too far) and since I’ve already been warned on the political front, I’d do best to avoid being warned on religion as well. :D We’ll have to keep this thread strictly Creationism vs Evolutionism.

Ben:addict:

[Code_2025]

Originally posted by R8isGreat
"There are massive forces pulling against every planet, every star, and every piece of debris in the universe, and yet it is all balanced like a tank on a pin.

But please remember that the God that you do or do not believe in is not impressed by humanity figuring out that humans and monkeys look similar in embryonic form.


Meteorites...are being pulled jupitor and saturn every second....even earth pulls meteorite by its gravitational pull though much less in magnitude then the giants such as jupitor and saturn. But unfortunately there is no balance to this attraction.....there is impact and explosion.....

again let me mention here, that I am not trying to please anyone or ignoring the existence of God, I am merely learning and sharing knowledge and I do agree with "ben" that this topic is kinda getting off-hand....I guess its my fault to some extent and apologies for that.:hihi:

Guys, this debate is great....I did mention before, that the appendix in the human body is a vestigial organ of some digestive function but is a redundant organ now. If we deny evolution then how can this be explained from creationist point of view?

:vhmmm:

[clam]

Originally posted by R8isGreat
"...Science follows strick rules to achieve the truth, beyond a reasonable doubt." The earth is flat beyond all reasonable doubt. That is a fact. Oh wait it isnt. Galileo, if you dont quit saying unscientific things like the Earth revolves around the sun then you are going to jail. Oh wait the earth does revolve around the sun. Everyone was wrong about those "facts" but science is much better now.

People never universely believed that the earth is flat. It's a myth that can be traced back to a book written in the 1800th, but I can't come up with the name. There is no evidence of a universal believe that the earth is flat. You only have to look at the horizon to see that it isn't.
Some cultures did think that the earth was the centre of everything. But like I said before, 'thinking it' is not science. With science you have to prove it. A lot of ancient cultures had a great, and fairly accurate knowledge of astronomie, and did know the earth revolved around the sun. They found this out through observation, and not 'thinking it'.

What the bible says astronomie:

Revelation 6:13. "And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind."
Job 9:6. "Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble."
I Samuel 2:8. "..for the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and he hath set the world upon them."
Psalm 104:5, "Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever."
I Chronicles 16:30, "Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved."

... to be continued

[Benman]

Originally posted by Code_2025


Guys, this debate is great....I did mention before, that the appendix in the human body is a vestigial organ of some digestive function but is a redundant organ now. If we deny evolution then how can this be explained from creationist point of view?

:vhmmm:
Interesting website (although evolutionary biased): http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vestiges/appendix.html

A quote: Throughout medical history many possible functions for the appendix have been offered, examined, and refuted, including exocrine, endocrine, and neuromuscular functions. Today, a growing consensus of medical specialists holds that the most likely candidate for the function of the human appendix is as a part of the gastrointestinal immune system. Several reasonable arguments exist for suspecting that the appendix may have a function in immunity.

Bottom line, they don't know, but that hardly proves it doesn't have a purpose. In time, one will be discovered as is all things.


Originally posted by clam
People never universely believed that the earth is flat. It's a myth that can be traced back to a book written in the 1800th... Clam, I've heard the same thing, but before that, people did believe the Earth was supported by four large elephants.:D

The Scriptures cited by you fail to prove any unscientific statements. The entire book of Revelation is filled with symbolic writings, The Job scripture is Job responding to God. I Sam's literal Hebrew translation reads, "For to Jehovah (Yahweh, YHWH, JHVH) belong Earth's supports (which they do), and He places upon them the productive lands". Psalms simply states that the Earth has a foundation and considering every planet has a "foundation" of some kind or another, that hardly proves anything as well. Also, Chronicles is also simply stating the everlasting quality of the Earth, nothing more.

Here's one for scientific accuarcy, " He is streching the out the north over the empty place, hanging the Earth upon nothing": Job 26:7 Very next verse: "Wrapping up the waters in his clouds". This from the same person who said God's shakes the Earth. Suddenly a change of heart? No, obviously he was made to uderstand things, afterall, how could someone living 1657-1473 B.C.E. know that the Earth was hung upon nothing (as I already said, that was NOT the common belief at the time)? Or that the waters were being wrapped up (or literal word translation "pulled" up in the clouds? Again, not common knowledge at the time.

Science has always been full of false theories, some that lasted centuries (you mentioned some) like the revolving around the Sun (or rather, as was thought in the scientific community at the time, the Sun revolved around the Earth, and for that matter, the whole universe catered around us!:p ). These were not scientific opinions, these were scientific facts! Which by the way proved quite wrong. :D

Another, in the early days before British naval supremecy (1700s), scurvey was a big killer of sailors. One man (James Lind) dicovered that a diet consisting in limes (more accurately, Vit C) would prevent the disease. He was considered a quack, a loon, a mad man by the "scientific" community that thought the idea of foods to cure a disease was mad. Incidently, nearly one hundred years later when the British fleet did use more foods containing Vit C (and limes:p ), the death rates dramatically declined. The British fleet now had a distinct advantage over non lime eating crews. Also, hence the name "limey". Point: science was dead wrong about something so simple and took more than one hundred years to give that man any credit. Faith in science is not always going to work.

Ben:addict:

[clam]

-Not true. Do not restate my apology ina way I didnt state it. My claim is very consistant with Newton's laws. There are massive forces pulling against every planet, every star, and every piece of debris in the universe, and yet it is all balanced like a tank on a pin. Oh yea...that was an accident I forgot. And orbital decay does not occur where it should...But that is a gravitational accident too.

You said that the laws of thermodynamic apply to a planet, and therefor it should loose its energy (in this case, its momentum). But energy is never lost. In the case of thermodynamics, it's passed on by collision. You cannot apply thermo dynamics to the earth, unless there is a collision with an object of equal mass. To suggest that the earth will loose its momentum without an external force is a contradiction of Newton 1st law.



-Also...dont forget the opposite implications as well...that an object staye at REST unless acted on by another object. Pelase refer to my diaogue concerning Aristotles Prime Mover above to answer any questions. If you disagree with, this forum will be of no aid for a rebuttle since he no longer is with us.

My rebuttle would be aimed at you, since you stand by the work of Aristotles. The unmoved mover does not contradict evolution. The Bing Bang theory seems to work with what we can observe in space. If there was nothing before the big bang, than it would be the unmoved mover.
I however, believe in the enternal loop. There was no beginning. The universe has always been, as has the energy contained within it. A constant implosion, and explosion. It would take me enternity to prove it though. But it has a high probability.



-How fortunate that an ecosystem developed here that is more complicated than math can compute, not to mention billion celled intelligent life that accedently came from some random amino acids. Otherwise we would have been destroyed long ago.

There are more stars in the universe than there are grains of sand on the earth, including on the bottom of the oceans. That's how big it is. The chances of the right elements coming together, and after millions of years forming life as we know it, are pretty damn good.



"... I submit to reality."
-You mean your perception of it. From creation to the aopclypse I have a much different reality than you do. One that Beethoven counted as his highest Joy in his 9th symphony. One that Michelangelo thought was his lifes work representing the creation of Adam. Leonardo di Vinci with his Last Supper captured the last monments of CHrist on this Earth. The majority of Rembrants works were of Christ or Biblical accounts. These were nor foolish people. They were not "simple" because they do not live in todays postmodern society. The Billions of Christians who have lived have not all been "duped" by some secret society. The 12 Apostles did not die for something they knew to be false. The Jews did not strictly follow the TANAK (Old Testament) because it was but one of many Old Testaments they had. It was an unbroken chain from Moses to the Intertestamental period. Any sort of form critical nonsence, or any Deuteronmistic Theory mumbo jumbo does not hold up, and any comparison of Isaiah from the Masoretic Text (the codex Leningradensis) and the DSS 1QaIsa will put to rest any text deqradation issues. Especially when you compare the LXX with the resuts. And in any New Testament basic book you will find that in the 5,000+ fragments that we possess, there is not one varience that affects any doctrinal or theoligal tenit the Christian Faith clings to. As a matter of SCIENCE, the veracity of the Bible we have today is complete and anyone who says differently is either not qualified to speak on the issue, has a rival adgenda, or is trying to make money. It is completly unnecessary to park your brain to believe in God, and the truth is that those following the teachings of the Bible tend to be smarter than others because they have to read for themselves, dot their own work, and not rely on the musings of a disgruntled pastor who didnt feel he was loved and quit the church to become a cynic.
Reality is not open to interpretation. That's kind of its definition.

The artists of the time worked for the aristocracy, who used religion as an excuse for their parasitic exsistance (god save the queen), and hired artists as PR.
Nuns, monks, priests, popes and the sort were invariably members of the aristocracy.
Karel De Grote, member of the aristocracy, at one time the ruler of Europe, and born about 20km from were I'm sitting now, is the one that chose christianity as the religion for his empire. Before that it was just one of many religions, with one of many messiahs. Anyone who would not except Jezus, would be killed. That's why it prevailed. It has always been a tool for the aristocracy.

Michelangelo was a homosexual, and was commisioned by a friend, an aristocrat who got to be the pope, to do the front of a whole building, which included the statue of David. He was offered so much money that he stopped his work on the grave of the previous pope (the one that commisioned the 16th chapel), though keeping the advance that he had gotten for that. From his writings it is very obvious he was an athiest.
Leonardo di Vinci, included a woman by the side of Jezus on the painting you mention. Both of them form the symbol V. He was also a homosexual, and disected people. From his writings it is very obvious he was an athiest.
Rembrandt also worked on commision. He lived in sin with two of his house maids, and knocked up one of them. The other took him to court for false promises of marriage. His religious painting were a minority. He mainly painted historic events that glorified the aristocracy.

The rest of the paragraph makes no sense to me.




"...Christianity alone has hundreds of versions of god..."
-This is untrue in every way. While Yahweh is the covenant name for the Lord, it is but one of His names to reveal his Character to His people. His title Lord of Hosts is used, His title God that Heals is used, His title Prince of Peace, Everlasting Father is used. These are not different gods. These are diferent ways to refer to the same person. I can call you a car fan, a computer savy guy, an American, and a citizen of humanity and still refer to the same person. Any belief that CHristianity serves many gods is a FUNDAMENTAL lack of understanding of the following, as well as a cause to believe the Bible did not lead you to this conclusion, but an interesting website.

Every different interpretation, is a different god. The things you say I am do not contradict each other. But but the things that people say about god, do. One likes condoms, the other doesn't. One wants you to be amish, the other has no problem with the empty persuit of having stuff. And they can't all be right, even if people they think they are.

I'm Flemish, btw.



-This discussion will never be resolved. If I responded to every minutiae that you or everyone else found on a website concerning my faith my Apology would be longer than Plato's. The scripture speaks for itself. 2 Timothy 3:16 tells us that All scripture in the Bible is God breathed. Psalm 19:1 tells us that the Law of the Lord is perfect. Psalm 2 speaks of how the Kings of the world unite in their "wisdom" and the Lord in His Heaven laughs at them. For all our intelegence we are not wise. We think we have replaced God but we are fools. I will never convince you or anyone else who does not believe. But please remember that the God that you do or do not believe in is not impressed by humanity figuring out that humans and monkeys look similar in embryonic form.

I do know the bible. From age 3 till 18 I was a catholic schoolboy. Catholocism is the original christianity, and I was born into it. I'm even ginger, it doesn't get more catholic than that. I never bought it, but wasn't against it till I started seeing how much misery is justified with these stories.

[clam]

(not a religious discussion, but a historical one, in accordance with forum regulations)



First, to even question the historical existence of Jesus, would show you are trying to be particularly obtuse. In fact, the evidence of Jesus existence is hardly limited to the Bible. The Jewish historian Josephus (Hebrew name: Joseph ben Mattathias) circa 37-100 AD, who wrote the twenty volume Jewish Antiquities of Jewish History mentions John the Baptist, Jesus of Nazareth, and Jesus' brother James in his work. Documented writings from a professional historian to name just one example of his existence. BTW, December 25th does indeed have pagan origins but has nothing to do with Creationism so I won’t go into detail.


The script is most likely a forgery...

from: http://www.atheists.org/christianity/didjesusexist.html

About this time, there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared. 12
Now no loyal Pharisee would say Jesus had been the Messiah. That Josephus could report that Jesus had been restored to life "on the third day" and not be convinced by this astonishing bit of information is beyond belief. Worse yet is the fact that the story of Jesus is intrusive in Josephus' narrative and can be seen to be an interpolation even in an English translation of the Greek text. Right after the wondrous passage quoted above, Josephus goes on to say, "About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder..." Josephus had previously been talking about awful things Pilate had done to the Jews in general, and one can easily understand why an interpolator would have chosen this particular spot. But his ineptitude in not changing the wording of the bordering text left a "literary seam" (what rhetoricians might term aporia) that sticks out like a pimpled nose.
The fact that Josephus was not convinced by this or any other Christian claim is clear from the statement of the church father Origen (ca. 185-ca. 154 CE) - who dealt extensively with Josephus - that Josephus did not believe in Jesus as the Messiah, i.e., as "the Christ." Moreover, the disputed passage was never cited by early Christian apologists such as Clement of Alexandria (ca.150-ca. 215 CE), who certainly would have made use of such ammunition had he had it!

The first person to make mention of this obviously forged interpolation into the text of Josephus' history was the church father Eusebius, in 324 CE. It is quite likely that Eusebius himself did some of the forging. As late as 891, Photius in his Bibliotheca, which devoted three "Codices" to the works of Josephus, shows no awareness of the passage whatsoever even though he reviews the sections of the Antiquities in which one would expect the disputed passage to be found. Clearly, the testimonial was absent from his copy of Antiquities of the Jews. 13 The question can probably be laid to rest by noting that as late as the sixteenth century, according to Rylands, 14 a scholar named Vossius had a manuscript of Josephus from which the passage was wanting.



The Hebrew word yohm, translated “day”, can mean different lengths of time and can also be used in a figurative and even symbolic sense. Elsewhere in the Bible, the same word day (yohm) has even been likened to a thousand years (Psalms 90:4; 2 Peter3:8,1) so it would be more than reasonable to conclude that the same “day” or yohm, symbolized a time period much longer than a 24 hour period (more than likely, each “day” was several thousand years in length). Now, as for why one verse calls it one event, the other, several days, that isn’t really so hard to explain is it? Didn’t we just have the Geneva Auto Show? Wasn’t it one “event”? Yet, it took place over a course of many “days” so it most certainly would not be contradictory to say that it was one event that took place over many “days”. Quite reasonable actually. Again, just common sense.

Even it that were true (then how come the sabbath is a day), the two stories still have contradicting information. It's a catholic theacher who pointed it out to the class. He also explained from which older religions the two stories come from. For some reason it worked for him, but that was his job after all.



That is simple not true (and ridiculous too boot), all the Commandments are as follows:
....
Nowhere is the mention of sacrificing a first born. Perhaps you have that confused with the account of Baal worship (which did practice child sacrifice).

Why would I make it up?

Exodus, verses 12-26.

1. Be careful not to make a covenant with the natives of the land against which you are going, or they will prove a snare in your midst. No: you shall demolish their altars, smash their sacred pillars and cut down their sacred poles.
2. You shall not prostrate yourselves to any other god. For the Lord's name is the Jealous God, and a jealous god he is. Be careful not to make a covenant with the natives of the land, or, when they go wantonly after their gods and sacrifice to them, you may be invited, any one of you, to partake of their sacrifices, and marry your sons to their daughters, and when their daughters go wantonly after their gods, they may lead your sons astray too.
3. You shall not make yourselves gods of cast metal.
4. You shall observe the pilgrim-feast of Unleavened Bread: for seven days, as I have commanded you, you shall eat unleavened cakes at the appointed time, in the month of Abib...
5. Every first birth of the womb belongs to me, and the males of all your herds, both cattle and sheep. You may buy back the first birth of an ass by giving a sheep instead, but if you do not buy it, you must break its neck. You shall buy back all the first-born of your sons...
6. For six days you shall work, but on the seventh day you shall cease work; even at ploughing time and harvest you shall cease work.
7. You shall observe the pilgrim-feast of Weeks, the firstfruits of the wheat harvest, and the pilgrim-feast of Ingathering at the turn of the year. Three times a year all your males shall come into the presence of the Lord...
8. You shall not offer the blood of my sacrifice at the same time as anything leavened, nor shall any portion of the victim of the pilgrim-feast of Passover remain overnight till morning.
9. You shall bring the choicest firstfruits of your soil to the house of the Lord your God.
10. You shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk.

They should put these up at courtrooms in the bible belt of the US. A lot more entertainment value. Wonder if they'll do it. Probably not, they don't even follow the known version of the better known version.

This is the full text of the usual ten commandments:

Deuteronomy 5:6-21

Deut. 5:6 I am Yahweh thy god, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.
5:7 Thou shalt have none other gods before me.
5:8 Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth:
5:9 Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I Yahweh, thy god am a jealous god, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me,
5:10 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments.
5:11 Thou shalt not take the name of Yahweh thy god in vain: for Yahweh will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
5:12 Keep the Sabbath day to sanctify it, as Yahweh thy god hath commanded thee.
5:13 Six days thou shalt labour, and do all thy work:
5:14 But the seventh day is the Sabbath of Yahweh thy god: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy male slave, nor thy female slave, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy male slave and thy female slave may rest as well as thou.
5:15 And remember that thou wast a slave in the land of Egypt, and that Yahweh thy god brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore Yahweh thy god commanded thee to keep the Sabbath day.
5:16 Honour thy father and thy mother, as Yahweh thy god hath commanded thee; that thy days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with thee, in the land which Yahweh thy god giveth thee.
5:17 Thou shalt not kill.
5:18 Neither shalt thou commit adultery.
5:19 Neither shalt thou steal.
5:20 Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbour.
5:21 Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour's wife, neither shalt thou cast an evil eye upon thy neighbour's house, his field, or his male slave, or his female slave, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbour's.
5:22 These words Yahweh spake unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice: and he added no more. And he wrote them in two tables of stone, and delivered them unto me.



So you’re saying it is likely to come from apes, yet it is not likely for God to use parts of the Earth to form Man? Or that for matter, his spouse? That doesn’t seem reasonable, since if evolution is true, all matter came from “dust”. Sort of contradictory, no?


No, it contradics with the first chapter, in which he zaps things into exsistance.



I’m glad Moses (the human writer of Genesis) is amusing for you. However, getting back to the “Creation vs Evolution discussion, the bringing up of Moses is a very good point and I’m glad you did. When Moses wrote Genesis (most believe it to be completed @ 1513 B.C.E. or so), he listed in order the account of the Creation “Days” and what took place. In order, he lists:

1: A beginning
2: Primitive Earth in darkness and enshrouded by heavy gases and water
3: Light
4: An expanse or atmosphere
5: Large areas of dry land
6: Land plants
7: Sun, moon and stars discernible in the expanse
8: sea monsters and flying creatures
9: Wild and tame beasts, mammals
10: Man

Now, for some “ramblings” as you call it, I’d say the man did pretty good! Don’t you? After all, even evolutionists agree with this general order. So what are the chances this man Moses just “rambled” all ten in correct order on his first try (after all, he did have scientific study groups to act as a sounding board)? Statistics (a favorite of evolutionists) show the odds to be 1 in 3,628,800! Not likely, unless he had some inspiration.



The general order of things is only logical. You're not gonna put fish in your aquarium before you put the water in. You're not gonna put people on earth, without decoration. The light was there before the earth was formed though, but the writer didn't know what the sun was.
I'm not sure how that number works. There are too many variables to calculate a probability, unless you set down parameters for Moses to follow, but the act has already occured.

Did you know that the Homo neanderthalensis, not an ancestor but a different species from us, was more muscluler had a larger brain capacity. We lived side by side for a bit. For whatever reason, they became extinct. It's believed that they did not have a long lifespan, and that limited their chances of survival. We claim our superiority based on our brain, but the creator has already killed off the animal with the largest brain. Where does that spieces fit into the creation?




Agree with you there, although an evolutionist shouldn’t use the word programming so loosely, would suggest to one that we had a programmer to begin with. After all, every program needs a creator. :D


Evolution can program a brain. Like fighting cocks for instance, who were selectively bred to have certain behavior. The brain is just another organ.



I would disagree. I would venture that there is a multitude of intelligence behind the design of creatures on Earth and with the cosmos in general.


Then where does that intelligence come from? The problem that a creator of nature will always have is that he has to be outside nature. But if the supernatural exsists, then you don't need a creator to explain nature. A creator coming from nowhere, makes himself obsolete in the process of creation. B/c you apparently don't need a creator to come from somewhere. The argument for a creator, that things have to come from somewhere, is also the argument against the creator.
Unless the creator has always been, in all his complexcity, but what was he doing for the enternity before his creation.

Evolution however, starts with the simplest of things, molecules and energy. And things become complicated over time.



Hardly. It just as much “proves” the existence of a highly advanced Creator as it does evolution.


Evolution and genetics cannot be separated. Genes are the mechanism, evolution is the observed result. If a child is born with the sydrom of down, then that is evolution. To deny the observation, is to deny the mechanism.
It may have a creator (if you ingore a lot of other stuff), but it doesn't need one.


... time to get some sleep. Don't forget not to boil a child in its mother's milk.

:bye2:

[Benman]

Originally posted by clam

Reality is not open to interpretation. That's kind of its definition.
Actually, reality is very much open to interpretation. Reality is what we perceive it to be. Like the saying, "three sides to every story".



Originally posted by clam

I'm Flemish, btw.

Cool, you and Johan (Freerider) speak the same lingo.


Originally posted by clam

The script is most likely a forgery...
Nice. Well that is convenient, now isn't it. You state Jesus was not a historical figure, I give you historical evidence, and now of course, it's just a "forgery"? Nice aurgument there. No, I don't think so. Josephus wrote "James, brother of Jesus who is called the Christ" (The Jewish Antiquities, Book XX sec. 200).

The only "challenge" of "forgery" was made in regards to the favorable passage found in Book XVIII sec 63,64. And even that has been shown by scholars to be consistent with the writing styles of Josephus, not the historical fact of his existence in Book XX.

Also, since one historical fact is not enough, there is also the first century Roman historian Tacitus who wrote, "Christus(Latin for "Christ"), from whom the name "Christian" had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus"- The Complete Works of Tacitus (New York, 1942), "The Annals", Book 15, par 44

In fact, this is a very important quote by the New Encyclopedia Britanica, "These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries". - (1976), Macropedia, Vol 10, p. 145

It does make sense for those to dipute the authenticity of Jesus. After all, how do you prove evolution with that in the way. Make people doubt he ever existed, and all the rest will fall in line...:hahahehe: Yeah, ain't going to happen.


Originally posted by clam
Even it that were true (then how come the sabbath is a day), the two stories still have contradicting information. It's a catholic theacher who pointed it out to the class. He also explained from which older religions the two stories come from. For some reason it worked for him, but that was his job after all.


I'm sory your Catholic "teacher" never studied Hebrew, but then that is his problem, not mine (and also, sadly, appears to be your problem as well).


Originally posted by clam
Why would I make it up?
For the same reason "historians" make up evidence that Jesus never existed? I don't know, why would you?


Originally posted by clam
10. You shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk.

Dude! Where do you get this stuff?!?!? Boil a child in his mother's milk?!? You know, you brought out a good point about innaccurate translations changing the meaning of the Scriptures, well I agree. Whoever "translated" that, must have been a sadomasochist, because that is the only explaination of that being anywhere near the Bible!


Originally posted by clam
No, it contradics with the first chapter, in which he zaps things into exsistance.
His "zapping" took thousands of years...

And the "Big Bang" theory? That didn't "zap" as you call it, things into existence as well? BTW, not a very intelligent "theory".


Originally posted by clam
The general order of things is only logical.

Only logical? First you state they were nothing more than the "ramblings" of some man, now there is logic?

So how would you know thousands of years ago, that the sea creatures came before the land animals? That land animals came before man, that the stars were before the sea creatures, that plants were before the sea creatures? Of course it is logical and easy for us thousands of years later to say this, but for him, there was no way he could have known this before science was even invented! Come on, take your head out of the sand! There is no possible way he could have logically "guessed" all ten step right in the correct order! He would have had to been the most intelligent human ever to exist!


Originally posted by clam
Did you know that the Homo neanderthalensis...

Really? Fascinating! Here's another one... late in the 70's, scientist found "proof" of an apelike ancestor of man. It was called Ramapithcus (coincedentally Rama was a mythical price of India, strang name for scientific evolutionists to give a none religious creature, no? :D ). Years later, it featured headlines in the New York Times "Monkeylike African Primate Called Common Ancestor of Man and Apes" by Bayard Webster, Feb 7th, 1980 pA14;

Oh how the scientific community rejoiced and rubbed it into the face of Creationists the world over. That is, for a while. You see, they had found nothing more than a fragments of upper and lower jaws, plus a collection of teeth! And this is what they based their "scientific" data on?!? Nice.

Well, turns out a few years later, these same "scientists" discovered futher evidence that Ramapithcus was in fact closely resembled to present day ape family. So New Scientist declared: "Ramapithcus cannot have been the first member of teh human line" (New Scientist "Jive talking" by John Gribbin, June 24, 1982

That new info promted the response by Natural History to ask, "How did Ramapithcus, reconstructed only from teeth and jaws-without a known pelvis, limb, bones, or skull-sneak into this manward-marching procession"? (Natural History "Flase Start of the Human Parade" by Adrienne L. Zihlman and Jerold M. Lowenstein Aug/Sept 1979 p86

Good question, indeed, how?

Similar stories can be found with Australopithecus and Homo erectus, and so the party goes on. Scientist continue to grab at "evidence" to "prove" their theories. But in the end, they still search, meanwhile Creationists continue to believe the same thing, God created man.


Originally posted by clam
time to get some sleep. Don't forget not to boil a child in its mother's milk..

Comments like those will get this thread banned and are not intelligent and offensive to boot.

Ben:addict:

[CarbonFibre]

Originally posted by Benman
Scientist continue to grab at "evidence" to "prove" their theories. But in the end, they still search, meanwhile Creationists continue to believe the same thing, God created man.
Continuing to believe the same thing while others try and discover new truths where our knowledge and understanding lacks is hardly a case for the legitimacy of those beliefs.

Also, on the issue of of geocentrism or opposing it, it was mostly the religious officials that condemned those who said the sun revolved around the Earth because it conflicted with the Church's view that we were "special" and everything revolved around us. At least this is what I remember learning.

[Benman]

And here I thought this thread had died with the dinosaurs...

Ben:addict:

[Code_2025]

Not at all Ben...I have been quite busy with my studies and just finished submitting my thesis. Now I am back and ready for some good healthy and fun debates with the guys here....looking forward...

Kind Regards
Code_2025
:bye:

[Leadfoot]

God, think about this one.

Standing in the men's having a pee and that big boy stood beside and whipped his out to have a pee.

Man, my wee man would run and hide.:bigeyes: :cry:


Joking over.

This must be a photoshop. Surely if this was true, it would have been over all the world news stations.

[Code_2025]

Originally posted by Leadfoot
God, think about this one.

Standing in the men's having a pee and that big boy stood beside and whipped his out to have a pee.

Man, my wee man would run and hide.:bigeyes: :cry:

:harass: Ha Ha Ha.....wonder what the look will be on the guy beside him....

:thumb:

[Benman]

Originally posted by Leadfoot
God, think about this one.

Standing in the men's having a pee and that big boy stood beside and whipped his out to have a pee.

Man, my wee man would run and hide.:bigeyes: :cry:


:applause: :applause: :thumb:

well, I'd for one be very ...:blush: :blush: :D

Ben:addict:

[Leadfoot]

[
Yet again...I dont deny creationist theory and I dont expell the evolutionary theory...

Einstein once said:

Science without religion is lame..religion without science is blind.



:idea:
:bye: [/B][/QUOTE]

Has anyone ever thought that maybe the bible was writing in a way that humanity would understand at that time. Maybe because of science, if it had been wrote today evolution might have replaced creation, and seven days would have been millions of years of evolution?

[Benman]

Originally posted by clam

10. You shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk.



Actually, I owe Clam an apollogy. After reaserching that statement, I know what he's talking about. No, its not one of the Ten Commandments, but it is in the Bible: Exodus 23:19 "You must NOT boil a kid in its mother's milk".

But clam, that is KID as in the Hebrew word for baby goat! Not baby human child!

It seems some experts of acient religions believe that some "pagan" religions actually had a practice of gathering large quantities of goats milk and then boiling baby animals in it!!! (Not to mention the Baal practice of throwing LIVE HUMAN BABIES into fire pits!!!!) :bigeyes: It would appear the Israelites were influenced by the neighboring religions and unfortunately copied (or wanted to copy) those practices!!! Yikes. You'd think that one would go without saying... Long story sort, Jehovah (Yahweh, YHWH, JHVH) didn't want to see his people performing that crap. Think of it, before cruelty to animals ever came into fashion, it was a law (not a Ten Commandment , but a law all the same).


Back on topic, I'm definately leaning towards photoshop.

As for the comment, "This must be a photoshop. Surely if this was true, it would have been over all the world news stations." that isn't neccessarily true. There has long been a cure for cancer and THAT doesn't make main stream media. Noah's Ark HAS been discovered (well, the remains anyway) with scientific EVIDENCE and that doesn't make main stream media. My point, many, many things are proven that don't show up on the media agenda controlled news...

Ben:addict:

[steve]

Media sure does turn the facts around ... a perfect example is what Mr. Burns has to say ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7jf4frHUpc

[BBGT2]

That dude would have to be the WORLDS BIGGEST RS6 FAN !:D

Photo shop or not that is freakishly funny to see the little dude diggin around him.
If the Discovery channel says its true I will believe them as they know their shite.

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Bajo:addict:

[Benman]

Originally posted by steve
Media sure does turn the facts around ... a perfect example is what Mr. Burns has to say ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7jf4frHUpc :applause: :applause: :thumb:

Ben:addict: