more religous blabber

Wow, I went to bed and woke up to find I missed a lot. Here's my contribution to this debate:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by simonm
There is much fossil evidence that mankind has existed for hundreds of thousands of years. There are cave paintings that can be dated back over this time that must have been done by humans (at least we know of no other species that has had this ability).

If you take the Bible literally, the earth has only been in existance for (roughly) 6000 odd years. Why is there so much evidence that the earth (and mankind) has been around much longer?

---

Can you show me this evidence? Instead of saying that it exists, tell me how I can see it for myself. Is there some scientific site someplace that explains how they figured out the age of these cave paintings?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by simonm
but, in my mind, a book who's author is anomymous is untrustworthy.

---

The people who wrote the bible are not anonymous. I think we know who the author is for every book of the bible. I'd have to check to be sure.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by simonm
You assume it must have been written by Moses since it doesn't actually say who wrote them in the bible.
But, I consider it highly unlikely that Moses did write these books as, not only does he talk about himself in the third person, he goes on to brag about his own modesty: "Moses was the meekest of all men"! If Moses wrote this sentance (taken from one of the first five books), he certainly wasn't the meekest of men was he? :p

---

There is no question that Moses wrote the first five books. Apparently, they used to be one large book, but were taken apart to make them easier to handle. These first five books were sometimes called "the book of the law of Moses". You can see this in Joshua 23:6 and Ezra 6:18.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by aknisely
The Bible teaches that people can walk on water. The Bible teaches that the sun stops in its orbital path periodically. The Bible teaches that there is this "God" character, about whom you know nothing and the consequences of denying whom are horrendous.

---

The bible doesn't teach that people can just go ahead and walk on water. It was only with Gods help that Jesus and Peter walked on the water, not their own.

Also, the bible does not teach that the sun (don't you mean earth?) periodically stops in its orbital path. It does teach that God made the sun seem to stand still for a day. This doesn't mean that it happens sometimes. The earth didn't have to stop its rotation. Maybe God bent light around the earth as it rotated so it looked like the day lasted twice as long. THe bible doesn't say how God did it, only that the sun seemed to stand still.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by simonm
You are right, in a sense, but many people would have you believe that everything in the Bible is the word of God and take passages from it to support their beliefs.
The point is, if you find one single contradiction int the bible (however small), it means that the whole thing can be questioned. You can't just take any part of it and claim that it must be true because it's the word of God.

---

Not really. If there's a discrepancy in numbers, all it means is that some numerical values can't be trusted, not the whole bible, and certainly not the whole message within it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by nishantp
BTW, i beleive that the Bible is not presented as the word of god either. I thought it was man's interpretation of it. I thought christians thought that God inspired the Bible (he didnt write it). And since everyone has there opinion, there are discrepancies. Someone might like to clear that up).

---

Think of it like someone dictating a letter to someone else who's writing it for him. I think this is what's going on with the bible. God is telling the people what to write, and they're writing it in in their own words. Different books show the writing styles of different people, but they are all inspired by God. The original copy is probably very accurate, with none of the problems we're seeing now (differing numbers, etc). Unfortunately, there's no way to tell.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by aknisely
The Bible is precise? It gets the age of the earth wrong by several billion years. That's nowhere near precise

---

The bible doesn't even tell the age of the earth.

well, so it doesn't come out and say 6000 years but you can extrapolate that number

since earth was obviously created and people were obviously created at the same time, then you can use the ages of people and when they died to find out it was 2000 years from creation till the flood, another 2000 till Jesus was born, and if he was born around year 1AD, then its another 2000 till the present time, thats how we get 6000

DNA7433, I think this is where we differ. I believe the earth existed for many many years before the first humans were created.

Tygur

whats your take on earth being 6000 years old?
or humans for that matter

The bible doesn't tell how old the earth or the universe is. After a bit of work you can figure out that the first human couple was created about 6000 years ago (I just confirmed it). The animals and plants were created before then (most, if not all).

The earth was not created in under a week. It took a long time, but the bible doesn't tell how long.

The use of the word, "day", in the book of Genesis (the creation account, you know what I'm talking about) did not necessarily refer to a literal 24-hour day.

where do you gather the 6000 years though?

"the bible does not teach that the sun (don't you mean earth?) periodically stops in its orbital path"

The sun has its own orbital path around the galaxy. I'm sure you have your own impression about what a galaxy is and how moses went to all that trouble of parting the nebulas and that Jesus could walk on supernova juice, and what not.

"It does teach that God made the sun seem to stand still for a day."

Which is foolish, because we now know that during the course of the day, the earth makes one revolution, not the sun makes one orbit around the earth. To extend a day (and extend the night in another hemisphere), you'd best be stopping the spin of the earth on its axis.

"This doesn't mean that it happens sometimes"

No, it means that this sort of action is possible by this god fellow. It's not.

"Maybe God bent light around the earth as it rotated so it looked like the day lasted twice as long."

Why didn't he state this then? It would make his filthy lies much more believable.

"If there's a discrepancy in numbers, all it means is that some numerical values can't be trusted, not the whole bible, and certainly not the whole message within it."

It isn't just NUMBERS, it's the whole damned (holy?) book!!

"The bible doesn't even tell the age of the earth."

No, but there have been computations of all that begatting in the first book. The figure results in abou 4004 BC, or 6000 years ago.

"he use of the word, 'day,' in the book of Genesis (the creation account, you know what I'm talking about) did not necessarily refer to a literal 24-hour day."

You make a very interesting point. However, this was only discovered during the Scopes Monkey Trial, when it seemed convenient to conceed to the argument that each day during creation was substatially longer than what we now know to be a day.

"And God said, 'Let there be this really half-assed literative work, forever fooling about half the asses before me, and we'll fill in the gaps along -- be as creative as is to thy liking. Anyone who doesn't, can just go to hell.' And the book there appeared, in all its elegancy. And God said, 'And let this book ruin the lives of thousands of people for thousands of years.'"

Quote:

---

Originally posted by aknisely

You make a very interesting point. However, this was only discovered during the Scopes Monkey Trial , when it seemed convenient to conceed to the argument that each day during creation was substatially longer than what we now know to be a day.

---

See "Inherit the Wind" with Spencer Tracey.....it makes some very interesting points, indeed!

Does an atheist have to explain the discrepancy in the apparent age of the universe and the age claimed by the bible?

When god (atheists use a little g) created a tree in the Garden of Eden that looked 200 years old, what would you expect if Adam cut it down and checked the rings? You would expect him to count 200 or so rings and conclude that the tree was 200 years old even though it had been created a few days earlier.

Same thing with all the geological data, fossils, radioactive decay dating, et cetera. When he (little h) put stars billions of light years away, he also created the light that seemed to have been travelling for billions of years. How else would they be seen by man and marveled at without waiting billions of years for the light to reach earth?

He (capital H at beginning of sentence) is sitting some where laughing at the scientists who have been fooled by his creation.

God is inexistent according to physical laws, why are you qwestioning your own laws?

God is existent according to bible, why are you qwestioning it's compability with physics?

Quote:

---

When god (atheists use a little g) created a tree in the Garden of Eden that looked 200 years old

---

maybe it was a ringless tree

Quote:

---

The use of the word, 'day,' in the book of Genesis (the creation account, you know what I'm talking about) did not necessarily refer to a literal 24-hour day."

---

I believe it does mean a literal 24-hour period, thats where the seventh-day sabbath comes from

Quote:

---

No, it means that this sort of action is possible by this god fellow. It's not.

---

If he was able to create a universe, don't you think he would be able to slow down one little planet?

and also who says he can't make light just start out in places, making the stars appear billions of years before their light would hit us? (thats far fetched in your eyes i know)

"If he was able to create a universe, don't you think he would be able to slow down one little planet?"

But he didn't create the universe. He didn't slow down the rotation of the earth.

"and also who says he can't make light just start out in places, making the stars appear billions of years before their light would hit us? (thats far fetched in your eyes i know)"

EVERY GOD DAMNED SCIENTIFIC FACT WE HAVE! GOD DOESN'T EXIST. The sooner you figure this out, the better off you'll be.

the worse off i'll be...

look at you, you have an attitude problem, you have no patience, i wonder why that would be?

Such hostilities...

You, or perhaps someone else, but probably you, had requested a proper debate. You have thus far failed to provide any sort of question or affirmation we are to debate. Your "who's says physics is correct" is not an argument, even though it's the only remotely substantial thing you've said. Come up with something thoughtful, or your position will be dismissed as readily as I'd expected.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by filburt1
Such hostilities...

---

Seriously...you people should remember that no one will be swayed by anything thats said here. Its just a discussion. Theres no way of having a debate on a forum cause people can just pick and choose what they respond to.:rolleyes:

i did say physics was not correct, i believe everything we know about physics is correct, but if God created the universe, then he also created physics, therefor he should be able to bend the rules.

i was just gonna say that

no one is gonna change their mind just because we argue over this

"no one is gonna change their mind just because we argue over this"

So? You had requested a debate, and I'd enjoy one. Debate; I don't care if I convince you of something else. I'm think ing you'd have to be quite insecure, and perhaps even presumptuous, if you need to tell everyone that you aren't going to change your mind no matter what is said here.

"i did say physics was not correct"

You didn't, but someone else on your side did. I suggest you message or e-mail them if you want to maintain a consistant case.

"i believe everything we know about physics is correct, but if God created the universe, then he also created physics, therefor he should be able to bend the rules."

Why? Why would he create something, merely to disregard it when it's convenient? Why can't he create physics that comply with everything he wants to do?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DNA7433
i did say physics was not correct, i believe everything we know about physics is correct, but if God created the universe, then he also created physics, therefor he should be able to bend the rules.

---

Or he could use them.

oops, should have read over my post, i meant to say "i didn't say physics was not correct"

Quote:

---

Why? Why would he create something, merely to disregard it when it's convenient? Why can't he create physics that comply with everything he wants to do?

---

i feel the need for a programming anology but i can't think of one


you want a debate, you don't care about convincing people, i don't mind a debate, but i think my side would like to convince people in the process. "insecure, presumptuous"? you're so quick with words that are not true.

Kovan
I'm gonna have to do some reaearch to find out how to come up with the figure (how long ago people were created).


Whoever said that the laws of physics prove that there is no God
How do you figure? There is nothing we know about the world around us that proves there is no God.


"Which is foolish, because we now know that during the course of the day, the earth makes one revolution, not the sun makes one orbit around the earth. To extend a day (and extend the night in another hemisphere), you'd best be stopping the spin of the earth on its axis."
aknisely, so how does that make the notion that God made the sun seem to stand still foolish? From our perspective, the sun moves across the sky over the course of a day. God made the sun seem to stand still in the sky. God could've stopped the spin of the earth to do it, or, as I suggested, he could've also bent light around the earth as it spun. Or maybe he did something completely different. The point is, God knows the laws of physics (or the rules on which we base them, for those who think of the laws of physics as a human institution) far better than we do, since he shaped them. He ought to be able to use them to do as he pleases.

Here I come, way late on this scene...

Anyway, The only figure I actually know says that there is evidence of people living on the islands of Japan at circa 10,000 BCE (lets be politically correct). Second, When the Bible was written, the earth didn't spin, and wasnt, spherical. The Sun moved around it, and the earth was flat. Third, everyone knows that if you make a rule or law, you first and foremost must follow it, or the system breaks down. Thus, if god creates physics, he cannot go and break the rules (crossing the Red Sea, etc), or, logically, he will continue to break rules to his whim, constantly degrading the worth of those laws, until god himself is totally and utterly corrupted by his own power. Fourthly, they say that god loves us, yet he creates such things as "Barney", guns, Stalin, corperations, etc.

The Bible was probably written by a bunch of old dead guys who are now sitting up in heaven laughing at us (yes, i know how little sense that makes).

The ancient Sumerians (the first known civilization), had several thousand gods, wrote in cunieform on clay tablets, were conquered by Sargon II, and generally had a very pessimistic outlook on things, due to thier religion, which basically would punish them for any misdeed.

I think thats enough for one night, and its 2 AM.

Z.

Guv

Quote:

---

Same thing with all the geological data, fossils, radioactive decay dating, et cetera. When he (little h) put stars billions of light years away, he also created the light that seemed to have been travelling for billions of years. How else would they be seen by man and marveled at without waiting billions of years for the light to reach earth?

He (capital H at beginning of sentence) is sitting some where laughing at the scientists who have been fooled by his creation.

---

This is a theory I've heard proposed before and for any that choose to accept it, it doesn't really stop them having to understand the theory of the origins of the earth and evolution. If they want to understand life on earth, they must still understand the above theories as if they had happened in addition to why it was created by God like that. It creates more questions than it answers and in my mind is an unnessarsary complication.

Tygur

Check your facts, the first five books of the bible are only assumed to br written by Moses. It doesn't actually say they were. And, as I said before, if they were, why does he talk about himself in the third person?

Ok ok ok

Arguing religion is like arguing that strawberrys taste better than carrotts.

It is a truly personel thing, there isn't a correct answer.

Neither side can proove or disproove the other sides point of view, even if we knew exactly how old the universe is where did it all come from? If god created it where / who is he?

The problem is just outside our limited understanding, I'll bet as well if somebody, Alien god whoever exaplained the whole existance thing we wouldn't understand what they are saying.


G

On the subject of 'the bible says the earth is X years old':
The Bible at no stage says the age of the earth, or even how long people have been around for. This 'time people have been around for' is calculated based on lines of geneality. But who is to say people lived the number of years for all this time? I'm pretty sure that the Bible talks about some people living for 100's of years, also life expectancy is changing all the time (and varies between 30 and 60+ around the world at this very time).

On the subject of 'physics/science has proven...':
All physics, and chemistry and other branches of science, and their 'laws' are *theory*. It has not, and cannot, be completely proven. So it all comes down to 'faith' in science, similar to faith in religion.

On the subject of 'Religion is incompatible with Science':
Many great scientists (including Albert Einstein) were/are Christian. Some modern theorys such as evolution are incompatible with Christianity, but most Science, especially here-and-now science, (which is the most provable) is fully compatible with Christian beliefs.

DNA7433: You can't expect Non-christians to believe what's in the Bible. Also trying to convince someone the Bible is true, and thus Christianity is, is a fairly hopeless case - it usually happens the other way.

Tygur: I agree with everything you've said so far :) Keep up the good work! Sensible debating like yours is rarely seen on these types of threads.

aknisely: For someone so critical of the Bible, how much have you actually read yourself?

Anyway, continue having fun in this little piece of the eternal debate. I wouldn't contribute at all, because I believe this kind of theoretical debate is ultimately futile and I've found my own answers, but I can't help but point out when everyone is arguing based on faulty premises.

Herbatic

Quote:

---

The Bible at no stage says the age of the earth, or even how long people have been around for. This 'time people have been around for' is calculated based on lines of geneality.

---

Yes, we know this. It has already been said. But, even if it did specifically mention the number of years since the earth's creation, Christians would still choose to apply a "loose" interpretation of how long a period of time a "year" refers to (as they do with 'day').

Quote:

---

All physics, and chemistry and other branches of science, and their 'laws' are *theory*. It has not, and cannot, be completely proven. So it all comes down to 'faith' in science, similar to faith in religion.

---

OK, science has never proven anything beyond any doubt whatsoever. Scientists would be the first to admit this. Science is about finding solutions to problems and explanations to questions. No solution is perfect and no explanation is complete. The difference with religion is that they proport to offer the perfect solution and the complete explanation. Science is about finding increasingly better solutions and explanations whilst realising that they never will, ultimately, find the final answer. Science recognises that we cannot know the absolute truth and religion claims to offer it. That is the danger of religion.

Quote:

---

OK, science has never proven anything beyond any doubt whatsoever. Scientists would be the first to admit this. Science is about finding solutions to problems and explanations to questions. No solution is perfect and no explanation is complete. The difference with religion is that they proport to offer the perfect solution and the complete explanation. Science is about finding increasingly better solutions and explanations whilst realising that they never will, ultimately, find the final answer. Science recognises that we cannot know the absolute truth and religion claims to offer it. That is the danger of religion.

---

Almost Simon, almost. The format of religion and science as information is similar, they are interpretation models on our environment. There's no implication of any laws that truth has to obey, the laws are for creating context for our subjective minds. The religious people that state a religion is true, are dangerous, the scientists that state science is a mere model for interpretation are openminded. But neither data is in it's way more than mere data.

For there to be any use of either, it has to be applied on a context, what's the use of information without a situation worth to apply it on? We have to live with it, that there's mere subjectivity in this case, and the argument is useless without a context.

Kedaman

Quote:

---

The format of religion and science as information is similar, they are interpretation models on our environment.

---

I disagree. Science provides models in order to predict and explain our environment. Religion provides models that provides meaning to our lives.

Both attempt to establish a universal and consistant interpretation of reality but, whilst science can be resistant to change, in the end, most scientists recognise that it is an innevitable process. Religion actively opposes change, considering it a bad thing (particularly opposing scientific change more than other scientists) as if you already have the truth, why do you need to change.

aren't you talking about science in general? If there was to be religion in general, you're probably only refering the outdated ones. Information don't oppose change, it's the religious bastards who oppose change, however i don't think theres a single religion that hasn't evolved over time. information however doesn't evolve so when we talk about evolving information, we have different information all the time, and the least outdated are probably counted in billions

Just to keep the record straight, I believe that Darwin was Christian (or something similar).

As has been already said, there is no way to prove or disprove the existance/non-existance of god, which is exactly how the system is supposed to work. If we could prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there was no god, no one would follow the religion. On the other hand, if we had god walking around, creating miracles, it would become an everyday thing, sorta like McDonalds, and again, people would look towards something else to put thier "faith" in, and no one would follow the religion. Human nature is fun, no?

Z.

Quote:

---

But, even if it did specifically mention the number of years since the earth's creation, Christians would still choose to apply a "loose" interpretation of how long a period of time a "year" refers to (as they do with 'day').

---

just to set the record straight, i believe one year in the Bible is one year as we know it, and so is one day. I do not apply a "loose" interpretation on time

DNA7433

Quote:

---

I do not apply a "loose" interpretation on time

---

Of course not, there's no need to interpret "year" in a different way yet. A day was interpreted in a broader sense than we know it in order to explain the biblical account of creation in seven days.

Actually, thinking about it, there probably is. Why did early biblical characters live to ripe old ages of 900 years (or so)? Are you telling me that they really lived that long or did "year" mean a much smaller amount of time then? :rolleyes:

they actually did live that long, and then you'll notice after the flood when people started to eat meat the average length of peoples lives went down, and then they kept going down, and now they are back up a little bit because of modern medicine

Quote:

---

they actually did live that long, and then you'll notice after the flood when people started to eat meat the average length of peoples lives went down, and then they kept going down, and now they are back up a little bit because of modern medicine

---

You do talk a lot of bull don't you! You can go back to when we were cave men and we ate meat then. Besides, whilst there is some evidence that a vegetarian diet is healthier, it's not that healthy!

:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Zaei
Anyway, The only figure I actually know says that there is evidence of people living on the islands of Japan at circa 10,000 BCE (lets be politically correct). Second, When the Bible was written, the earth didn't spin, and wasnt, spherical. The Sun moved around it, and the earth was flat. Third, everyone knows that if you make a rule or law, you first and foremost must follow it, or the system breaks down. Thus, if god creates physics, he cannot go and break the rules (crossing the Red Sea, etc), or, logically, he will continue to break rules to his whim, constantly degrading the worth of those laws, until god himself is totally and utterly corrupted by his own power. Fourthly, they say that god loves us, yet he creates such things as "Barney", guns, Stalin, corperations, etc.

The Bible was probably written by a bunch of old dead guys who are now sitting up in heaven laughing at us (yes, i know how little sense that makes).

The ancient Sumerians (the first known civilization), had several thousand gods, wrote in cunieform on clay tablets, were conquered by Sargon II, and generally had a very pessimistic outlook on things, due to thier religion, which basically would punish them for any misdeed.

I think thats enough for one night, and its 2 AM.

Z.

---

First, can you point me someplace where I can find out how they proved that there were people 10,000 years ago?

Second, the bible doesn't say that the sun rotates around the earth, or that the earth is flat. It does say the earth is round at Isaiah 40:22. It also says that the earth is floating in space at Job 26:7.

Third, I agree with you, and I think God tries to break the laws as little as possible, but the parting of the Red Sea and other miracles do not necessarily break the laws.

Fourth, God did not make Barney, guns, Stalin, corperations, etc.

So how do we know when the ancient Sumerians lived?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by simonm
Check your facts, the first five books of the bible are only assumed to br written by Moses. It doesn't actually say they were. And, as I said before, if they were, why does he talk about himself in the third person?

---

I did. There seems to be no question.

The book of Matthew was written by Matthew, the book of Mark was written by Mark, the book of Luke was written by Luke, the book of John was written by John. Why do those writers talk about themselves in third person? I think it is fairly common.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geoff Gunson
Arguing religion is like arguing that strawberrys taste better than carrotts.

It is a truly personel thing, there isn't a correct answer.

---

Actually, there is a correct answer, but it seems to be very elusive.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Herbatic
On the subject of 'the bible says the earth is X years old':
The Bible at no stage says the age of the earth, or even how long people have been around for. This 'time people have been around for' is calculated based on lines of geneality. But who is to say people lived the number of years for all this time? I'm pretty sure that the Bible talks about some people living for 100's of years, also life expectancy is changing all the time (and varies between 30 and 60+ around the world at this very time).

---

I found it. Wow. It's an explanation that spans several paragraphs over three pages. Apparently, it (the creation of Adam) was narrowed down to a specific year... This is without geneologies. Someone had to have been pondering over the bible day and night to come up with this.. I'm going to see if I can summarize it and post it here.





Coming to DNA7433's defense,
Yes, the people really did live that long before the flood. Does anyone remember the discussions we had earlier about incest (Cain running off with his sister, etc)? Back then, people were closer to perfection and living longer. After the flood, there was only Noah's family. I think that may have something to do with the shorter life spans after the flood.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DNA7433
they actually did live that long, and then you'll notice after the flood when people started to eat meat the average length of peoples lives went down, and then they kept going down, and now they are back up a little bit because of modern medicine

---

Sorry DNA you really shot yourself in the foot with this one. Its impossible for humans beings to live for 900 years. It will take several thousands of years of medicinal reasearch to get us to live anywhere near that long. No one can deny that a healthy diet makes us live longer, but not on the level your talking about. With every cellular reproduction, the shielding around the chromosomes in the cells (telomerase) weakens. At around the age of 50 that shield is no longer there and some cells cannot reproduce. This is the process of ageing, not only the ailments that people suffer which is popular beleif. When a cell cannot reproduce, it just dies away. When enough cells die away organs fail, which eventually leads to death. 900 years...is simply not possible.

nishantp, you must not have read Tyger's post, you two might have been posting at the same time? cuz im not saying people are gonna start living 900 years again, that was only in the beginning when we were...closer to perfection, and it was becuase of meat, before the flood nobody ate meat, and none of the animals ate each other, then God said yeah go ahead, eat yourselves, although he did put rules on which animals were ok for eating and which were not.

thank you tygur, i agree with what you said in my defense and i can't believe i forgot about that! it's been a while since i've argued religion

:rolleyes: Yeah it certainly take a LOT of faith to believe that...

not really

Quote:

---

Originally posted by nishantp
:rolleyes: Yeah it certainly take a LOT of faith to believe that...

---

How do you figure? Basically, here's how it works out:
God made the first human couple. They were supposed to live forever, but they sinned. Because of that, they were going to grow old and die. They themselves lived for several centuries before dying. When they had children, they passed the sin on. As time went on, they moved further and further from perfection, probably because of genetic mutations. Whatever the cause, people eventually stopped living for much more than a century.

I think the scientific community can be satisfied with that.


After the flood, God did say it was okay for people to eat meat, but that doesn't necessarily mean that people weren't eating meat before the flood. It only means that if they did, they weren't supposed to.

DNA7433
Why don't you think there were animals eating meat before the flood? Can you show me what scripture you get this from?

"As time went on, they moved further and further from perfection, probably because of genetic mutations."

Would these genetic mutations happen to other animals, should those animals sin?

Quote:

---

Would these genetic mutations happen to other animals, should those animals sin?

---

Aknisely...animals hardly have the intelligence or moral understanding to understand what sin is...so i guess they cant be included in that.

Quote:

---

I think the scientific community can be satisfied with that.

---

Tygur...come on. The only thing that will satisfy the scientific community that people once lived to be 900 years old is solid evidence. If there is any then please excuse my ignorance and point some out.

Quote:

---

Aknisely...animals hardly have the intelligence or moral understanding to understand what sin is...so i guess they cant be included in that.

---

My question is about genetic mutation, and the Bible's stance on that. I have several questions about it, so I might as well ask them here since the oral examination process doesn't quite work the same as online

Can it happen to animals other than humans?
Does it happen on the order of god? What initiates genetic mutation?
Did god implement the process of genetic mutation?

Once again, the atheist has to help you religious types.

Don't you realize how consistent your views are?

When god (atheists use little g) created his perfect world nothing was supposed to die. Then came original sin, which caused death to come on stage. Remember: All the world's a stage!

From then on there was devolution, not evolution. People and animals deteriorated from the perfect beings they were created to be.

All of this makes you realize that dinosaurs did not become extinct. They still exist.

Every zoologits knows that many reptile like creatures never stop growing. Alligators for example. As long as they live, they grow.

Back closer to the creation, dinosaurs lived for incredibly long times and managed to become huge. Now that their lives are much shorter, they never get to be be very big.

The salamander and various lizards that you see today are the dinosaurs, who never became extinct. They just do not live long enough in modern times to grow very big.

"Then came original sin, which caused death to come on stage."

Quite conviently, because death would cause the population to diminish, without sex.

"Remember: All the world's a stage!"

Shakespeare speaks of the original sin (i.e. sex) throughout his plays.

"All of this makes you realize that dinosaurs did not become extinct. They still exist."

Find me one.

"Alligators for example. As long as they live, they grow ... Back closer to the creation, dinosaurs lived for incredibly long times and managed to become huge. Now that their lives are much shorter, they never get to be be very big."

Do you realize that most species of dinosaurs are smaller than horses? There are incredibly large ones, but numerous species existed that are the size of chickens. None of which resemble alligators, and if you want me to show you why, I can.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by nishantp
Tygur...come on. The only thing that will satisfy the scientific community that people once lived to be 900 years old is solid evidence. If there is any then please excuse my ignorance and point some out.

---

Unfortunately, the only evidence I have is the fact that the bible says it. If there is anything else, I don't know about it. Written documents and word of mouth are the only eveidence we have for many events that occurred that long ago, so it's not unusual that there's no other evidence. But there also doesn't seem to be much evidence that people couldn't have lived to be several centuries old back then. So it's not so unreasonable to believe that it is possible.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Guv
Once again, the atheist has to help you religious types.

Don't you realize how consistent your views are?

When god (atheists use little g) created his perfect world nothing was supposed to die. Then came original sin, which caused death to come on stage. Remember: All the world's a stage!

From then on there was devolution, not evolution. People and animals deteriorated from the perfect beings they were created to be.

All of this makes you realize that dinosaurs did not become extinct. They still exist.

Every zoologits knows that many reptile like creatures never stop growing. Alligators for example. As long as they live, they grow.

Back closer to the creation, dinosaurs lived for incredibly long times and managed to become huge. Now that their lives are much shorter, they never get to be be very big.

The salamander and various lizards that you see today are the dinosaurs, who never became extinct. They just do not live long enough in modern times to grow very big.

---

This is in reply to all the posts concerning animals and why they die. Animals can't understand sin, as nishantp pointed out. But they still die. It seems logical to conclude, then, that animals always did die. With this in mind, it is likely that there were always animals that ate other animals.

Remember the story of Cain and Abel at Genesis 4:1-15? Abel's sacrifice was the meat of an animal, and Cain's was some fruit. God favored Abel's sacrifice.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by aknisely
"Then came original sin, which caused death to come on stage."

Quite conviently, because death would cause the population to diminish, without sex.

"Remember: All the world's a stage!"

Shakespeare speaks of the original sin (i.e. sex) throughout his plays.

---

Sex is not the original sin. The first sin was Satan's lie. This is a misunderstanding many people have. Sex is not evil unless it is out of context. God's first command for the first human couple was to "Be fruitful and become many.." (Genesis 1:28). That cannot be done without sex.

"Unfortunately, the only evidence I have is the fact that the bible says it."

You know, I read in a book somewhere that I can get green eggs and ham. I haven't really seen it myself, but the book says it.

"But there also doesn't seem to be much evidence that people couldn't have lived to be several centuries old back then. So it's not so unreasonable to believe that it is possible. "

Of course it's unreasonable. Nine hundred years is totally unreasonable. Do you actually believe that over the course of only a few thousand years, the span of a human's life has diminished by a factor of ten?

"This is a misunderstanding many people have. Sex is not evil unless it is out of context."

In exactly what context is sex evil?

"God's first command for the first human couple was to 'Be fruitful and become many..' (Genesis 1:28). That cannot be done without sex."

Absolutely brilliant. How did this Jesus guy come about?

aknisely

Quote:

---

You know, I read in a book somewhere that I can get green eggs and ham. I haven't really seen it myself, but the book says it.

---

The author of the book bever claimed the story was true. The setting of the story is in the present. And if you really want green eggs and ham, just grab some food coloring :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Of course it's unreasonable. Nine hundred years is totally unreasonable. Do you actually believe that over the course of only a few thousand years, the span of a human's life has diminished by a factor of ten?

---

I'm not saying that everyone lived to be nearly a thousand, only that there were people who lived that long back then.

Here's my theory: Incest is bad because of genetic mutations. People who "keep it in the family" end up recirculating mutations and emphasizing them. If there's less inbreeding, various mutations can be phased out and generally have less effect. Back then, there weren't ao many people, so age limits decreased faster, but slowed down as there came to be more people. This is only an idea I came up with and it could be flawed.

Quote:

---

In exactly what context is sex evil?

---

Outside of marriage. Even then, evil isn't the word I'd use. I prefer "bad" or "wrong", but that's just me getting picky.

Quote:

---

"God's first command for the first human couple was to 'Be fruitful and become many..' (Genesis 1:28). That cannot be done without sex."

Absolutely brilliant. How did this Jesus guy come about?

---

I meant that sex was the only way people could do it back then :rolleyes:

"The author of the book bever claimed the story was true."

Of course not. Because he knows it's false.

"The setting of the story is in the present."

The setting of the story is not relevant. The point is that it's a lie. If anyone were to claim that Green Eggs and Ham was a true story, he'd have to use a better argument than "It's true because it says so in the book."

You have to refer to something that's outside the bible in order to prove it.

"I'm not saying that everyone lived to be nearly a thousand, only that there were people who lived that long back then"

According to the bible, people lived to be nearly a thousand years old. I can find the text, if you dispute that. Do you believe the bible on this matter?

"Incest is bad because of genetic mutations"

How would you know about genetic mutations? This concept is developed by who, scientists or priests?

"This is only an idea I came up with and it could be flawed."

Of course it's flawed. It makes no bloody sense.

"Outside of marriage."

Really? What counts as marriage? Do I have to have a marriage certificate from my government? Do I have to have a party? Do I have to merely love my girl, is that marriage?

"I meant that sex was the only way people could do it back then"

What on earth are you talking about? Jesus happened back then, did his parents have sex to make jesus?

Look i'm usually not critical of other people's religion, but i have to know this:
Whatevidence is there that people actually lived to be 900 years old? What evidence is there that dinosaurs still exist? If its just a matter of not having the time to grow then what animal will turn into a T-Rex if it lives long enough? I i dont think that even in the bible says that(correct me if im wrong). People have extrapolated that based on shaky, or no evidence. This is puzzling. I mean faith shouldnt be, ya heres a book. Everything in it is the truth. Beleive it or go to hell. I mean...if thats what god thinks then were all doomed anyways. You cant beleive everything you read just cause its in a special book.
Ill ask again: What evidence is there that any human being has ever lived to be 900 years old?(Other than the bibles account) I have a deep respect for the teachings of the bible, but i cannot believe everything in it. If ive missed something feel free to let me know.

all the evidence was destroyed in the flood :)

and its not just that people say, oh, heres a book, everything in here is true, whats this? im going to hell if i don't believe?

theres more than that, theres like a feeling of God's presence that i know you haven't experienced, and im not talking about those stupid people who fall down on the ground and have seizures

Tygur, i think we should stop saying that its just our thoughts on something, because they say people have been around for longer than 10,000 years, but thats just someone else's thought's, and notice how they aren't providing any proof when you ask, they just keep on bashing the Bible, so when they ask for proof to your truths (no longer thoughts) you can either go find some, or ignore them :)

"all the evidence was destroyed in the flood"

Rather convenient. How do we know about what happened before the flood, then?

"theres more than that, theres like a feeling of God's presence that i know you haven't experienced"

Of course I haven't experienced it. What is this feeling of God's presence?

"and notice how they aren't providing any proof when you ask, they just keep on bashing the Bible"

Give me a god damned break. You haven't asked for any proof, because I haven't alleged anything. All I'm doing right now is examining your allegations, none of which have proof anyway. If you like, I'd be happy to explain the process of debate more completely. Perhaps we can then establish a charter on how the debate is to be conducted. This could be fun...

"so when they ask for proof to your truths (no longer thoughts) you can either go find some, or ignore them"

Why would you ignore us? I can think of two reasons: (a) there isn't any proof, and you're insecure about everything you say here, or (b) you don't want to debate.

The former is fine, but please don't discourage people from having a discussion when you criticize me on a procedure about which you know very little.

Ok, let me just say this real quick. I shouldn't have posted the story of Cain and Abel in my last post. It doesn't prove anything about whether animals were supposed to live forever. It takes place after the first human couple sinned. I don't know if anybody picked up on that or not, because I'm posting this before reading any of the posts that were posted since then.

Quote:

---

don't discourage people from having a discussion when you criticize me on a procedure about which you know very little

---

i know very little about?
there you go again, how could possibly know how much i know about debating?

and yes, tygur has asked for proof that people existed 10,000 years ago, but i was talking to the other people who made that acclamation

(a)maybe we don't have enough proof for you, but we're not insecure, in fact you keep accusing us of being insecure shows you are a little insecure yourself
(b)actually, you're right, i really don't feel like debating against fools (actually just you, everyone else is fairly civilized about debating)

FYI, I was going to send this in a private message/e-mail to you, but you've disabled these features. I appologize to the readers.



"there you go again, how could possibly know how much i know about debating?"

Instead of trying to minimize this sort of non-relating thing, you expand it by trying to infuriate other participants. I was merely pointing this out, that perhaps you might try to take my advice. I guess not.

"and yes, tygur has asked for proof that people existed 10,000 years ago, but i was talking to the other people who made that acclamation"

You said, "notice how they aren't providing any proof when you ask, they just keep on bashing the Bible." Unless you specify otherwise, I'll assume that "they" means anyone opposed to your point-of-view. You have to keep in mind that I'm not Miss Cleo from television, I can't read your mind. Please take that into consideration.

"maybe we don't have enough proof for you"

Whether or not you have enough proof for me is my decision. You're supposed to provide as much evidence to support your arguments as possible, and I haven't seen much of that thus far. Just a suggestion.

By the way, for whom do you have enough proof?

"actually, you're right, i really don't feel like debating against fools (actually just you, everyone else is fairly civilized about debating)"

I think this is quite rude, not just to myself but to the forum in general. If you haven't anything polite to contribute, I kindly ask that you leave.

If, in fact, you do intend to stay and participate, could you try to answer the questions I've asked?