Unfortunately, one of the main reasons evolution is dismissed as incorrect is because so many people out there are willfully ignorant and won't even research evolution before making an opinion about it.

Here are a few examples from an anonymous site:

Someone
How can anyone beleive we evolved from monkeys heres a few questions for people who beleive that

1.If we did evolve from monkeys then how come babies arent born monkeys

2.Even Darwin said his theories were wrong before he died so why do you still believe them

3.do you really not believe the bible it says we were created in seven days not millions of years

4.how come we cant speak monkey

Just for a fact ape like creatures are monkeys Just in case certain people get on this thread

and

Someone
Gravity: Doesn't exist. If items of mass had any impact of others, then mountains should have people orbiting them. Or the space shuttle in space should have the astronauts orbiting it. Of course, that's just the tip of the gravity myth. Think about it. Scientists want us to believe that the sun has a gravitation pull strong enough to keep a planet like neptune or pluto in orbit, but then it's not strong enough to keep the moon in orbit? Why is that? What I believe is going on here is this: These objects in space have yet to receive mans touch, and thus have no sin to weigh them down. This isn't the case for earth, where we see the impact of transfered sin to material objects. The more sin, the heavier something is.

and

Someone
I often debate with evolutionists because I believe that they are narrow mindedly and dogmatically accepting evolution without questioning it. I don't really care how God did what He did. I know He did it.

and

Someone
It is not known whether God created oil when he made the earth 6000 years ago, or whether oil and coal deposits were generated during Noah's flood 4000 years ago. It does not mattter. What does matter is if you don't believe that God created the earth 6000 years ago, you are going to Hell.

and

Someone
Apes are just creatures twisted by Satan to mock Jesus by giving EVILolition credibility. Further more they are naturally lust crazed for human women. Since they are not natural creatures they should be exterminated forthwith as the tools of evil they are.

and

Someone
My qualification is I'm a God-fearing college dropout redneck hick landlord who goes after darwinism with freaking vengeance....and I just happen to have the truth on my side.

and

Someone
Muslims countries aren't as interested in ID because they don't need to deal with nearly as much atheist scum evolutionists with their evolving mind tricks. All our liberties are allowing the atheists here to destroy our society. George H.W. Bush was intelligent and thoughtful enough to say that atheists shouldn't really be citizens. Maybe his son will have the intelligence to make a similar point, maybe in his next state of the union adress outlaw evolution. He wouldn't need to say much, simply something like "every evolutionist is now an enemy of the Republic," and then explain why. The muslim countries know how to deal with these people(one of the rare things they do right). Why can't we follow their lead?

There are way too many people out there that think like this.

ozoneocean
Aliens...

Well "believing" in flying saucers is a different thing. ;)

Look, if life can come to be and evolve here, it can possibly happen elsewhere too; given how mind-numbingly massive the universe is and how many planets there are out there it's very likely that life could occur in other places.

So it is possible and probable that extraterrestrial life exists. But that's as far as it goes scientifically. They try and find traces of earth-like life on Mars and Venus, and intelligible radio broadcasts from deep space, but that's all pretty prosaic really, nothing to do with cow mutilation or hill billies getting butt-probed.

So Alibaba, scientists tend to accept the possibility that alien life exists. ^_^

Carl Sagan once said that the same thing that makes life possible on other planets, the massive size of the universe and the odds, are the same thing that make it unlikely that we could be contacted by said life. If it were to exists, chances are it's a bazillion light years away, as blissfully ignorant abouit us as we are about them.

Hapoppo
I don't believe in evolution, but I avoid taking a condescending opinion towards evolutionists just because they have different opinions than me. But I also don't understand how people come to the conclusion that because many aspects of the universe can be explained, that it's definitive proof that there is no God. I know that historically, God has been painted as this magical old guy in a toga and a long, white beard shooting lightning bolts at people because at the time, science just couldn't explain certain things; but likewise, it seems completely pointless if God would set up an entire, complex universe filled with incredible processes, from the micro to the macro, which all work together beautifully like a work of art, just to turn a 180 and play some colossal game of Dungeons and Dragons. My belief, take it or leave it, is that the entire universe, souls, the afterlife, God, angels, and demons, are all there, all set up to work through science, and all explainable; but our understanding is too limited to fully comprehend how it works.

Then you are unique to this argument, because usually God types begin this argument by entering the secular world with their faith based theories and are smug in their condecension(and active in their supplication) of science. I have no problem with faith, but just keep it outta my science please.

Again I say how would you all like it if we came storming into your churches with injuctions and forced you to start teaching science in your sunday schools???

I decided that I would respond because I am boring, and I have no friends to hang out with me:

As for whether God uses evolution as the mechanism for life on Earth, there is no way to disprove that belief. But it seems to discount the idea of an all powerful God who can subvert the laws of the universe. Plus, that would be several trillion years of non-conscious thought that God had to sit through before early man starting banging the rocks together. If God set evolution in motion, that to me means there's no one listening or watching our every move. Maybe watching us like an ant farm, but certainly not figuring out the afterlife each of us deserve.

But why would any of this seemingly discount an omnipotent being? Why would God not care for watching planets collide or star systems form, while He waited to give the first species the ability to reason? And why, once this species was created, would He necessarily be indifferent to them?

Face it the bible is the worlds oldest game of telephone, distorted, handed down verbally, translated and retranslated, edited by kings and popes with an agenda, yadda yadda yadda. To attempt to point to it as a resource for scientific thought is just a little too much for me to swallow.

I disagree. The world's oldest game of telephone is what people tell other people regarding the authenticity of the Bible. This must be the case because none of it is usually informed by anything other than hearsay. There are multiple reasons why Christians can rely on Biblical texts as authentic and true to their original wording. First, you stated that the Bible was edited by kings and popes with an agenda, which is true; however, there are extant Biblical manuscripts that exist today that are dated from around the first century AD. And we have Old Testament manuscripts from even earlier. What that means is that a scholar can check translated and edited Biblical texts against a plethora of early manuscripts. Therefore, no one should mind that the Bible was edited and translated by later kings, popes, or scribes, entirely because we can cross-reference the new manuscripts with the old. Second, at least in the case of Old Testament writings, the scribes adhered to a strict copying code. If even one iota (letter) of the copy was wrong, the copy was burned. Third, there are a copious amount of copies of the Bible throughout time and place that can be cross-referenced. Fourth, parallelisms and synoptic accounts are riddled throughout the Bible - if someone altered one saying, or dramatically changed one story, they may very well have had to change more. Fifth, there are no narrative clues that suggest that an insurmountable amount of deceitful editing occurred. If I were to look at a history of a particular people (the Jews, for instance), written by those people, and I was told that the events were distorted and white-washed, there are many things I would expect to see. I would expect to see virtuous heroes that never falter, virile armies that never fail, and a chosen people that never disappoint. But that is not the case here. God's people, who one might think was the salt of the Earth, grieved Him the most. God's heroes, who one might think shined brighter than the stars, were often time murderers and slanderers. If the Old Testament and New Testament was propaganda, it was most definitely propaganda at the expense of the Jews and Apostles.

In fact, the diversity of human mythology seems to lend weight to the idea that the stories are just stories after all. Think about it - if you ask 5 witnesses to describe an accident they all saw, you will get 5 different stories... but those 5 stories will have a lot more in common than Malakas & Maganda have with Adam & Eve.

This is interesting because back in the early 1900s (and even now) people argued that the Christian story suggests falsity, entirely because it *was* like other stories. Christ was too much like Mithra to be original, Noah was too much like Gilgamesh to be creative, and Sampson was too much like Hercules to be inspired. So if the world myths are too much alike, Christianity is wrong. And if they are too different, Christianity is wrong.

to those that are able to dig beneath the surface of the story, they can find enlightenment about making up for past sins and using what was given to him to do something positive. it has a good lesson, than no one is perfect, not even Jesus.

The reason that the Infancy Gospel of Thomas was not included was not because the Council was hard-pressed to extract morals and values from it, but because it was not popular and no one believed it was true, then or now.

If we were designed by god/creator then he/she/it did an ass poor job of building us. I'm not saying that the human body doesn't have some amazing and complex features but there are problems it us. Our eyes could be better, we get sore backs, a stunningly high rate of child birth related deaths, the easy with which we choke, an inability to produce vitamin C and countless more.

Classic Christian theology maintains that our bodies fell when we fell.

Of course, rabbits do not chew their cud, this passage is mistaken or (more likely) mistranslated.

To the ancient Hebrew, an animal that chewed its cud was an animal with multiple stomachs for digesting.

HOORAY FOR DISCUSSION!

I'm sorry, Rofopolis, but i do not follow you.

For instance, on the question of Rabbits chewing their cud. They neither chew their cud nor do the have multiple stomachs. Now, my point in bringing this up was not to play "gotcha" with the bible. This is clearly a minor misunderstanding. The ancient hebrews may have thought that Rabbits chew their cud because, well, it kinda looks that way. Or the phrase "chew their cud" may involve a mistranslation.

My point is just that thousands of years - and multiple translations later - it is actually kind of unclear why it says that rabbits chew their cud, or why God forbade humans from eating Rabbits (or why it is OK to eat them now). Your explanation is exactly as good as mine. but we don't really know.

So when people tell me that the bible is "inerrant" it kind of gives me pause. "Inerrant" is a strong position, much stronger than just "divinely inspired." When great religious schisms exist over the meaning of phrases that describe Mary as a Virgin, or exactly what the "kill" in "Thou shalt not kill" mean, or what it means to not "suffer a witch to live" than it seems reasonable to me to point out that it seems impossible to have a book derived from multiple (and often unknown) source documents in various languages and claim it to be without error.

Now, obviously, I can in no way disprove the greater validity or spiritual truth of the Bible. If the ancient hebrews misunderstood the way rabbits eat, it's no reflection on the validity of Xtianity.

it is, however, a reminder that the specific words and meanings of the bible are subject to a lot of debate and question, and therefore, the Bible cannot in any meaningful way be described as "Inerrant."

As an aside Rofopolis - i am not at all sure you are saying that the Bible is inerrant - but that was the point I was trying to make in my points. These debates get strung out over many posts, and the thread of our arguments can sometimes drift out of context, so that we are not always seen to be debating the points we think we are.

Stacey (me) said:

In fact, the diversity of human mythology seems to lend weight to the idea that the stories are just stories after all. Think about it - if you ask 5 witnesses to describe an accident they all saw, you will get 5 different stories... but those 5 stories will have a lot more in common than Malakas & Maganda have with Adam & Eve.

rofopolis said:
This is interesting because back in the early 1900s (and even now) people argued that the Christian story suggests falsity, entirely because it *was* like other stories. Christ was too much like Mithra to be original, Noah was too much like Gilgamesh to be creative, and Sampson was too much like Hercules to be inspired. So if the world myths are too much alike, Christianity is wrong. And if they are too different, Christianity is wrong.

This may be another example of a debate drifting out of context over a number of posts. Back on page 1 of this thread, Kyupol said that the similarities between Adam & Eve and the Philipino tales of Malakas & Maganda indicated some deeper truth that connected them.

I pointed out that one could just as easily dwell on the differences between these tales as highlight the things they had in common.

Rofopolis seems to feel that in doing so, I have held Xtianity up to an unfair standard, a sort of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. But of course, my whole point was that you can make the argument either way, so neither is really a useful way to affirm - or to deny - the idea that these stories share a common basis.

I do not see how it is unfair to claim that the tales of Adam & Eve and the tales of Malakas & Maganda are not necessarily based upon the same events.

I do not understand why humans feel the need to know the origin of the universe.
Wouldn't it make more sense to take all the energy and resources being used to find that answer and use it instead to help make people the best they can be?

And just a side note for people who believe in God, heaven and hell: if only good people make it to heaven then if there is a heaven, wouldn't the people who made it there more likely be good people who were atheists because they were good only because they were good people and not because they were afraid of punishment?
I'm sorry if that sentence didn't make too much sense, it's a hard thought to express.

Hippie Van
if only good people make it to heaven then if there is a heaven, wouldn't the people who made it there more likely be good people who were atheists because they were good only because they were good people and not because they were afraid of punishment?

nah, that Heaven (most Heavens) are (obviously) a very private party: if you're not member of the club, you'll hardly get in, despite being as a good man as you want.

Hippie Van
I do not understand why humans feel the need to know the origin of the universe.
Wouldn't it make more sense to take all the energy and resources being used to find that answer and use it instead to help make people the best they can be?

Good point. At the very best, all it does is gratify our curiosity. Scientists could actually be doing better things than that.

Hippie Van
And just a side note for people who believe in God, heaven and hell: if only good people make it to heaven then if there is a heaven, wouldn't the people who made it there more likely be good people who were atheists because they were good only because they were good people and not because they were afraid of punishment?
I'm sorry if that sentence didn't make too much sense, it's a hard thought to express.

That is a very interesting idea, actually. The people doing good for the sake of good should actually rank above those who do good for a reward or out of fear of punishment.

Hawk

Hippie Van
I do not understand why humans feel the need to know the origin of the universe.
Wouldn't it make more sense to take all the energy and resources being used to find that answer and use it instead to help make people the best they can be?

Good point. At the very best, all it does is gratify our curiosity. Scientists could actually be doing better things than that.

It's sad to say, but most of the scientific innovations we have come from researches that didn't have the direct purpose of helping anyone. On the other hand, history shows that even the most "useless" scientific discovery might eventually become the basis for a new theory, or allow the development of a new technology. Long story short, "science for science's sake" is true until someone finds a use for supposedly useless discoveries.

rofopolis
Face it the bible is the worlds oldest game of telephone, distorted, handed down verbally, translated and retranslated, edited by kings and popes with an agenda, yadda yadda yadda. To attempt to point to it as a resource for scientific thought is just a little too much for me to swallow.

I disagree. The world's oldest game of telephone is what people tell other people regarding the authenticity of the Bible. This must be the case because none of it is usually informed by anything other than hearsay. There are multiple reasons why Christians can rely on Biblical texts as authentic and true to their original wording. First, you stated that the Bible was edited by kings and popes with an agenda, which is true; however, there are extant Biblical manuscripts that exist today that are dated from around the first century AD. And we have Old Testament manuscripts from even earlier. What that means is that a scholar can check translated and edited Biblical texts against a plethora of early manuscripts. Therefore, no one should mind that the Bible was edited and translated by later kings, popes, or scribes, entirely because we can cross-reference the new manuscripts with the old. Second, at least in the case of Old Testament writings, the scribes adhered to a strict copying code. If even one iota (letter) of the copy was wrong, the copy was burned. Third, there are a copious amount of copies of the Bible throughout time and place that can be cross-referenced. Fourth, parallelisms and synoptic accounts are riddled throughout the Bible - if someone altered one saying, or dramatically changed one story, they may very well have had to change more. Fifth, there are no narrative clues that suggest that an insurmountable amount of deceitful editing occurred. If I were to look at a history of a particular people (the Jews, for instance), written by those people, and I was told that the events were distorted and white-washed, there are many things I would expect to see. I would expect to see virtuous heroes that never falter, virile armies that never fail, and a chosen people that never disappoint. But that is not the case here. God's people, who one might think was the salt of the Earth, grieved Him the most. God's heroes, who one might think shined brighter than the stars, were often time murderers and slanderers. If the Old Testament and New Testament was propaganda, it was most definitely propaganda at the expense of the Jews and Apostles.

I had to read this three times because you seem to make my point for me. First of all, "I know you are but what am I?" is a weak place to begin you're argument.

Secondly you admit that people have edited the translations and some of the earliest texts and yet you assert that there are a magical set of original texts that are irrefutable as bible truth. How do you verify this? Why isn't gospels of Mary, Thomas or the original unedited John not accurate and trustworthy?

And as for the vocal tradition of the old testament, you really are on shaky ground. These weren't even written down to have hard copy to argue its veracity.

By definition the old testament is a game of telephone because it was passed on from generation to generation VERBALLY!! Why are you so quick to attach veracity to the guy who decided to break taboo and tradition and write down the sacred text? Couldn't there be a scintilla of possibility that he had an agenda by writing it down?

Anything is possible including the bible being 100 percent true, but I have seen no hard proof either way, so I will theorize that human nature is the constant, and someone will always claim to know god and wear his mantle as an excuse to boss people around.

bobhhh
I had to read this three times because you seem to make my point for me. First of all, "I know you are but what am I?" is a weak place to begin you're argument.

I like to transition from weaker arguments to stronger ones. Often times I like to not make that transition at all.

bobhhh
Secondly you admit that people have edited the translations and some of the earliest texts and yet you assert that there are a magical set of original texts that are irrefutable as bible truth. How do you verify this? Why isn't gospels of Mary, Thomas or the original unedited John not accurate and trustworthy?

Sure. First, while there is some contention, the four Gospels are verified by early second century patristic writers as written by the men whose names are tacked on them. Not the case at all with the Gospel of Thomas, which is not referenced positively or as early (it is referenced in the third century). Second, the four Gospels have older, more ancient manuscripts; the Gospel of Thomas' earliest manuscript is dated in the third century. It stands to reason, at least to me, that the closer the narratives and gospels are in time to the life of Christ, the likelier they are too be true. The orthodox gospels, particularly the synoptic gospels, are referenced earlier and have earlier manuscripts - the others do not. Third, Paul's epistles are dated even earlier than all the Gospels, and his understanding of Christianity runs counter to Gnosticism, whose principles abound in the Gospel of Thomas and other similar gospels. And while it may be a logical fallacy to appeal to the majority, most early churches (before the Councils and state dominance), particularly those referenced by Paul, heralded the current Gospels.

bobhhh
And as for the vocal tradition of the old testament, you really are on shaky ground. These weren't even written down to have hard copy to argue its veracity.

By definition the old testament is a game of telephone because it was passed on from generation to generation VERBALLY!! Why are you so quick to attach veracity to the guy who decided to break taboo and tradition and write down the sacred text? Couldn't there be a scintilla of possibility that he had an agenda by writing it down?

Again, if the original scribes did have a dishonest agenda for compiling the Jewish canon, then I would like very much to know what it could be. It could not be leader/hero worship, or even patriotism. His chosen people are constantly condemned for their insubordination, and all the patriarchs and kings are shown as immoral and depraved. No typical agenda fits the Bible. They are not trumpeting some race, or heralding some noble nation, or lauding some lofty leader.

Besides, Christ cites the Old Testament and presupposes its authority. He dictates it to devils in deserts, and women near wells, and religious leaders in rural areas. If He believes the books He cited from are true, I am obliged to accept them as such.

Mankind's understanding of nature and his "science" has essentially brought this poor planet to its knees. So science is bad.

Religion has been used over and over to subjugate, create wars, and control certain masses of people in manipulative ways. So religion is bad.

Let's do away with both, start all over, and see which one shows up to help, Science or God.

The One that talks with Truth will win.

I am a religious person but i also consider myself to be very open in my beliefs. I do believe in evolution, i think it makes perfect sense. I also believe the world was created billions of years ago. I believe dinosaur fossils are real. Overall i think that if things can be proven scientifically, then they are most probably correct, and not the work of the devil. I simply don't believe God would allow for the existence of something that can be proven, as a "temptation" to lead us astray.

My idea of creationism is pretty simple to understand. I don't know how exactly it happened, but i know it was too complex for me to understand. But i can begin to understand how the Christian creationism story came into existence.

According to legend, it was Moses who originally brought down the original texts of the torah (yes he did bring the 10 commandments but he also did this too). Be it orally or on papyrus iunno, but that what's how the legend goes. The following is a modern recreation of the conversation of God telling Moses about creation:

Moses: Lord, your people have so many questions, without answers they surely will not continue to follow you.

God: You know, you have a point there. What do you think they want to know?

Moses: I don't know, Lord, perhaps its best to start with how your people came to be.

God: Ooh, I like that! Let's do it! Where should i start?

Moses: i don't know, Lord, how about the beginning...

God: Okay, here it goes. So first I #!$#@$#@%$#%$#%$@%$#%$#^%%@%$&#%$*&&#$^*^#$^%(^%$*%^#^(*$^%(&R^E*^*^#^&($^($*(&*%$*&*$%)*^&$^T*%**%&%*&^*&^*&^(^(
%#^%*&%&%(^&(^)((^)(&()(&)*_)(&)_*_(*_&&%&$&*&^$^##$@T%*%&^(^#&U*$^$*(^*$*^*%*(^(*%
@%$&(&)(*)#*&_)*)^(*_)*_)*_)(_)(_(*)(&)(*)(*)(*_(*_(_(_(/. Am I going to fast for you?



God: ...woops



God:...okay, maybe that was a little too complicated...i should probably explain a couple of other things first.
hmmm....okay so there are the things called atoms and when combined with other atoms they form molecules, but not all of the atoms are the same so they form different mole...

Moses: LORD, LORD! This is just too much for one man, surely you can simplify it. Your people need to understand.

God: hmmm.....



Moses! Moses! stop whining that you haven't eaten in 40 years and listen to me, i finally figured out what to say!

Moses: Could i eat first, im really freaking hungry, Lord!

God: fine...whiney bitch.



God: you done now?!

Moses: Yes, Lord.

God: Good, okay so here's what your gonna tell them. So i had 7 days...



and you get the point. Essentially i believe that the story of creation was simply too complicated for anybody ESPECIALLY of that period to understand. I mean to grasp how everything game into existence is pretty tough, none of us here can even begin to really think about how much went into it.

So in the end, i don't know how it happened, i'm sure science can provide a looking glass and my religious will continue to live in harmony with it. Until someone can prove to me that a combination of certain elements formed life, im pretty firm in my beliefs.

But yeah, that's my point of view

Its not rocket science. It's Faith. You either have Faith that the Bible is the word of the living God, or you don't. I am not going to twist your arm. I don't care if you believe it or not. All I can do is live a good life, and set an example. Do I have to physically see God , in order to believe in him? No. If that was the case, I would not believe in air, gravity or the wind. I cannot see the wind, or gravity, but I feel and see the effects of these things everyday.
One thing I learned to be true is it just gives you a headache to argue about this stuff. People are people. They are all different, with different levels of knowledge. The are going to believe what they want. Theres no changing their minds.
All I can say is that if one were to study Prophesy in depth, they would HAVE to come to the realization that something is going on , that is indeed supernatural....and time is coming to a head.

I hope you can all forgive me if I'm repeating, but I only skimmed this topic. It's interesting, but I only have so much time, and it's just a minor thing I wanted to ask.

Has somebody pointed out the fact that you all use the term "science" in a very positivistic manner? I know that positivism is the thing most people think about when science is mentioned, but it's not the only science, there's other ones that have different world veiws.

Positivism is the easiest to deal with because it rejects metaphysical occurences as a research subject as already mentioned by someone somewhere. I could go on and on about the ideas and effects on what's considered true, but I'd kill most of you with boredom, and I'm not an expert on the subject. But I assume you've all acceptet that you deal with science as if it was positivism, right? Hermeneutics as a science evolved from the study of biblical texts if I remember correctly, and that could mean the discussion would end up in different places...

Sorry to disturb you all, I hope I'll have time to look closer on this topic at some point.

The most fundamental question I have about the Bible is why everything Biblical ended on the last page.

Example: I was reading a book of facts about the Bible last night, and within it was stated that when he died Noah was 950 years old. This was not the only example, as there were listed many other prominent and non-prominent figures that seemed to have lived excessively long lives. I suppose it could just be all that chillin' with God, but they're not the only ones to have done it, it seems. If the only thing that these people did to gain unnatural long life was to be pious and faithful, then why is it that Martin Luther isn't still alive today? How about John Calvin? Joseph Smith? Nah, seems to me that they're all dead. Even the Pope, leader of the largest Jesus Christ-worshiping denomination on the face of the Earth, is fated to die and be replaced.

I suppose it just seems to me a bit odd that as the pages end, so does God's involvement with his great creation. In a time of skepticism and temptations of the flesh, wouldn't it make a great deal more sense for Him to once again intervene and reveal to the people who is the one true God? I remember the Bible saying that God was a jealous God, so where's that jealousy now in the face of a thousand other influences coming in from every direction?

The answer to your question is actually in the Bible in Genesis. Man was very longlived but God decided that He would limit man's lifespan to 120 years. I'll look it up and post the reference later.

lazymangaka
The most fundamental question I have about the Bible is why everything Biblical ended on the last page.

Example: I was reading a book of facts about the Bible last night, and within it was stated that when he died Noah was 950 years old. This was not the only example, as there were listed many other prominent and non-prominent figures that seemed to have lived excessively long lives. I suppose it could just be all that chillin' with God, but they're not the only ones to have done it, it seems. If the only thing that these people did to gain unnatural long life was to be pious and faithful, then why is it that Martin Luther isn't still alive today? How about John Calvin? Joseph Smith? Nah, seems to me that they're all dead. Even the Pope, leader of the largest Jesus Christ-worshiping denomination on the face of the Earth, is fated to die and be replaced.

I suppose it just seems to me a bit odd that as the pages end, so does God's involvement with his great creation. In a time of skepticism and temptations of the flesh, wouldn't it make a great deal more sense for Him to once again intervene and reveal to the people who is the one true God? I remember the Bible saying that God was a jealous God, so where's that jealousy now in the face of a thousand other influences coming in from every direction?

From Wikipedia: The longest unambiguously documented lifespan is that of Jeanne Calment of France (1875-1997), who was aged 122 years and 164 days.

dueeast
The answer to your question is actually in the Bible in Genesis. Man was very longlived but God decided that He would limit man's lifespan to 120 years. I'll look it up and post the reference later.

Must've overlooked someone.

Okay, I actually wound up here, because I saw that the Expelled movie has an ad banner here on Drunk Duck, and I was outraged. Morally outraged! I'll put up with B**** Cr****'s (edited so as not to summon the demon spawn of webcomics) crap being advertised on my Comic Genesis site, but I draw the line at creationism. Someone is going to hear about this!

Anyway... onto the topic.

Hippie Van
I do not understand why humans feel the need to know the origin of the universe.
Wouldn't it make more sense to take all the energy and resources being used to find that answer and use it instead to help make people the best they can be?

Albert Einstein once said that the chance of getting usable energy from an atom was about as likely as shooting birds in the dark in a country in which there were very few birds. Einstein was wrong.

What does this have to do with modern cosmology? Pretty much everything, actually. Modern cosmology owes a huge debt to Einstein's theory of general relativity, but even he completely misunderstood it's application to human interest. Having a theory of matter and energy has put us into the space age and has given us a model for energy that we sorely need in a world that desperately needs more ecologically-friendly forms of energy consumption.

Modern cosmology is the culmination of Einstein's theory of general relativity, which, to this day, is still the greatest theory of our or any era.I'm not saying that knowing the origin of the universe directly aids us in any way, but these things are often the culmination of other theories that do have a much more relevent impact on human survival. We're often unaware of these things, because of how poorly science is presented to us by the media and, quite frankly, the scientists themselves.

Hippie Van
And just a side note for people who believe in God, heaven and hell: if only good people make it to heaven then if there is a heaven, wouldn't the people who made it there more likely be good people who were atheists because they were good only because they were good people and not because they were afraid of punishment?
I'm sorry if that sentence didn't make too much sense, it's a hard thought to express.

I was thinking similarly along these lines just a few days ago. What you're talking about is semi-related to a connundrum known as the Euthyphro Dilemma, but more on that later.

Being the obnoxious, opinionated blogger I am, I commented that fundamentalist Christians (Note: I'm not pigeon-holing ALL forms of belief here) are actually sociopaths, because, unless they have this condemnation placed upon them and the need for redemption, they literally can't think of a better reason to be good. I've had dozens of fundamentalist Christians ask me, "If there is no God, why stop Hitler?". That is, of course, a disgusting question. It's not very comforting to think that there are people who can't figure out the obvious answer for themselves.

Well, aside from the answer I'm about to provide, history has already provided an answer for us: Pearl Harbor. Evil left unchecked always comes back to bite us.

A mentally healthy person (doesn't necessarily have to be an atheist) is able to identify that the best reason to act morally is because there are other people. I am capable of intuitively figuring out the values of others by simply projecting my values onto them. Everyone does this. It's called empathy.

Not only would I NOT want to live in a world in which a Hitler-esque despot controls most of Europe and thus see every reason to go stop him, but I would expect other civilized nations to do the same, were the same thing to happen here. Regardless, there is a vested interest in keeping the ratio of civilized societies on the high. The more we keep genocidal maniacs down, the less we have to worry about annihilation.

In fact, it shouldn't even warrant explanation.

Anyway, the Euthyphro Dilemma I was talking about is the problem wherein labeling God's morality as "good" implies that there is a standard greater than God to which even must comply. On the other hand, if a theist says that morality is defined by God, then morality is an arbitrary construct, meaning that God could have decreed that anything is good, including genocide.

...oh wait. Didn't he do that, anyway?

Is the concept of approximation not applying here? It's a lot closer to 120 than not.

Geez...

lazymangaka
From Wikipedia: The longest unambiguously documented lifespan is that of Jeanne Calment of France (1875-1997), who was aged 122 years and 164 days.

dueeast
The answer to your question is actually in the Bible in Genesis. Man was very longlived but God decided that He would limit man's lifespan to 120 years. I'll look it up and post the reference later.

Must've overlooked someone.

ttyler
Its not rocket science. It's Faith. You either have Faith that the Bible is the word of the living God, or you don't. I am not going to twist your arm. I don't care if you believe it or not.

I heartily agree. and I would never deny someone their faith. But faith has no place in a science class. That's all I'm saying.

I actually would take up arms and fight the government to protect your right to practice your religion, America was founded on personal freedoms like that, but the flip side is that the state may never sponsor a religion, or that freedom goes straight out the window.

...and teaching creationism in a classoroom crosses the line.

God belongs in church, science belongs in school.

Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's, render unto God what is God's.

It's in the bible.

I find it hilarious when people use the excuse "It's a translation. It can't be trusted!"

Through all the years of the Bible's existence I have yet to hear of any 'mistakes' if there are any.

Here's and idea, why don't we...gee I don't know, ACTUALLY TEST IT instead of constantly Baaaaaawwwwwwing that it has mistakes without even reading it?

OMG WOW!

Seriously, I came up with that idea. The concept really isn't that hard to think about. If I can figure this out, any retard can.

Bimbo_Zombie
I find it hilarious when people use the excuse "It's a translation. It can't be trusted!"

Through all the years of the Bible's existence I have yet to hear of any 'mistakes' if there are any.

Here's and idea, why don't we...gee I don't know, ACTUALLY TEST IT instead of constantly Baaaaaawwwwwwing that it has mistakes without even reading it?

OMG WOW!

Seriously, I came up with that idea. The concept really isn't that hard to think about. If I can figure this out, any retard can.

OMG WOW!!

Ok genius how are you going to test an article of faith? You going to recreate the parting of the Red Sea? How about building an Ark and gathering every animal on the planet 2 by 2?

And you talk about retrards?

Listen believe what you want, just don't drag your bible into science class.

Bimbo_Zombie
Through all the years of the Bible's existence I have yet to hear of any 'mistakes' if there are any.

One of the most important events in Christianity is Jesus' resurrection. This is fundamental to the entire religion, so you would think the details would more or less be accurate. So the simple question is this:

Who found Jesus' tomb was empty?

Hint: be sure to corroborate your answer across all four gospels.

Bimbo_Zombie
I find it hilarious when people use the excuse "It's a translation. It can't be trusted!"

Through all the years of the Bible's existence I have yet to hear of any 'mistakes' if there are any.

Here's and idea, why don't we...gee I don't know, ACTUALLY TEST IT instead of constantly Baaaaaawwwwwwing that it has mistakes without even reading it?

OMG WOW!

Seriously, I came up with that idea. The concept really isn't that hard to think about. If I can figure this out, any retard can.

Ok... lets assume the bible was translated flawlessly from ancient hebrew to modern english and that is not a problem.
Then there's still the point that the bible is not the biography of God's creating the universe and how things went after. The bible features stories to teach people about God. The famous start to Genesis with the Garden of Eden was just a popular story decided on to be used as the opening to the bible. It's insane for anyone to declare it fact and proof that there were no dinosaurs. So, we cannot assume the bible is all fact and use that to claim scientists wrong, otherwise you end up sounding like some lunatic fanatic who refuses to listen to other people.

Bimbo_Zombie
I find it hilarious when people use the excuse "It's a translation. It can't be trusted!"

Through all the years of the Bible's existence I have yet to hear of any 'mistakes' if there are any....

Then I guess ...

Slavery is okay!
"And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money."
If you have sex with (or rape) your female slave, SHE'LL be punished, not you!
"And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to a husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free."
Female captives (old and young) are considered spoils of war!
"But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself"
No spanking or taking away the car first! That's for wussies!
For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

And that's not all...

Leviticus 12:1-5 says that women are dirty and sinful after childbirth, so God prescribes rituals for their purification. If a boy is born, the mother is unclean for 7 days and must be purified for 33 days; but if a girl is born, the mother is unclean for 14 days and be purified for 66 days. This is because, in the eyes of God, girls are twice as dirty as boys.

Also don't forget those little gems:

Ritual Burning and sarfice of Human bodies are okay.


Espeically if they're non-believers.


Other Forms of murder is okay too, as long as:

Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests: Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

Kill Witches: "You should not let a sorceress live." (Exodus 22:17 NAB)

Kill Fortunetellers
A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

Death for Hitting Dad: Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)

Death for Cursing Parents
1) If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)
2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)

Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God:
Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

Kill Followers of Other Religions.
1) If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

2) Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden. When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death. (Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT)

With all those passages in the bible commanding others to murder and burn humans, I'm surprised that there aren't many more Christan/Catholic Terrorists....

After all, there's already fundamentalist wackos running around trying to kill off Gays or get America back into the dark ages. Oh wait.... that's right, Fundamentalists tend to handpick only the so-called "important" bits that will assist them in whatever agendas they want to do "in the name of god".

So they'll only do Mass murders if they feel like they can get away with it, and as long as it'll somehow assist their Agenda.

Huh. also sounds awfully a lot like some of those so-called Normal Christains too... You know the ones who rarely goes to church, etc... but will be all too ready to point out "Being gay is a sin!!" and so on forth. conviently ingoring the parts where Murder, lying, etc is okay as long as it's not against fellow Christians.

Aurora Moon, keep in mind that laws in the early books like Deuteronomy and Leviticus are in a different context. They were issued to the Israelites back when they first left Egypt, and the laws don't necessarily stand today because they were considered obsolete from Christ's time forward. You can still consider them awful laws, but just realize those aren't the laws currently being followed by most Christians and fundamentalists.

Hawk
Aurora Moon, keep in mind that laws in the early books like Deuteronomy and Leviticus are in a different context. They were issued to the Israelites back when they first left Egypt, and the laws don't necessarily stand today because they were considered obsolete from Christ's time forward. You can still consider them awful laws, but just realize those aren't the laws currently being followed by most Christians and fundamentalists.

That's true. However, the same can be said for the whole "Gay is a sin"! thing...
It seems that to me that half of the things that Fundlemists and some Christains want to reference as being an sin when it's convient for them tends to come more from the old tesasment rather than the "new".

Also, if you look though some passages of the bible, Jesus was reportdly said to have "approved" of some old praitices such as the murder thing...

Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn't care for his preaching. Matthew 11:20

Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law. Mark 7:9

Luke 12:47--Jesus okays beating slaves.

Also:
"For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV) Clearly the Old Testament is to be abided by until the end of human existence itself. None other then Jesus said so.

“Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law" (John7:19) and “For the law was given by Moses,..." (John 1:17).

So as you can see, some of it is vaild in making a point.