Quote:If there is life on other planets (which it appears there is/was), that would be a pretty big point in Gods history that was left out by the bible.

Really? Care to cite a reference...and hopeful conjecture by scientists who are trying to get media attention does NOT count.

BTW, your point about being left out of the Bible is valid. However, exactly why should it be in the Bible?

Quote:My point is that evolution has the evidence behind it to show the evolution of man.

My point is that it doesn't. It's not even close. Not when a scientist or rational person looks at it w/o bias or their grades/funding depending on it.

Since I'm kind of old for this board, I'm willing to bet I've been doing science longer than just about anyone here, so I have some experience in talking about this.

Quote:According to the bible, man was created on the 7th day.

Actually it doesn't say this. Perhaps if you studied the material you could comment on it in an intelligent way.

Quote:Actually it doesn't say this. Perhaps if you studied the material you could comment on it in an intelligent way.

My bad, 6th day. That really doesn't affect my point. According to the Bible (Genesis 1), Earth was created in 6 days, and God rested on day 7. There is evidence that would suggest that the earth was created and had animals roaming around on it for millions of years before the first humans appeared. How do you explain this? How do you explain the dinosaurs? Or did they not exist?

Quote:BTW, your point about being left out of the Bible is valid. However, exactly why should it be in the Bible?

Because in Genesis it talks about the creation of life. Why would it not talk about creation of life off of this planet, if God is the creator of the Universe as we know it?

mlbUC Wrote:

Quote:Actually it doesn't say this. Perhaps if you studied the material you could comment on it in an intelligent way.

My bad, 6th day. That really doesn't affect my point.

No, but it affirms my point.

Quote:According to the Bible (Genesis 1), Earth was created in 6 days, and God rested on day 7.  How do you explain the dinosaurs? Or did they not exist?  There is evidence that would suggest that the earth was created and had animals roaming around on it for millions of years before the first humans appeared. How do you explain this?

There are many explanations offered for this. As I said before, if you want to comment on all of this, you'd be better off knowing something about it first.

Since you know little-to-nothing about the science and the Bible, you really don't have much position to comment at all.

Quote:

Quote:BTW, your point about being left out of the Bible is valid. However, exactly why should it be in the Bible?

Because in Genesis it talks about the creation of life. Why would it not talk about creation of life off of this planet, if God is the creator of the Universe as we know it?

Because the book is not dealing w/ life not on this planet. In a logical discussion the onus of proof is on the one who offers the conjecture. You've stated it makes sense for the Bible to talk about life on all planets. Why? Simply saying, "Why not?" is not a logical response.

DrTorch Wrote:

Quote:According to the Bible (Genesis 1), Earth was created in 6 days, and God rested on day 7.  How do you explain the dinosaurs? Or did they not exist?  There is evidence that would suggest that the earth was created and had animals roaming around on it for millions of years before the first humans appeared. How do you explain this?

There are many explanations offered for this. As I said before, if you want to comment on all of this, you'd be better off knowing something about it first.

Since you know little-to-nothing about the science and the Bible, you really don't have much position to comment at all.

Quote:

Quote:BTW, your point about being left out of the Bible is valid. However, exactly why should it be in the Bible?

Because in Genesis it talks about the creation of life. Why would it not talk about creation of life off of this planet, if God is the creator of the Universe as we know it?

Because the book is not dealing w/ life not on this planet. In a logical discussion the onus of proof is on the one who offers the conjecture. You've stated it makes sense for the Bible to talk about life on all planets. Why? Simply saying, "Why not?" is not a logical response.

1st of all, my full quote, not just the edited version you posted:

Quote:My bad, 6th day. That really doesn't affect my point. According to the Bible (Genesis 1), Earth was created in 6 days, and God rested on day 7. There is evidence that would suggest that the earth was created and had animals roaming around on it for millions of years before the first humans appeared. How do you explain this? How do you explain the dinosaurs? Or did they not exist?

Now, what explanations are offered for this? Please enlighten me as to your great understanding of the Bible that I apparently do not have. Explain to me where the Bible mentions the life on this planet for millions of years before God created man. Explain to me how the Dinosaurs were here millions of years before man, yet the earth was created a few days before man.

If you believe the Bible does not owe an explanation for there being life outside of this planet, and offers no clues as to there being life outside of this planet, then by all means, you can. Personally, I have more questions about life in and of itself, and those questions lead me to believe that the Bible is not a book from God or about God. The Bible is nothing but a book to try to keep the people subordinate, and put power in the hands of certain individuals.

That does not mean I don't believe in a God. It means that I don't believe in the God described in the Bible because it leaves too many questions, and doesn't give very many answers, especially as technology evolves and we understand more about ourselves and where we came from.

mlbUC Wrote:

Quote:My bad, 6th day. That really doesn't affect my point. According to the Bible (Genesis 1), Earth was created in 6 days, and God rested on day 7. There is evidence that would suggest that the earth was created and had animals roaming around on it for millions of years before the first humans appeared. How do you explain this? How do you explain the dinosaurs? Or did they not exist?

Now, what explanations are offered for this? Please enlighten me as to your great understanding of the Bible that I apparently do not have. Explain to me where the Bible mentions the life on this planet for millions of years before God created man. Explain to me how the Dinosaurs were here millions of years before man, yet the earth was created a few days before man.

How about *you* reading a book?
Why do I have to spoon feed this stuff to you?
You're the one espousing these opinions, and your sarcasm, even though you are woefully uninformed.

Try reading something by Hugh Ross. He's good.

You can also try Michael Behe.

If you want to deal w/ the evolution issue, then read Phillip Johnson.

Quote:The Bible is nothing but a book to try to keep the people subordinate, and put power in the hands of certain individuals.

Yeah, glad you are open-minded. If you haven't read the book then how would you know this? This is the statement of a child, not of a scholar.
Sorry, I have little patience for people who don't bother to think for themselves.

I have problems with people who are "holier than thou". I have no problem with religion, but don't tell me there is not evidence of species evolution (at least in terms of species changing to best deal with their environment). Don't tell me the Bible is litterally correct when talking about the history of the earth (and many other things).

If you want to tell me that God's time is not the same as our time, that he just used the "day example" to make humans understand in simpler terms and time, then at least you admit to it not being a litteral book (because it isn't).

I have had this discussion with friends a ton of different times. I have read the Bible from front to back (although only once, so I don't act as if I am the authority on the Bible). I ask these questions to you, as you seem to know (or rather, think you know) all the answers. Nobody can answer my questions without skirting around the issue. It appears that you cannot either since you just keep avoiding the issue and telling me I'm uninformed and close-minded.

I am open minded on all subjects, and will listen to anybodys arguments even if they are no my personal opinion. If you want to talk about open-mindedness, why is it that the Christians are so closed-minded in terms of gay marriage (or gay civil unions, as it should be called)? I'm not gay, but I think they should be protected if they are in a relationship of the type that my wife and I are involved in. Why is it that all of society will go to hell if they are given those rights, instead of just the offending people?

Why is it that I am going to hell because I don't go to Church every Sunday (or that i haven't been baptised)? Seems closed minded to me that these religious people would assume that I must be going to hell even though I live by the same ideals as is tought in the Bible (10 commandments, etc.), don't steal, cheat, lie, hurt people, etc. etc. I treat others as I wish to be treated, I give money and time to help people less privlidged than me. Why is it that I would go to hell in the end over some person who did these things but went and confessed his sins to a priest? Seems a little closed-minded to me.

If you don't want to explain your feelings and views, fine, I can respect that. But don't tell me I'm uninformed or closed-minded when I'm trying to find your reasoning as to why you believe in something. In the end, I always try to get as much information as possible about any subjects I'm discussing, and this is nothing different. Of course, the information I've been privy to makes me not believe in the Bible itself. That, as I said before, does not mean I don't believe in a God.

Quote:Sorry, I have little patience for people who don't bother to think for themselves.

Speak for yourself... apparently you don't question all the aspects of the Bible... or at least you won't share what you found when you read it.

mlbUC Wrote:I have problems with people who are "holier than thou".

pot.kettle.black

Quote:I have no problem with religion, but don't tell me there is not evidence of species evolution (at least in terms of species changing to best deal with their environment). Don't tell me the Bible is litterally correct when talking about the history of the earth (and many other things).

Did I write that? Maybe you should start by reading what I wrote, especially when you whine that I should write more, to answer *your* questions.

Quote:  Nobody can answer my questions without skirting around the issue. It appears that you cannot either since you just keep avoiding the issue and telling me I'm uninformed and close-minded.

Once again, I put out a bunch of answers. You don't reference any of them, so maybe it's just that you aren't reading them...or you don't understand an answer when it's in front of you.

Quote: but don't tell me...I am open minded on all subjects,

<a href='http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=irony' target='_blank'>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=irony</a>

Quote:apparently you don't question all the aspects of the Bible... or at least you won't share what you found when you read it.

Maybe if you stopped posting your rants, and read *any* of the authors I posted, or even the Bible itself, you could stop complaining so much.

Quote:pot.kettle.black

Exactly where have I acted above someone? I have stated my opinion, I have posed questions, I have not taken personal shots like you have (which is not very Christian like, is it).

Quote:

Quote:I have no problem with religion, but don't tell me there is not evidence of species evolution (at least in terms of species changing to best deal with their environment). Don't tell me the Bible is litterally correct when talking about the history of the earth (and many other things).

Did I write that? Maybe you should start by reading what I wrote, especially when you whine that I should write more, to answer *your* questions.

When you don't answer specific questions as to those subjects (explaining the Dinosaurs, etc) then it sure appears that way. But then again, I am supposed to just know these answers, according to you.

Quote:

Quote:&nbsp; Nobody can answer my questions without skirting around the issue. It appears that you cannot either since you just keep avoiding the issue and telling me I'm uninformed and close-minded.

Once again, I put out a bunch of answers. You don't reference any of them, so maybe it's just that you aren't reading them...or you don't understand an answer when it's in front of you.

Sending somebody to read a book, not knowing about what they are about, or what they state in general, does not consitute an answer. In my opinion it shows that you do not have an answer yourself, that you have to have someone else answer it for you.

Quote:

Quote: but don't tell me...I am open minded on all subjects,

<a href='http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=irony' target='_blank'>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=irony</a>

Nice creative editing of a quote... is that how you try to get your point across? Twist peoples words? Telling me I'm closed-minded when I'm asking questions and trying to find out answers from you is not being closed-minded. Asking you to explain things does not make me closed-minded. You jumped right on that closed-minded line as soon as I started asking questions that you could not answer.

Quote:

Quote:apparently you don't question all the aspects of the Bible... or at least you won't share what you found when you read it.

Maybe if you stopped posting your rants, and read *any* of the authors I posted, or even the Bible itself, you could stop complaining so much.

So who exactly can't think for himself/herself? Telling me to read the books by someone else instead of answering it yourself...

mlbUC Wrote:I have not taken personal shots like you have (which is not very Christian like, is it).

Is it? If you read the Bible, you might know the answer to this, instead of making pithy comments that continue to show you have no knowledge of the topic.

Quote:Asking you to explain things does not make me closed-minded. You jumped right on that closed-minded line as soon as I started asking questions that you could not answer.

You might try recognizing the difference between questions one "could not answer" and questions "will not answer". You also might try to recognize answers when they appear. Few people want to keep repeating answers to someone who doesn't even see it's the answer to their question.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:&nbsp; Nobody can answer my questions without skirting around the issue. It appears that you cannot either since you just keep avoiding the issue and telling me I'm uninformed and close-minded.

Once again, I put out a bunch of answers. You don't reference any of them, so maybe it's just that you aren't reading them...or you don't understand an answer when it's in front of you.

Sending somebody to read a book, not knowing about what they are about, or what they state in general, does not consitute an answer. In my opinion it shows that you do not have an answer yourself, that you have to have someone else answer it for you.

Well, your opinion doesn't seem to lead you to a whole lot of answers, does it? Actually, what it *should* tell you is that if you are serious about answers to your questions, it will require the effort of reading books...not some short responses on a message board.
I'm not convinced you are serious about answers. I think you just like to spout off about the way things are...at least in your "opinion".

Quote:Nice creative editing of a quote... is that how you try to get your point across? Twist peoples words? Telling me I'm closed-minded when I'm asking questions and trying to find out answers from you is not being closed-minded.

Nothing creative about it. Nothing was out of context. I'm just showing you your own words. If you don't like them then consider, who here has the power to do something about that? Hmmm?
Or is it more fun to spout off your opinions?

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:apparently you don't question all the aspects of the Bible... or at least you won't share what you found when you read it.

Maybe if you stopped posting your rants, and read *any* of the authors I posted, or even the Bible itself, you could stop complaining so much.

So who exactly can't think for himself/herself? Telling me to read the books by someone else instead of answering it yourself...

Ahh, suddenly reading books means a person can't think. Well, that's typical of post-modern philosophy, "If it's true for you, then it's true." Why bother collecting facts, when your *opinion* is all that matters?
Sorry, as a scientist (and this discussion started regarding science) I'm old-school, in that I think that truth is absolute.
If you're offended that I would suggest you read a book, so you can have thorough, well-written, properly cited answers that are readily referenced, instead of a disjointed conversation where someone can pull in some non-sequitor or other fallacy...then enjoy the success you'll gain from that type of scholarship.

Quote:what it *should* tell you is that if you are serious about answers to your questions, it will require the effort of reading books...not some short responses on a message board.
I'm not convinced you are serious about answers.&nbsp; I think you just like to spout off about the way things are...at least in your "opinion".

What it tells me is that you cannot effively relay your opinion and views (or others opinions and views, in this case) so you instead call people names who ask you to explain yourself.

Quote:

Quote:Nice creative editing of a quote... is that how you try to get your point across? Twist peoples words? Telling me I'm closed-minded when I'm asking questions and trying to find out answers from you is not being closed-minded.

Nothing creative about it. Nothing was out of context. I'm just showing you your own words. If you don't like them then consider, who here has the power to do something about that?

I challenge you to pull my entire quote. I could not even find a quote anywhere along the line (I figured I had a mistype) of what you quoted from me. My exact line was "But don't tell me I'm uninformed or closed-minded when I'm trying to find your reasoning as to why you believe in something" or "but don't tell me there is not evidence of species evolution (at least in terms of species changing to best deal with their environment)." Nowhere do I come anywhere near saying "but don't tell me I'm open minded."

Quote:If you're offended that I would suggest you read a book, so you can have thorough, well-written, properly cited answers that are readily referenced, instead of a disjointed conversation where someone can pull in some non-sequitor or other fallacy...then enjoy the success you'll gain from that type of scholarship.

So in a nutshell, you are saying that you are not intelligent enough to place your own opinion on the subject. You need somebody who has been paid to write an article (or book in this case) on one side of the argument, only citing examples that support their own viewpoint. Let me ask you, did these authors allow for someone of a opposite viewpoint to interject evidence to the contrary to their views? I would bet that they didn't. Did they allow for people to come to their own conclusions, or do they just say "it is this way"? I would imagine so. You can pull all the books out of your a$$ that you want, but if I truly wanted to argue with you on your level I could just go and find someone of the opposite viewpoint who wrote a book that came to the exact opposite conclusions (also without any opposite viewpoint cited in the book and the evidence to refute their evidence).

DrTorch Wrote:

Quote:My point is that evolution has the evidence behind it to show the evolution of man.

My point is that it doesn't. It's not even close. Not when a scientist or rational person looks at it w/o bias or their grades/funding depending on it.

First off... mlb, I believe Titan is actually covered by frozen methane not water.


Back to the quote above. I don't know how one could argue against the evolution of man. "Man" has grown larger and is living longer than in any time ever documented. Some of this is due to better health and nutrient practices, but it is also due to changes in anatomy and skeletal structure. The human skull is excellent for showing these changes and the way the body has evolved as "man" changed from a nomadic hunter/gather to a farmers and herders and then urbanised. This didn't happen over 4000 years, it took even longer than that.

Personally, I don't like the personified interpretation of God; but I still believe in what it is.

And I also do not believe the first 10 chapters of the Book of Genesis are historical fact. Some biblical events make reference to actual events (the great flood), but I have seen too much counter evidence for a creation story as detailed in the Book of Genesis.

mlbUC Wrote:How do you explain the dinosaurs? Or did they not exist?

I explained this when I posted...

Quote:As for Dinosaurs: Back then, the life-span was 900+ years. (Adam, Noah, Methusalah, etc.) until God decided otherwise(Genesis 6:3 -->Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal ; his days will be a hundred and twenty years.") Dinosaurs became extinct after the flood(now called Lizards). Lizards are the only species that do not stop growing until they die. Imagine the size of a lizard over 900 years old. That equals a dinosaur. Although 90% of the dinosaurs they have found are under 2 feet tall.

There you go mlbUC...kind of ironic how Dr. Torch was just talking about reading the stuff...

MU ATO Wrote:

GrayBeard Wrote:

MU ATO Wrote:

techfan4 Wrote:

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:Evolution;&nbsp; I find the refusal to believe one is descended from monkies, given the archeological evidence, arrogant.&nbsp; I am Deist, so my religious beliefs mesh with evolution perfectly.&nbsp; To believe in creationism, in my opinion, is to replace a landslide of scientific evidence with your imaginary friend of preference.

Arrogant? If I'm wrong, then maybe...but I have too much faith to believe that. Until any transitional evidence is found, I am 100% doubtful of humans coming from apes. Isn't it weird that the whole story of creation in the Bible fits? Where did the monkies/apes come from?

Im sorry but some naked dude pulling his ribs out to make some naked chic isnt exactly believable.

If that were the case 99.9% of men would be ribless.
:eek:

If your going to ridicule the Bible, at least get the stories right. Otherwise you just look like a Religion Hating Idiot and nobody, except for other religion hating idiots, will give your thoughts the time of day.

I dont care about the story as thats all it is a story.

I dont hate religion, I have a great religion.

Football.

Dont be pissy becuase your religion stories sound stupid. You're lucky that some people believe that crap to begin with.
:rolleyes:

Why are you alive then? How about you explain your thoughts...

techfan4 Wrote:

mlbUC Wrote:How do you explain the dinosaurs? Or did they not exist?

I explained this when I posted...

Quote:As for Dinosaurs: Back then, the life-span was 900+ years. (Adam, Noah, Methusalah, etc.) until God decided otherwise(Genesis 6:3 -->Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal ; his days will be a hundred and twenty years.") Dinosaurs became extinct after the flood(now called Lizards). Lizards are the only species that do not stop growing until they die. Imagine the size of a lizard over 900 years old. That equals a dinosaur. Although 90% of the dinosaurs they have found are under 2 feet tall.

There you go mlbUC...kind of ironic how Dr. Torch was just talking about reading the stuff...

I appreciate the fact that you sat down and wrote out your viewpoint on that. Dr. Torch did not point me to your post (sorry, I missed that part when I read over it originally). Like I said before, I want to hear your explanation, not an explanation from someone who wrote a book on the subject that you read.

That does not, however, explain the evolution of man. I think Fanatical said it best.

Quote:Back to the quote above. I don't know how one could argue against the evolution of man. "Man" has grown larger and is living longer than in any time ever documented. Some of this is due to better health and nutrient practices, but it is also due to changes in anatomy and skeletal structure. The human skull is excellent for showing these changes and the way the body has evolved as "man" changed from a nomadic hunter/gather to a farmers and herders and then urbanised. This didn't happen over 4000 years, it took even longer than that.

Personally, I don't like the personified interpretation of God; but I still believe in what it is.

And I also do not believe the first 10 chapters of the Book of Genesis are historical fact. Some biblical events make reference to actual events (the great flood), but I have seen too much counter evidence for a creation story as detailed in the Book of Genesis.

This is what is good discussion. Dr. Torch got into the conversation without wanting to explain himself, but to just say "it is because it is". That is not discussion to me, that is blind faith.

My only problem with the statements above...

Man lived for 900+ years before the flood...then God said that the life time would not be more than 120 years.

I think the majority of us here believe in "evolution" "horizontally"...just not "vertically". (Horizontally meaning looks and physical features, but still man) (Vertically meaning changing species)

The main problem I have with atheists is that they automatically assume Christians are unintelligent morons for believing in "fairy tales", as they like to call them. I generally don't get into discussions with people like this. There ARE those types in this thread as well. :rolleyes:


You can believe in the God of Peanuts, for all I care, just leave me to believe in my God. ....if that means praying in public, get over it.

mlbUC Wrote:

Quote:what it *should* tell you is that if you are serious about answers to your questions, it will require the effort of reading books...not some short responses on a message board.
I'm not convinced you are serious about answers.  I think you just like to spout off about the way things are...at least in your "opinion".

What it tells me is that you cannot effively relay your opinion and views (or others opinions and views, in this case) so you instead call people names who ask you to explain yourself.

Yeah, that sounds about right, since you haven't once referred to my original post citing details. I suppose I'm just too dumn to keep up with you.

Quote:I challenge you to pull my entire quote. I could not even find a quote anywhere along the line (I figured I had a mistype) of what you quoted from me.

Your quotes are all still here on the board. Why get so defensive? If I'm wrong people will know it. The fact is, you fool only yourself w/ your "openmindedness". You start with obstinate posts...then demonstrate conclusively that you've never studied any of the subjects. Your own words are the indictment, your attacks on me in no way serve to prove your point.

Quote:So in a nutshell, you are saying that you are not intelligent enough to place your own opinion on the subject. You need somebody who has been paid to write an article (or book in this case) on one side of the argument, only citing examples that support their own viewpoint. Let me ask you, did these authors allow for someone of a opposite viewpoint to interject evidence to the contrary to their views? I would bet that they didn't.

No you wouldn't. You don't have the cojones to make that bet, because it would mean you'd actually have to read something instead of relying on your prejudice.
You now go on to attack authors which you have never read? Are you trying for style points by combining several logical fallacies into one?

Quote:Did they allow for people to come to their own conclusions, or do they just say "it is this way"? I would imagine so.

And that sums it up. While some of us pursue reality, you are content to live in your own imaginary world.

Oh God, its turned into the spin room all over again. But this time people are just calling others idiots without providing any evidence why they are right.

Yeah, name-calling and degrading religion really proves your point. :rolleyes: (Yeah MU ATO, that was directed at you.)

DrTorch Wrote:No you wouldn't.&nbsp; You don't have the cojones to make that bet, because it would mean you'd actually have to read something instead of relying on your prejudice.
You now go on to attack authors which you have never read?&nbsp; Are you trying for style points by combining several logical fallacies into one?

Obviously you don't understand the purpose of message boards... to discuss and debate things. Discussion means you bring up points then support them. You don't say "go read this book." When was the last time you saw somebody on a debate team say "I refute your point by telling you to go to read this book"? You haven't! They might point out what book they got their info from, but not reply to a point with go and read this book.

TechFan4 has demonstrated the ability to debate the subject, it is unfortunate that you cannot and will not engage in a real debate/discussion, but instead take personal shots at the person asking you to qualify your statements.

mlbUC Wrote:Obviously you don't understand the purpose of message boards... to discuss and debate things.&nbsp;

Wow, and I thought they were for messages. Go figure.

Quote:Discussion means you bring up points then support them. You don't say "go read this book."

Really? Why not? Maybe b/c you've never discussed anything that requires deep thinking and cognitive reasoning. I guess I value learning over pointless discussion. I guess that shows just how dumn I am.

Quote:TechFan4 has demonstrated the ability to debate the subject, it is unfortunate that you cannot and will not engage in a real debate/discussion, but instead take personal shots at the person asking you to qualify your statements.

Oddly enough, you and TechFan4 have avoided my original post on this thread. Curiously, you never posted any references for your position either.
Perhaps your mistake is that you think discussions and debates are places for people to air their fantasies and prejudices. When is the last time *you* saw a debate where the presenter had NO support for their claims? or where they admitted they knew NOTHING about the topic at hand?
You pretend to be sophisticated, yet you've admitted you have never studied the subjects on this thread. Why shouldn't you be the subject of ridicule for that?