Page 5 of 57 FirstFirst 1234567891555 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 846
  1. #61
    Joined
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Hamilton NZ
    Age
    40
    Posts
    7,575

  2. #62
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    1,344
    hey bk94si,

    If you would take the time to even read about HIV-1 and HIV-2 in the world today you would see the trend that HIV has become less virulent in countries with less promiscuous (sp?) populations while in africa and asia has stayed highly virulent due to speed of transmission.

    The virus evolves ALL the time... hell HIV has the highest rate of mutation in known science. Why do you think AZT doesn't work anymore? Cause the reverse transciptase isn't fooled by the azidothymidine anymore cause AZT resistance has evolved...

    I feel like i'm talking to a brick wall... either you have no "real" understanding of bio, chem, and apparently physics as well (which i might add is used in evolutionary bio ALL the time...) nor do you have a "true" grasp of the bible... LOL my aunt's in seminary as I speak and she just about laughed her head off when i mentioned your quote about nothing in the bible is false.... sorry to bust your bubble but there is NO EXCUSE for ignorance...

    If the reason you bash evolution is for religious reasons... remember that the bible is a translation upon a translation upon a translation... that was STILL written by man partly as a history and as a way to explain phenomena in an uneducated world and later used by man to control people... REALLY EASY to see manipulation by the church back in catholicism's heyday but not so easy to see it nowadays but it IS there.... I'm not denying jesus's existance... heck i believe, but i do think the creation story is nothing more than man thousands of years ago trying to explain where we all came from not much unlike Greek mythology's attempt using Demeter and Persephone to explain why we have summer and winter...

    Open up your eyes bub... its a world full of wonder out there...
    barton 3000+, 8rda, 512 2700 samsung, evga6800GT, GTXP and delta66, 80gb wdse
    Arch Linux Homepage

  3. #63
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    20,453
    To add to what jrmiller just said, the Bible doesn't deny evolution at all, unless you want to buy into the seven day chronology of creation. If you simply remove the timetable, but keep the order of events, it's not far off from evolution and the scientific ideas of earth's creation at all.

    Sidebar: I'll never forget when I saw the Dresden exhibit at the de Young Museum in San Francisco. There on exhibit was the beautifully detailed armour of the Black Knight of Dresden and his horse. It was one of the finest examples of old world metal work I've ever seen. It was beautifully shaped and encrusted with gems. He was considered to be the baddest mofo of Western Europe. He was about four and a half or five feet tall. The horse's armour was just a bit larger than a Shetland pony.

  4. #64
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    1,344
    Heres a few common arguments against evolution

    1) Evolution by natural selection is unscientific because it is not falsifiable and because it makes no testable predictions...

    Each of Darwin's 4 postulates is independently testable thus meeting the classical criterion that ideas must be falsifiable to be considered scientific... as far as predictions go that claim is completely false, Paleontologist routinely predice what strata will bear fossils of certain types.

    2) Because the Earth was created as little as 6000-8000 yrs ago there has no been enough time for Darwinian evolution to produce the adaptation and diversity observed in living organisms...

    the argument is that most geological landforms and strata resulted from Noah's flood and most blindly ignore Radiometric dating using various isotopes. which HAS been demonstrated to be correct showing the earth is 4.6bill yrs old

    i'll add some more later... but i'm tired and need to go to sleep....
    barton 3000+, 8rda, 512 2700 samsung, evga6800GT, GTXP and delta66, 80gb wdse
    Arch Linux Homepage

  5. #65
    Joined
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Greenville, TX
    Age
    37
    Posts
    5,674
    I thought it was created 4,000 years ago jrmiller? That's what they said in "Inherit the Wind". I think they arrived at that number by adding up the ages of the prophets.

    Oh yeah, and all those fossils and isotopes and all that fun stuff are just demonic deceptions.


  6. #66
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    789
    Originally posted by jrmillerUT
    If the reason you bash evolution is for religious reasons... remember that the bible is a translation upon a translation upon a translation... that was STILL written by man partly as a history and as a way to explain phenomena in an uneducated world and later used by man to control people... REALLY EASY to see manipulation by the church back in catholicism's heyday but not so easy to see it nowadays but it IS there.... I'm not denying jesus's existance... heck i believe, but i do think the creation story is nothing more than man thousands of years ago trying to explain where we all came from not much unlike Greek mythology's attempt using Demeter and Persephone to explain why we have summer and winter...
    Open up your eyes bub... its a world full of wonder out there...
    Ok, I'm not going to get into the scientific arguements cause I can see those are going nowhere, and I'm a computer guy, not a scientist. But I would like to comment on the above paragraph.

    The bible is not translation after translation, for starters. The translations of today are not translated from other translations, they are translated from the oldest recovered documents in the original Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic languages.

    You also mentioned that those are uneducated people back then. Assuming that people that lived several thousand years ago were all uneducated is a big mistake. Yes, they had less technology, but there were well educated thinkers and it is known historical fact that the scribes were meticulous when copying important documents, such as the Bible.

    In fact, did you realize that there are far more copies found of Biblical texts, than there are of say Homer's Iliad, and yet nobody questions whether the Iliad we have today is the one he wrote. And why is that? Could it be that they don't want the Bible to be right?

    As far as your claims that the Bible has been used for ill purposes, I will not argue with you there. But none of what they did is Biblically grounded. The Bible never claims that men will be perfect while on earth, it claims that God is perfect and you should follow him because of that. Men have screwed up and will continue to do so. Even today it seems that the Christians that everyone notices or remembers are the ones that screw up or aren't living in ways that are Biblically based. i.e. the TV-evangelist that has affairs, etc.

  7. #67
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    West Richland, WA
    Posts
    6,397
    Originally posted by jrmillerUT
    LOL my aunt's in seminary as I speak and she just about laughed her head off when i mentioned your quote about nothing in the bible is false.... sorry to bust your bubble but there is NO EXCUSE for ignorance...
    Name one.

  8. #68
    Joined
    May 2001
    Posts
    1,844
    Originally posted by wardog25
    The bible is not translation after translation, for starters. The translations of today are not translated from other translations, they are translated from the oldest recovered documents in the original Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic languages.
    Out of curiosity, which version of the bible are you talking about? Probably the most widely used version, the Kings James Version, definitely used translations of translations. From a random Googled page:
    And, as the translators themselves also acknowledged, they had a multitude of sources from which to draw from: "Neither did we think much to consult the Translators or Commentators, CHaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch." The Greek editions of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza were all accessible, as were the COmplutensian and Antwerp Polyglots, and the Latin translations of Pagninus, Termellius, and Beza.
    It's also interesting to note that the first rule of that translation was to try to maintain "the Truth" of the Bishops Bible of the time.

    I also doubt that original language texts of all the books in their entirety exist today or even at any point in modern history (say the last couple of centuries).
    Any opinions stated are mine only and do not necessarily reflect those of any business / entity or any other individual. Take any advice I might offer at your own risk. No guarantees or warranties are given or implied. If your opinion matches mine, congratulations on being right. If you heed my advice and realize monetary gains, I accept cash, checks, and money orders. If you realize spiritual gains, I'll accept a good word as you pass St. Peter, Charon, or when you take a spin on the Wheel. Finally, the key to getting the right answer is asking the right question.

  9. #69
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    West Richland, WA
    Posts
    6,397
    Originally posted by Dutchcedar
    To add to what jrmiller just said, the Bible doesn't deny evolution at all, unless you want to buy into the seven day chronology of creation. If you simply remove the timetable, but keep the order of events, it's not far off from evolution and the scientific ideas of earth's creation at all.
    Actually, evolution and the Bible cannot both be true. Evolution means billions of years of death and dying prior to Adam. The Bible says death was a result of Adam and Eve's disobedience and required sacrifices to atone. If evolution were true, then Christ's atoning death on the cross means nothing. You have watched "Inherit the Wind" too many times.

  10. #70
    Joined
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    5,358
    Originally posted by wardog25


    In fact, did you realize that there are far more copies found of Biblical texts, than there are of say Homer's Iliad, and yet nobody questions whether the Iliad we have today is the one he wrote. And why is that? Could it be that they don't want the Bible to be right?
    Funny, that you should compare the Iliad and the Bible... When, in fact, the history of Iliad is actually a matter of great controversy, particularly, whether Homer wrote it or not, or even existed, for that matter. Also, comparing these two...: Do you mean to say that the Bible is as much fiction as the Iliad is?

    And about wanting the 'Bible to be right (or for it not to be right)'... There are about a million different 'interpretations' of the bible, no matter what the actual 'translation' is.

  11. #71
    Joined
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Hamilton NZ
    Age
    40
    Posts
    7,575
    Originally posted by bk94si
    Name one.
    Adam and Eve... and the mythical Garden of Eden..



    I'm chinese.. you telling me we descended from the same Eve?
    Scuse me, but I got slanty eyes..
    And that all the animals came from all the solitary pairs of animals saved by Noah?
    And methuselah lived till 900+yrs.. ??!!! modern medicine isn't even close..

    cheers.

  12. #72
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    789
    Originally posted by Chang
    Out of curiosity, which version of the bible are you talking about? Probably the most widely used version, the Kings James Version, definitely used translations of translations. From a random Googled page:
    It's also interesting to note that the first rule of that translation was to try to maintain "the Truth" of the Bishops Bible of the time.

    I also doubt that original language texts of all the books in their entirety exist today or even at any point in modern history (say the last couple of centuries).
    That's exactly what I'm talking about. Even if there were errors in the King James Version (which many scholars say there were because King James wanted the areas of the bible that condemned his actions to be toned down a bit), the newer translations of the Bible do not use the King James to translate from. They use the oldest recovered manustripts which date to only about 90 years after the books were written. In terms of literary history, this is a tiny amount of time considering that the works of many secular historians (considered by secular historians of today to be very near completely accurate) have a much larger date between when they were written and the oldest existing copy. Such as:

    Homer - 500 years. (900bc for original writing; 400bc for oldest recovered manusript)

    Caesar - 900-1000 years (100-44bc to 900ad)

    Herodotus - 1300 years (480-425bc to 900ad)

    These are well accepted secular historians whose works and dates of those works are not questioned by Christians and non-Christians alike. Not to mention, far more copies of New Testament manuscripts have been recovered (something like 150,000 documents or partial documents have been recovered). You might say that more copies makes for more possible errors from copying scribes, but it also makes it far easier to find those errors and weed them out.

  13. #73
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    789
    Originally posted by Pehu
    Funny, that you should compare the Iliad and the Bible... When, in fact, the history of Iliad is actually a matter of great controversy, particularly, whether Homer wrote it or not, or even existed, for that matter. Also, comparing these two...: Do you mean to say that the Bible is as much fiction as the Iliad is?

    And about wanting the 'Bible to be right (or for it not to be right)'... There are about a million different 'interpretations' of the bible, no matter what the actual 'translation' is.
    I wasn't talking about fact or fiction, I was talking about whether what we have today is what was written back then. Regardless of whether some dude who we think of as Homer wrote it or existed, most scholars do not contest the timing of the writings or that what we have today differs from what was written. That is all I was trying to point out. The accuracy of the manuscripts is not generally what is questioned and is all that I was trying to establish. As far as fact, fiction, or interpretations, I think we could argue all year on that one (evident by the evolution discussions on this thread) so I won't even bother. We obviously see things differently.

  14. #74
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    20,453
    Originally posted by bk94si
    Actually, evolution and the Bible cannot both be true. Evolution means billions of years of death and dying prior to Adam. The Bible says death was a result of Adam and Eve's disobedience and required sacrifices to atone. If evolution were true, then Christ's atoning death on the cross means nothing. You have watched "Inherit the Wind" too many times.
    For starters, I have never seen "Inherit the Wind". I arrived at my beliefs as the son of a renowned Theolgian who has spent his life persuing the truths of the Bible, Torah and Koran. He speaks Ancient Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew, as well as many other languages. I have personally read seven versions of the Bible from cover to cover... much of them out loud at the dinner table before prayer. That's how our family learned to speak English... by reading chapters of the Bible out loud in front of the rest of our family, after dinner. So please don't flipantly assume that my beliefs are the result of a Hollywood movie.

    If you choose to believe there was no death prior to Adam and Eve, so be it. I respect your belief and am not interested in changing it. If you believe Adam and Eve were created in 4004 BC, in line with the prefered chronology of the Bible scholars, so be it. We can't argue religion, we can only preach it.

    To your statement, "Actually, evolution and the Bible cannot both be true," I simply disagree. The problem with your argument is that you are taking every word in the book as truth. That in and of itself is flawed. As this thread has touched on, there are many versions of the Bible. Those versions in and of themselves have contradictions, which means at least some of them contain false words. Throw science into the mix, and more problems arise.

    I must say however, that the truths of evolution and Christ's atoning death can coexist without conflict. They may or may not in my own beliefs, those I will keep private because they are too extensive to get into here. But your assertion that they cannot, is not well founded.
    Last edited by Dutchcedar; 09-15-2003 at 12:18 PM.

  15. #75
    Joined
    Dec 2001
    Location
    SoCal, Jersey
    Age
    62
    Posts
    5,587
    Originally posted by wardog25

    In fact, did you realize that there are far more copies found of Biblical texts, than there are of say Homer's Iliad, and yet nobody questions whether the Iliad we have today is the one he wrote. And why is that? Could it be that they don't want the Bible to be right?

    Simply, the Bible claims to be the inspired word of GOD, and sets forth commandments by which I should live under a penalty of eternal damnation, plunged into a lake of fire, or salvation and eternal life. The implications are staggering. One day we will actually be judged by the Almighty. Not just piety, but the content of our hearts. Some, Christian religious authorities say, here is the truth, and you're damned if you don't believe it, and follow it. Pretty rigid. And at that, offering no observable proof of its truth, but faith and the witness of other human beings. I happen to live be those guidelines, because that's the way I was raised - I went to parochial schools - but I still question. Thomas questioned, with more tangible proof than we're offered, and ultimately was convinced.

    We may never be knowledgeable enough to completely harmonize science and religious doctrine. Questions are good. Probing is good.
    "I despise people who go to the gutter on either the right or the left and hurl rocks at those in the center." - Dwight D. Eisenhower



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •