Christians

[~zonker~]

Napalm;

Every Hebrew born at that time could rightly call himself a son of God (PS 82). The real issue is the immaculate conception, or Jesus being the 'only beggoten son'.

 

[rahvin]

<<I did just read of possible evidence of Noah's flood however, which kind of surprosed me.>>

Umm, I saw the special on that and they are talking about a geographic flood, ie a lake moving or suddenly getting bigger. They are in no way referring to a global flood or which there is absolutely NO evidence of that happening. In fact all evidence says there has NEVER been water covering the entire surface of the world. The noah story is completely impossible. The Jews borrowed it from a similar tale in babylon while they were slaves, and I believe it originated in Hindu.

<<Do all of you completely disregard Jesus' existence as a human-being? Or do you all think he was lying and not really the the son of some god? Thanks>>

Myself personally I doubt the existense of the person you refer to as Jesus. I believe there was a Jewish revolutionary at the time trying to throw off Roman oppression. This person was a member of one of the Jewish fringe sects. Over time (about 3 centuries) and under the influence of saul/paul (a gentile) Christianty was created from the sects years after his death. This mans history was sanitized and altered, it was meshed with the historys and legends of a few other religions. When emperor Constantine had his famous dream there were over 300 different sects of christianity, Constantine picked a sect that he liked and adopted it as his pet sect. Using his power he eliminated all the other christian sects with the help of the &quot;favored&quot; sect. After trimming the herd he exerted his power and influence to alter the message of the favored sect to passify them (eliminate the revolutionary ideas), this is where your message of love your neighbor orginated. Over the next 1000 years of complete control the christian church had complete control over all source documentation, they controled the roman empire and even began altering exterior works. So in summary, the person you call Jesus didn't exist

 

[~zonker~]

The story of Gilgamesh (Babylonian) may have been incorporated in writing the Noah portion of the Bible. The story would have been passed down verbally for some 5,000 to 6,000 years as the earliest evidence of the flood story occurs around 2000 BCE. The origins of the legend(s) may certainly come from people living around the Black Sea, in that basin, which may have flooded as the worlds ice caps receeded following the ice age.

I don't know of a serious bible scholar that reads the flood story literally. This evidence does lend credence to the fact that a catostrophic flood did occur, once again lending historical accuracy of geographic events depicted in the Bible.

 

[Napalm381]

<< Every Hebrew born at that time could rightly call himself a son of God (PS 82). The real issue is the immaculate conception, or Jesus being the 'only beggoten son'. >>

Minor semantical differences.

 

[Semper Fi]

<<<How do you explain the fact that genetic coding for codons is the same in virtually ever life-form examined? The coding is shared by everything from bacteria to humans. The exceptions to the near universality of the coding is in certain single-celled organisms and organelles in cells. This points to a divergence very early in the history of life. Please explain how the FACT that everything from bacteria to mammals shares the EXACT same genetic coding for mRNA codons.>>>

They share the same Creator.
OK a specific question: Are there any fossil records to support that some reptiles evolved into birds?(I don't see how that is any different from a frog evolving into a cow.)

Rahvin, I provided definitions in previous posts.

whoever said buddhism wasn't a religion, pick up a book at your campus bookstore on the philosophy of religions and see if buddhism isn't listed. You also did not read and understand my statement.

Modern physics relates that matter can spontaneously exist. In fact at the sub-atomic level of particals muons and other particals routinely appear (along with an anti-muon) and spontaneously cease to exist moments later. Based on this it is possible that an entire universe can spring into existence (with a corresponding anti-universe) and exist till it decides no longer exist.

Matter can decide to not exist?

Lady Jessica, I am not trying to prove creationism. Someone said they did not believe Jesus was the Son of God because there was no scientific proof. As some have stated you can not prove everything scientifically(ex. the theory of evolution).

E=mc^2

&quot;While general relativity implies an age for the universe vastly beyond 6,000 years, it also implies that there is, indeed, a creation date. Expansion, coupled with the deceleration, indicates a universe that is exploding outward from a point. In fact, through the equations of general relativity, we can trace that &quot;explosion&quot; backward to its origin, an instant when the entire physical universe burst forth from a single point of infinite density. That instant when the universe originated from a point of no size at all is called the singularity. No scientific model, no application of the laws of physics, can describe what happens before it. Somehow, from beyond itself the universe came to be. It began a limited time ago. It is finite, not infinite.
The implications can only be described as monumental. Atheism, Darwinism, and virtually all the &quot;isms&quot; emanating from the eighteenth century to twentieth century philosophies are built upon the assumption, the incorrect assumption, that the universe is infinite. The singularity has brought us face to face with the cause-or causer-beyond/behind/before the universe and all that it contains, including life itself. According to the centuries-old cosmological argument for God's existence,&quot;---The Fingerprint of God, Hugh Ross (any typos are due to my typing skills.)

1. everything that begins to exist must have a cause of its existence.

2. the universe began to exist

This is inline with the Bible.

For you Steven Hawking fans: &quot;This unthinkable void converts itself into the plenum of existence-a necessary consequence of physical laws. Where are these laws written into that void? What &quot;tells&quot; the void that it is pregnant with a possible univers? It would seem that even the void is subject to law, a logic that exists prior to space and time.&quot;-Steven Hawking, The Quantum State of the Universe, in Nuclear Physics B, 239.(1984)pp.257-276.


What are the chances that different enzymes just happened to appear, through natural movements of molecules to form the first simple lifeforms? According to Sir Fred Hoyle the chances are 1 in 10 to the 40,000 power. Look for yourself, &quot;The Universe: Past and Present Reflections&quot;, University College, Cardiff, 1981.

 

[Napalm381]

<< They share the same Creator. >>

Ah, the traditional cop-out answer.

 

[UG]

<...It would seem that even the void is subject to law, a logic that exists prior to space and time.&quot;-Steven Hawking, The Quantum State of the Universe, in Nuclear Physics B, 239.(1984)pp.257-276...>

One should not fail to recognize that that statement was qualified with 'would seem' as an indication that is speculative. Further, it should also not go unnoticed that Hawkings never implied that that seeming law, that seeming logic, could be specifically construed as a divine creator or a product of its intent.

To conclude that it is an endorsement for the existence of a god is to merely fulfill one's philosophic fantasy with a self-serving interpretation; further evidence most people jump to the easiest explanation because it better suits their personal needs.

Semper Infi!

 

[Semper Fi]

UG, yes it was a speculative statement. But why was it made? If you know anything about Steve Hawking then you know he is as atheist as they come. You made the assumptions.
Why was the statement made? I should have s-p-e-l-l-e-d it out for you, you are acting irrational. Why was the statement made? My purpose for the quote is to make someone think, &quot;why did he make that statement&quot;. You jumped to the easiest conclusion about my purpose for the quote to suit your needs.

I am sure you two have heard of Paley's watch.

Napalm381, how is it a copout? If all things are created by the same being then it follows that they will have things in common. You may not accept that reasoning but it is logical. A science should not rely on words like obvious and apparent. Explain the peacock. The theory of evolutions is about gradual change. Where are the intermediaries? If only one out of 100 of a species mutates how is the mutation carried forward? It would have to find others with the same mutation to breed with, what are the odds? There are many more questions. Are you telling me that I shouldn't ask questions but just accept what I am told?


I know this:

1) An unfailing love from my Father the Creator of the universe
2) My salvation through Jesus Christ the son of God.

Why don't you read some books, at least have an open mind and see what the &quot;other&quot; side thinks.

&quot;Creation and Evolution: Rethinking the evidence from science and the bible&quot; Alan Hayward

&quot;Not a chance&quot; R.C. Sproul

&quot;Darwin on trial&quot; Phillip E. Johnson

&quot;The Fingerprint of God&quot; Hugh Ross

&quot;Mere Christianity&quot; C.S. Lewis

 

[rahvin]

<<Explain the peacock.>>

The peacock is an excellent example of evolution. The female peacocks pick their mates by the color and size of their plummage. Much like other bird species some of the adaptions were counter survival but pro-reproduction. Natural selection is all about breeding, not necessarily survival.

<<The theory of evolutions is about gradual change. Where are the intermediaries? If only one out of 100 of a species mutates how is the mutation carried forward? It would have to find others with the same mutation to breed with, what are the odds? There are many more questions. Are you telling me that I shouldn't ask questions but just accept what I am told?>>

Actually what they are telling you is you have a failed understanding of evolution. So you are making a decision about it's validity without understanding it. Your statement above proves it.

 

[GoofusMaximus]

It's ironic that the origin of the theory of evolution comes from the fact that theologins were in fuddle, trying to figure out how Noah stuffed all those animals on an itty-bitty (relatively speaking) Ark!

Being a heretical christian that I am, I believe in God and evolution simultaneously. The Word of God (the Bible) has been fiddled with by humans for such a long time, that I put faith in the scientific method to tell me how God REALLY went about creating everything. Man wrote words in a book, but God wrote the earth, stars, and universe without human editing. There are clear differences between the Protestant bible, the Catholic bible, and the original Hebrew works (old testament). The book of Esther was clearly an allegory about the religious upheaval among the Medes in Xerxes time, for example, and the Tower of Babel was a mockery of the Babylonian Ziggarat, which was always under construction, and never completed. The fact that there are actually TWO contradictory creation stories in Genesis, and that one of them still has remnants of it's polytheistic origins (if they eat of the fruit, they will become just like us) is another example of this.

This idea of Biblical absolutism is a fairly modern concept, and I reject it personally. I'd also like to the the Gospel of Thomas put into the new testament, where it rightfully belongs.

 

[Napalm381]

<< Napalm381, how is it a copout? >>

I consider it a copout because it is can be neither proved nor disproved. I can offer no evidence to disprove it, nor can you offer evidence to prove it. If you want to debate a scientific subject, use scientific logic.


<< Explain the peacock. >>

I am not an expert on every species of creature in the world. However, there are a significant number of transition fossils covering many, many phyla of animals, many of which are documented here. If you would like a more in depth analysis of the homind fossil record, please peruse the links here..

<< would have to find others with the same mutation to breed with, what are the odds? >>

Absolutely false. Study your genetics textbooks some more. From talkorigins:
Some changes to genes involve mixing (say, between parents) according to well-understood principles of population and molecular genetics. Other changes involve chemical processes that interfere with the transcription of DNA to proteins, that cause (again, in accord with the principles of organic chemistry) mistranscriptions either at replication or at conception. Let's call these Replication Rules, the L1 processes of Lewontin's diagram above. &quot;Random&quot; in the sense of there being no causal process that determines the eventual genetic outcome, does not describe any event that occurs at any stage in replication.

Once a change has been caused, by whatever process, that change enters into the process of transcribing DNA into a phenotype (the structure of the organism). This is the process of production of the juvenile organism, known in animal biology as ontogeny, or development. [Analogous processes occur in other kingdoms, such as plants, but it does not pay to either be too literal, or to think that what is true of animals (especially of mammals) is therefore the model of what is true of all life.] The transcription of these proteins results in cellular structures that then develop into an organism in a process of differentiation and specialisation of cell reproductive lineages, resulting in skin, skeletal structures, organs, etc. These processes (L2 in the diagram) follow what we shall call Development Rules.

Finally, the resultant phenotype, or organism, is then a part of its ecology, attempting to gain a share of the resources it needs (food, mates, space) in competition with other organisms that also seek these resources. This includes predators, who want the resources of the organism's bodily organic chemistry. The rules that cover this sphere (L3 and L4 in the diagram) we may call Ecological Rules, and they cover also mating behaviour in species that mate.

Natural selection, including sexual selection, is a sorting or filtering process that occurs when variants caused by Replication Rules do better at survival under Development Rules and Ecological Rules than other variants in competition for ecological resources, and which replicate more frequently than those competitors. [This definition is very broad on purpose, for it includes both competition for food and other resources within a species and interspecific competition for survival; say, between predator and prey.]

Now, under most interpretations of scientific law, the sorts of rules that Replication Rules are, are definitely scientific laws [cf Ghiselin's and Thompson's essays in Ruse 1989]. Not too much rides on the form of this, though, for it is enough to say that explanations of DNA and RNA transcriptions are causal chains, and are therefore scientific explanations in the true sense: they explain what causes the outcomes from the initial conditions and the properties of the objects involved.

There is no basic randomness here, except as far as it arises from the general indeterminacy of the physical world (known as stochastic processes). The same is true for Development Rules. Fetal development in mammals is becoming well understood in terms of the causes of cell differentiation and gene activation. Once these processes have been fully uncovered, there will be no randomness here, either.

Therefore, randomness must enter into evolution per se, if it does, at the level of Ecological Rules; that is, in the ecological struggle [Sober 1984]. However, nobody can fairly argue against the statement that certain phenotypic properties -- a longer beak or stronger hindlegs -- can influence their relative reproduction in a population. So, even if the correlation is only a matter of frequency, there is still a nonrandom relationship between what is claimed as the cause and the effect.

Yet, it is often claimed that randomness drives evolution, as in the quotation from Monod above. We have to ask, where does chance really enter into evolution?


<< Are you telling me that I shouldn't ask questions but just accept what I am told? >>

Absolutely not. Feel free to ask all the more questions you want. Nobody ever got anywhere by blindly accepting what is told to them.


<< Why don't you read some books, at least have an open mind and see what the &quot;other&quot; side thinks. >>

While I have not studied those specific books, I have examined a good amount of creationist literature and web sites. Most of the claims that I have seen from these sources are scientifically inaccurate, if not flat-out lies.



<< OK a specific question: Are there any fossil records to support that some reptiles evolved into birds?(I don't see how that is any different from a frog evolving into a cow.) >>


First of all, evolution does not claim that frogs evolve into cows directly. What it does say that frogs and cows, somewhere in the history of the earth, had a common ancestor. The link I provided above regarding transitionary fossils covers your question. A highly relevant quote from this paper: Also note that molecular data shows that crocodiles are birds' closest living relatives

 

[jhu]

here's a good read.

 

[jhu]

here's some more suspicious info

 

[Napalm381]

In response to jaydee's mega-post from a view days back: First off, this &quot;Hovind Theory&quot; has not been peer reviewed. (Note that &quot;Hovinds Wild-ass Guess&quot; would be a more appropriate title, as is fails to meet the scientifically accepted defintion of a theory.) I could write down my own ideas regarding evolution, the history of the earth, etc, yet without others reviewing and evaluating my claims, such ideas are effectively worthless. Secondly, Hovind provides no scientific evidence to support his theory. He has performed no experiments, gathered no evidence or data that specifically supports his theory. A theory is something that has stood up to scrutiny and been verified repeatedly. Hovind's Theory fail on all of the above counts.



<< Statements like &quot;billion of years ago...&quot; is not scientifically provable and should not be in the textbooks. No one can prove that the world is billions of years old, but if you pick up any earth science textbook, it will tell you that the earth is billions of years old. >>

Refer to this document, and also this one. The age of the earth has been verified by numerous independant tests using a variety of radiometric dating methods. The document also dispels common creationist arguments against radiometric dating.


<< The earth may have been spinning without being tilted in its orbit around the sun. >>

No evidence to support such a claim.


<< The magnetic field is getting weaker and weaker with time. It was probably twenty times stronger in Adam and Eve's day. >>

Thouroughly debunked here.


<< About 20,000 miles out, the meteor exploded in space and turned into a puff of snow. Ice that is 300 degrees or below becomes magnetic and can be picked up by a magnetAt this low temperature, this magnetic ice would be sucked to the north and south pole because of the intense magnetic field. That would cause a very rapid snow fall of some very cold snow, about 300 degrees below zero, at the North and South Poles >>

First: no evidence to support the claim. Second: The claim that &quot;snow&quot; at 300 degrees below zero in outer space would be able to fall to the earth at that temperature is preposterous. Movement through the atmosphere would heat up this &quot;snow&quot; considerably.


<< . Today, geologists drill up core samples to check the different levels of ice in an effort to try to find something that supports their theory of the earth being millions of years old. >>

Ice core samples from Antarctica point to an ice age 160000 years ago, far greater than the 6000 years postulated by Hovind. (Reference.


<< According to Genesis 1:6-7, the earth had a canopy of water around it to protect it. >>


If a canopy holding the equivalent to more than 40 feet of water were part of the atmosphere, it would raise the atmospheric pressure accordingly, raising oxygen and nitrogen levels to toxic levels.
If the canopy began as vapor, any water from it would be superheated. This scenario essentially starts with most of the Flood waters boiled off. Noah and company would be poached. If the water began as ice in orbit, the gravitational potential energy would likewise raise the temperature past boiling.
A canopy of any significant thickness would have blocked a great deal of light, lowering the temperature of the earth greatly before the Flood.
Any water above the ozone layer would not be shielded from ultraviolet light, and the light would break apart the water molecules.


<< Well now sir, you are assuming that the rock hardness has always been the same. What if it was all soft mud, and there was 500 feet of water running through there? The Bad Lands could be formed in about fifteen minutes, couldn't it? Was it a little bit of water over lots of time, or was it lots of water over a little time? There is a big difference. Those places formed rapidly. >>

No evidence supporting the claim that it was once softer rock.

More questions (from talkorigins):
How do you explain the relative ages of mountains? For example, why weren't the Sierra Nevadas eroded as much as the Appalachians during the Flood?

Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting annual layers. [Johnsen et al, 1992; Alley et al, 1993] A worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles, and probably other evidence. Why doesn't such evidence show up?

How are the polar ice caps even possible? Such a mass of water as the Flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off their beds and break them up. They wouldn't regrow quickly. In fact, the Greenland ice cap would not regrow under modern (last 10 ky) climatic conditions.

Why did the Flood not leave traces on the sea floors? A year long flood should be recognizable in sea bottom cores by (1) an uncharacteristic amount of terrestrial detritus, (2) different grain size distributions in the sediment, (3) a shift in oxygen isotope ratios (rain has a different isotopic composition from seawater), (4) a massive extinction, and (n) other characters. Why do none of these show up?

Why is there no evidence of a flood in tree ring dating? Tree ring records go back more than 10,000 years, with no evidence of a catastrophe during that time. [Becker &amp; Kromer, 1993; Becker et al, 1991; Stuvier et al, 1986]

That's enough for now.