The thing I find most interesting about this thread so far is this...

NO ONE has answered my questions of "control" for dating (because there is no answer), and the only people flat-dismissing the other theory are Evolutionists. So far the Creationists seem rather open to discussion, without calling Evolution a fairy tale (for the most part) or purposely insulting the Evolutionists or the scientists.

Just because "you" believe it does NOT make it true. So instead of coming in with little slams, etc, let's actually discuss this like adults...or there's no reason to continue.

Where is the control group for our dating processes?
Where is the control group for DNA dating?

Where is the rock (or person) that we KNOW historically IS 1000+ years old to control the results of our other tests when we get results in the thousands and millions of years?

There is none. Using Science's OWN rules, this means ALL the data from these kinds of tests is suspect and null and void.

OK - someone show me the entire universe compressed down to sub-atomic size, with zero energy

with SPACE and TIME not existing

and I will believe your big bang theory.

:c)

Someone show me a big invisible man and I will believe creation.

you want to meet your maker?!
that can be arranged :c)

Whoever said God was invisible?!

Take a trip down to your local homeless shelter...or soup kitchen...or battered women's shelter...or children's shelter...or charity foundation...or charity drive/function...you're bound to see His work being done.

People doing for others out of themselves...for nothing. Let's see Darwin give you that.

Triad
why cannot you understand the many dating methods used, itis not just carbon14 halflive.
there are many other ways to date, carbon14 is only used for resent past to date things that were alive, like wood. but it can be checked, by other ways to date wood, like treerings matching,or the style of cutting, carving, shaping marks on the peice or soil layers as to how deep a peice is found. other eazy ways to date include volcanic ash deposits, earthquake buryed wood near a known faultline or by landslides, astroid impact dust like the iridium layer from the hit that kill the dino's, the rate that bones turn to stone in fossiles, crystial growth rates, type of fossiles found at the same layer of rock.

It is not just one or even a few ways to date
but crosschecking many different ways. allso sometimes we do have a good date to start with like pompei, we know exactly when the volcanio buryed the city to the day, thanks to Roman records of the event. that dates the bones found there exactly with out any guesses, so those bones are whats called a control, and are compared to other bones to date unknown bones dates.

allso we can read that a leader like Alexander the great burned a city on a given date and check the stuff found in that citys ruin, so nobody has to sit and watch for 2000 years to know when a city was burned down, we have records of what happened where when and why, and can and do check results.

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd

quote Originally posted by ray b: AgaricX 4.5 billion is the generaly excepted age of earth NOT LIFE on earth. but DNA is accepted in courts of LAW to ID a person or say who's the dad of a child NOW

Right... DNA is hard evidence based on comparisons with other samples. All that needs to be done is sequence the base pairs and look for trends in the right oligos. That's 1st semester genetics.

Derivation of ANY information from base pairs in humans is still !!EXTREEMELY!! experimantal.

quote I was watching a Discovery chanel show last week called the REAL EVE, they used microcondial [mom's] DNA to DATE PEOPLE as to when they moved out of africa at 80,000 years ago!!!! allso this has been used to date splits in human and chimps common ancester at several millions of years ago. why do you misstate this???? Do you realy think DNA cannot DATE????? and give NO facts to back your statements.

What facts do you want? You want me to list papers? Do you want some of my colleages to come and post on this board? Hehehehe I doubt that will happen. Most don't even have hobbies outside their lab. How about I start to quote TV shows I've watched?? HEHEHEHE.

quote peoples differences in heights and size are based on improved diet and nutrition NOT DNA as rate of change is too fast. [\quote] Hmmm... have you read anything on how DNA replicates and changes over the course of life? Mutations caused by environment?crossing over? genetic drift? [quote] then jump to attack the BIG BANG??? lets get DNA done before jumping to other things, WHAT AM I WRONG ABOUT in DNA and it's becoming LAW soon.

Huh? DNA becoming law? DNA has been admissible in court and is becoming increasingly relied upon as fact. Paternity tests are YEARS old. DNA cannot be relied upon as a 'dating' marker. Not in any papers I've read, any syposiums I've attended, or any colleagues I've spoken with. Give me info and I'll look at it... but I've got years of experience and I doubt it. Don't get me wrong, I'd believe it if it had backing... but I'm VERY VERY skeptical of what you saw on TV.

Hey, I don't want to arue with a Discovery Channel scientist... *snicker*

quote btw my hobbies include astro-physics, I have read all of steve hawkings books and many other on string theory ect and my oldest son is a physic's student who has compleated his 3rd year now!!

Well, one of my hobbies is my Fiero. My son is 7. How does that relate? Your son gets to take 6 semesters of physics before he graduates. Maybe then he can school you.

So what do you think of Stephen Hawking? (heheheh you call him steve??? heheheh) Do you think his ideas on quantum singularities are valid? They are unique and thought provoking... but are viewed with a lot of skepticism.

[This message has been edited by AgaricX (edited 09-24-2002).]

I never said there isn't anything more advanced than us. Just not a big entity. Probably smarter beings on some far away planet, the same as us.

Triad: People doing stuff for others is god's work? Prove it.

quote Originally posted by JohnnyK: I never said there isn't anything more advanced than us. Just not a big entity. Probably smarter beings on some far away planet, the same as us.

quote Triad: People doing stuff for others is god's work? Prove it.

Well, a race or singular being THAT much more advanced than us would be BIG to me. Not spatially... conceptually.

One of the founding concepts of our interaction with 'God' regardless of religion is doing good for our fellow man. How much more proof do you need that it's God's work.

quote Originally posted by JohnnyK: ...Triad: People doing stuff for others is god's work? Prove it.

Dude, read your Bible.

"The greatest of these is Love."
"Love one another, for this is the greatest commandment."
"As you have done for even the least of these, so have you done for Me."

etc, etc, etc...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/11/14/tech/printable249441.shtml

or
http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/troufs/anth1602/video/Children.html

heres the TV show site http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/realeve/feature/feature.html

this is not my ideas but main stream science
heres Nature site about this, care to laff at them?? http://www.nature.com/ng/press_release/ng1100.html

please post real news or science sites NOT THUMPERS
CBS or PBS not fox or Creationests BS
sites to refute
and haha snickers arenot facts
got any facts????

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd

[This message has been edited by ray b (edited 09-24-2002).]

[This message has been edited by ray b (edited 09-24-2002).]

You think that people helping people is gods work. I can't believe that. YOu think that people are that self centered.. that whoever is helping someone out of the goodness of their heart, must be being helped out by god?

Here's an excerpt from your artilce:

"Wilson and Sarich, using blood protein analysis, suggests a chimpanzee-human split about 5 mya. Charles Sibley and Jon Ahlquist of Yale conducted experiments with two separate strands of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid, the complex organic molecule that encodes the genetic information in the chromosomes) and allowed strands of different species to hook up, then measure the strength of the new bond. Their research suggests a chimpanzee-human split about 7 mya.

Douglas Wallace, noting that mitochondrial DNA is inherited exclusively through the female (rather than through mothers and fathers as is the case with more familiar DNA), looked for human populations with mitochondrial DNA most similar to modern nonhuman primates and found this in Asia. Rebecca Cann, looked for the greatest amount of variation in the mitochondrial DNA from placentas and found the most difference to be among the !King San people of Africa. Scientists suggest that about 200,00 ybp (years before present), a population in Africa contained a woman who was our ancestor and gave us our mitochondrial DNA."

First off, the first 'story' is from Nov. 14, 2000. This gives no methods or means as to how it was done. Plus the usee of mitochondrial DNA has already been removed from the list of useful markers.

One RECENT example:

"Because of meiotic recombination and the diploid (bi-parental) inheritance of nuclear DNA, the reconstruction of a nuclear profile from even first degree relatives of a missing individual is rarely this straightforward. However, the maternal inheritance pattern of mtDNA might also be considered problematic. Because all individuals in a maternal lineage share the same mtDNA sequence, mtDNA cannot be considered a unique identifier. In fact, apparently unrelated individuals might share an unknown maternal relative at some distant point in the past."

Dunne, Piedrahita et. al: Genomics Apr. 2001

Mitochondrial DNA is very unreliable.

Next?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/evolutio.htm

AgaricX you say "Mitochondrial DNA is very unreliable" Because "all individuals in a maternal lineage share the same mtDNA sequence, mtDNA cannot be considered a unique identifier.cause "

BUT they are NOT trying to ID a person but trace and date linage of a group of people so the apple vs orange comparison is BS
sure I will conceaded the mtDNA is not a unique ID that is the point not the problem

and yes some do dispute the results but not all or even most do.
this is very new data at the start of a long process but overall it points to EVO
not to trees before the stars were made!!!!

sure there is a debait about when the chimps split off from our line but little doughts that they and us are closely related and all dates are greater than the bibles date of 6000 years for everything!!!!

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd

quote Originally posted by TRiAD: Where is the control group for our dating processes? Where is the control group for DNA dating? Where is the rock (or person) that we KNOW historically IS 1000+ years old to control the results of our other tests when we get results in the thousands and millions of years? There is none. Using Science's OWN rules, this means ALL the data from these kinds of tests is suspect and null and void.

Wrong-O

Dendrochronology. There are a few species of unbeleivably long-lived trees in the rocky mountains. THAT's the control group. Based on living trees 5000+ years old and matching up ring patterns with long dead trees (incidentally lying buried or exposed BESIDE these trees) we have an accurate "calendar" that goes back at LEAST 15,000 years. It is using carbon samples from these trees, and comparing the weather patterns from long-ago (which is recorded in the rings) that we can "Calibrate" C-14 dates fairly accurately. We can also match up the ring-patterns from wood samples from other parts of the globe. See, the rings record the overall climate conditions. Hot, Cold, Wet, Dry, and these are "averaged" and recorded in the ring's morphology.

You aren't going to find much information as to their physical location. They are rather delicate, and are feircely protected. I've seen pictures and core-samples, though...
MAN, they UGLY. The years ain't kind...

quote Originally posted by ray b: BUT they are NOT trying to ID a person but trace and date linage of a group of people so the apple vs orange comparison is BS sure I will conceaded the mtDNA is not a unique ID that is the point not the problem and yes some do dispute the results but not all or even most do. this is very new data at the start of a long process but overall it points to EVO not to trees before the stars were made!!!! sure there is a debait about when the chimps split off from our line but little doughts that they and us are closely related and all dates are greater than the bibles date of 6000 years for everything!!!! [/B]

#1 - This is not new data. This is old in comparison to what's being done now.

#2 - PM me your address... I'll send you at least 10 post doctoral articles disputing the sites you quoted. One, by the way was for an outdated undergraduate course. Mitochondrial DNA is MOSTLY disputed. Hell, I know of two grants that were revoked one mtDNA research within the past year.

#3
conceaded
debait
doughts
bibles

*sigh*

It really makes me wonder at how I'm spending my free time when I'm arguing with a person who obviously has the literacy capacity of a 7th grader.

#4 the 6,000 year time period is a misconception that non Biblical scholars put on the origin of the earth. In truth, the Bible doesn't say. It doesn't even hint.

quote Originally posted by Mach10: I listed the SA in the atmosphere as a reason as to why we aren't finding any Tribbles there, not as a reason for the somewhat, oh, HELLISH climate But the fault is in my wording I butchered that post... Many appologies; Venus is one huge greenhouse, boiling on the surface, with a corrosive atmosphere... Better?

Actually I figured that I'd clear the whole thing up while I retracted my statement. No need starting someone else off on a tangent based on some words out of place.
I did a little bit of reasearch on Venus since I wanted to know how I remembered it wrong.
It's apparantly a common belief that Venus Earth and Mars started off similarly and evolved into what they are today. It's just a matter of coincidences that let Earth support life and left Venus extremely hot. (and Mars like Mars)

Since this thread isn't likely to break new ground on proving Creationism or Evolution, how about changing it a bit?

For all the evolutionists out there, how do you think life started on earth? I'd ask creationalists the same question but since the answer is already assumed, I don't really have to. For them, how about this? Is it not possible for man to evolve after he was created? If so, what defines "man"? Would it not be possible for the man god created to be a pre homo-sapien?

If you don't want to do that, which came first, the chicken or the egg?

...the egg.

I want to seize this opprotunity to get another negative vote by raising it up a level.

Why in god's name did you start this thread? Wisdom dictates that it will go nowhere. Of everything I've learned in my life the most important lesson is that I am a poor judge of what makes people drag their butts out of bed every day and face this world. Some days are good, some days are bad. Some people do it for their faith, others do it to get laid, be gay, drive cars, pay bill, enjoy love, have children, jump from airplanes and some take themselves out. Boths sides can be reduced to this simple answer. Blah, blah, blah. Same arguments over and over again. But if either side makes you enjoy the journey more or face it's challenges, then go for it.

So I'll weigh in here...... To the level that we want to argue Evolution vs Creationism, neither side accurately describes what is going on. One side might have a bit more supporting facts but neither is conclusive enough to be the final decision that will settle it once and for all. Divine intervention can be attached to evolution at every step. It's a bit more difficult the otherway around.

I've have yet to find any religious/faith based text/teaching that even remotely describe with *any* accuracy what the hell is going on especially to the same level of testing that the theory of evolution has to put up with. Melt your brain with the Urantia Book sometime. It's like chewing on razors.

That doesn't mean that theory of evolution is accurate either (although it does itself evolve). You never know, one day the theory of evolution might come to the end of it's long journey and look up and see god....The next question will be, "Hey god, what's that robe made of?" and it will start all over again. It's cotton! No it's polyester!

Either way it's turtles all the way down.

quote Originally posted by Mach10: ...There are a few species of unbeleivably long-lived trees in the rocky mountains. THAT's the control group. Based on living trees [b]5000+ years old and matching up ring patterns with long dead trees (incidentally lying buried or exposed BESIDE these trees) we have an accurate "calendar" that goes back at LEAST 15,000 years....[/B]

5,000 I can see...the "15,000" is already speculation, but we'll run wuth it. This is all of course assuming the 5,000 year old trees produced rings in exactly the same fashion as trees today, so NONE of it could be rocket science.

If I made a new yard stick (assuming yard sticks didn't exist yet) and went about trying to measure the circumfrance of the Earth, my data would be horribly off...by HUGE margins...but on a percentage basis, I'd still have a better chance of having more reliable results than using a presumed 15,000 year old control for measurements in the 100s of millions of years.
Once you get more than about 10xs your control group in measurements, you're about done with getting reliable results.

the idea that God created man at a certain level, and man evolved from there doenst hold water.

For one thing, if you are basing creation on the biblical account, the first men lived to be several hundred years old, the oldest lived to be a thousand (I think - more or less)

and there is every indication that the first men were highly intelligent - from the biblical accounts man is not evolving, we are decending - becoming weaker and less intelligent.

Dont confuse technology with intelligence and capibility - technology builds on itself over the centuries as long as civilization does not collapse

but intelligence and wisdom does not. The SAT scores in the US are a good example of that - kids who get a perfect SAT score in 2002 would do poorly on the SAT test given in 1960 - the average scores keep dropping and they keep making the test easier - and that is only over a 40 year period.

The other problem with the idea that God uses evolution is that we have never documented a single species evolving into a new one (defined by the fact that the new species cannot breed with the old one)

but we have seen hundreds of species become extinct - so from observation alone we know that evolution cannot keep up with the extinction rate - so given millions of years there would not be more and more diverse and advanced species around, there would be less and less

pointing to a once highly diverse and advanced set of life forms and eco system, that is now 'falling' towards an unstoppable collaspe.

Which is exactly what the bible says will happen - unless God steps in and restores all of creation to its intended state, it will all collaspe in on itself.

[This message has been edited by Ken Wittlief (edited 09-25-2002).]

ken: I can't believe that someone who seems intelligent like you can believe this dribble..

Im more intelligent than you are able to comprehend :c)

quote Originally posted by TRiAD: 5,000 I can see...the "15,000" is already speculation, but we'll run wuth it. This is all of course assuming the 5,000 year old trees produced rings in exactly the same fashion as trees today, so NONE of it could be rocket science. If I made a new yard stick (assuming yard sticks didn't exist yet) and went about trying to measure the circumfrance of the Earth, my data would be horribly off...by HUGE margins...but on a percentage basis, I'd still have a better chance of having more reliable results than using a presumed 15,000 year old control for measurements in the 100s of millions of years. Once you get more than about 10xs your control group in measurements, you're about done with getting reliable results.

No, 15,000 is speculation on MY part, since I don't have my notes with me, and can't come up with a decent online source. The people who came up with the dendrochronoligical calibration chart know TO THE YEAR how old these trees are.

Triad: You are grasping at straws. I can SHOW you (if you wanna come up here) core-samples of these trees. Go to the local university/college with a reputable anthropology/archaeology department, and talk to some of the scholars about radio-dating.

Not that it'd make a difference; You've made up your mind as to what the facts are.

I'm not learned enough to battle truly hard-core about most of these issues. I can regurgitate what I've learned in 5 years of university studies, the bulk of it anthropological and archaeological in nature, with a healthy study of human genetics and biology.

Your argument for the trees is beyond feeble. First of all, we KNOW that tree's rings change year-to-year. That is EXACTLY how we distinguish them, and how we date them. It isn't the single tree with 5000 rings, it's the 10, 15 SURROUNDING trees that have THE SAME RINGS in DIFFERENT places. Here, I'll illustrate;

Here's a ring-sample;

iiioioooiiiiiiuuuuououuuiiioooiooo
Here's another
oiiiiiiuuuuououuuiiioooioooiioiooo
And another:
oooioooiioioooiiiuuuuuioooioioooio
Get it? No? Try staggering them. Find the matching segments, and line them up.

NOW does it make sense?

It gets more interesting when you consider that the global weathering patterns within these rings are UNIVERSAL. That's right, all trees from the same year have similar ring patterns throughout the world. You can match the ring patterns from trees on the other side of the world, and the patterns wil be recognizable. Trees are VERY sensitive creatures.

Your argument that "trees may not have grown the same way" is just plain feeble. There is NOTHING to suggest that they grew any faster or any slower. I guess it's possible. Hell, anything's possible, right? But in the meantime, take a quick look at plant biology. Read up on HOW a tree makes a ring. Then come and tell me how you think it's possible that a tree can have CONSISTENTLY grown "differently" a couple thousand years ago.

And while your at it, why not look up some other dating methods:

TL dating
K+ Dating
C-14 Dating
Stratigraphic dating

And pick those apart, too. 'Cos you know what? NO self-respecting archaeologist will rely on only one form of dating for a particular sample. YOU tell ME how innacurate 3 or 4 different dating techniques THAT CORRELATE WITHIN A GIVEN PERCENT-ERROR is such a large pill to swallow.

Oh, and hey... Do a search on c-14 dating of various christian artifacts... Guess what, C-14 is pretty accurate for those... Why not anything else?

Come up with some good arguments. I'll be happy to spar with you. We both might learn something. But PLEASE stop casting out feeble "what-if" arguments. I don't believe I have.

[This message has been edited by Mach10 (edited 09-25-2002).]

Mach10,

I'm not arguing with you, but just pointing out that after having read the entire Old Testament over 20 times through, it is made obvious that the "heroes'" stories are presented WITH their faults publicized, too.
Not every single one-how long a book would THAT be-but the people aren't made to appear perfect. So, no, they aren't exaggerated to appear godlike.

Regarding Jesus pooping, (and others), well, if you were writing a diary, I don't think you would put: Dear Diary, Had a most excellent poop today, as well as several awesome pees. You tend to hit the highlights.

quote Originally posted by ray b: ...but got his troops in fla and the supreems to steal the election for him.

Let me get this straight...
The Supremes were in Florida, singing for the troops, and they stole the election?!
Where did they put it? Under the bed?! Or maybe in the tour bus?

[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 09-25-2002).]

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: Mach10, I'm not arguing with you, but just pointing out that after having read the entire Old Testament over 20 times through, it is made obvious that the "heroes'" stories are presented WITH their faults publicized, too. Not every single one-how long a book would THAT be-but the people aren't made to appear perfect. So, no, they aren't exaggerated to appear godlike. Regarding Jesus pooping, (and others), well, if you were writing a diary, I don't think you would put: Dear Diary, Had a most excellent poop today, as well as several awesome pees. You tend to hit the highlights.

Hehehe... Yeah, forgot the most obvious point... Yes, the faults relevant to the tales are exposed... But there is a distinct lack of "humanity" in all the characters described.

Yes, you don't write down bodily functions in a diary. You also don't write down things that you are very ashamed of, and you don't write down things that don't much concern you. My point is that the bible's image of a person is given by examples of SUPER-humans, ones that procured the Lord's favor specifically for certain tasks.

It's an unrealistic model, and certainly not one that is adequate or appropriate to base assumptions of a society's "advancement."

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: Mach10, Regarding Jesus pooping, (and others), well, if you were writing a diary, I don't think you would put: Dear Diary, Had a most excellent poop today, as well as several awesome pees......

LMAO
That is just too funny.
That made my day

Steve

quote Originally posted by Raydar: Let me get this straight... The Supremes were in Florida, singing for the troops, and they stole the election?! Where did they put it? Under the bed?! Or maybe in the tour bus?

no the supremes are a DC group of old old fokes
with a bad split,with ways tooooooooo many CON's, who hang in a place call JUST-ICE, the troops were very deadly special group all lawyers, all CON's, all screaming at anyone who dare try to count the VOTES
so
yes the VOTE was stolen by the court 5x4
never count the voters or the 2,000,000 real votes only the court vote counts

I should have known better...

The Bible can't be true because it doesn't convey Jesus (or anyoen else) deficating?!

OK, our Constitution is just as false, as well...based on that reasoning.

This is silly. Once again, those who believe in the fairy tale of Evolution think that those following the God who Created are wrong, and vice-versa. That's fine...the tough part to swallow is; no one's willing to give and inch.

People (in general) suck.

This isn't worth my time.
Have fun "sparring" about nothing.

quote Originally posted by TRiAD: I should have known better... The Bible can't be true because it doesn't convey Jesus (or anyoen else) deficating?! OK, our Constitution is just as false, as well...based on that reasoning. This is silly. Once again, those who believe in the fairy tale of Evolution think that those following the God who Created are wrong, and vice-versa. That's fine...the tough part to swallow is; no one's willing to give and inch. People (in general) suck. This isn't worth my time. Have fun "sparring" about nothing.

The point, if you would bother to look, is that the Bible demonstrates a unreasonable, and unattainable vision of humanity.

Funny, Triad, I showed you what *I* had, you haven't shown me what YOU have. I asked you to find out about a few things before making fallic statements and arguments. You did what I had not quite expected of you; Get mad and stomp off. Don't get offended, get even. Find something to prove me wrong. I won't appologize for my comments, because I still see them as being valid.

I'll give and inch, I'll give a mile. But I need a good reason to do so.

My examples? Simply a literary device. Way out in left-feild perhaps, but still valid. We're supposed to live our lives according to what we read. But we are given such unattainable and unrealistic goals to aspire to?

A show of hands; How many people here feel qualified to walk in Jesus' shoes? Moses? Job? Jonah?

Anyone?

Didn't think so.

That isn't to say that the cause is hopeless. The world would be a much better place if everyone was able to act, talk, and walk the way jesus could (If nothing else, save on boat-rentals). However, when some people make assumptions about the state of human evolution at the time of writing, based on the "evidence" as presented by a peice of paper written about exempilary humans? Riiiiiggghhhttt...

Then again, I'm not adverse to the idea that the bible CAN be taken as a 100% literal account of what happened. Most if not all my training and studies suggest otherwise, but if I was to find something that satisfied my doubts, Hell, I'd be saying it too.

In the meantime, I'll take the OT as metaphorical (which does not detract from the validity and meaningfulness of the teachings) and I'll take the NT as a real-life account of what happened during JC's life.

And you know what? That leaves PLENTY of room for the "Evolution Fairytale."

Like it or not, Evolution has been proven again and again. The biblical people knew about it, in a peripheral way, and we know it now. Creationism doesn't explain how and why we are able to make a chi-hua-hua out of a 250lb wolf.

Triad: So.. I call creation a fairy tale. I'm a closed minded ******* . You call evolution a fairy tale, you are what? WE'VE given some proof and basis for our arguments. You've just said we are wrong, and tried to disprove us.

I aint reading all that junk simply cuz I dun wanna. but I gotta say this, The Bible flawed.

------------------

Fierosite - Your #1 Resource for Pontiac Fiero websites

mach10 - you statements on the old testiment people would be much different if you sat down and read the book sometime.

None of the people in the old testiment are superheros, perfect, role models... quite the opposite, they ALL screwed up repeatedly and bigtime

in fact, that is one of the things that makes the Bible old testiment unique as a religious text - instead of glorifying the jewish people as special or superiour, it points out their flaws and tragic mistakes - over and over - if the jews made it all up, then why did they protray themselves as such a bunch of perpetual screwups?!

As for de-evolution - Adam lived to be something like 900 years old - Noah lived for 600+ years - after that the life span fell to 200 years, then down to about 70 (as recorded in the biblical record)

so you think a 90% reduction in lifespan is evolution?!

There are not many accounts of mans character or specific actions before Noah, so its hard to scope out their intelligence and wisdom - but a few things are clear.

They understood things without the need to be told - Adam only had one rule to follow - Noah was given a handfull after the flood - Moses was given hundreds of rules and regulations (not just 10)

and Israel went from a nation that needed no government (at first) to a nation that required a King to hold it together - which then split apart, and collasped completely more than once.

Archeologist insist prehistoric man lived with bear skins and stone knives - but Noah was able to construct a ship out of wood, able to carry hundreds of metric tons of live cargo

and we have other ancient accomplishments, like the pyramids, that we still cant account for (how there were built)

and after Noah, the people congreated all in one location, where their science and technology advanced so fast that God scattered them throughout the earth, otherwise 'nothing would be impossible for them'.

Of course I am referring strictly to the biblical account of human history - which is what I said right up front - you cant accept the biblical account which clearly indicated mankind is de-volving, and then say that God uses evolution to advance our species.

I am not directing this comment at White88cpe, nor is it a flame, but science and its views of life are flawed. Everything has flaws, because humanity has to put its hand into the matter.

I am not going to delve into it here, but the unfortunate fact is that the Bible has been translated from the original Hebrew and Greek writings, and then the English translations have been translated time and again, so yes there are some mistakes. And as far as I know, no one in existence today understands the inflections of the original languages. But to say that mistakes in translations give discredit to the whole matter is simply a red herring.

One truth that we can all agree is that humanity has its faults, and with its faults comes belief in erroneous doctrine(s). There have been religious zealots throughout all of history, and exist today. But the same can be said for scientific belief that science has all the answers. Truth is no one has all the answers, and we (as humanity) have to accept that fact.

I choose to believe in the Bible for several secular reasons, but the greatest one is that no other book has survived throughout time of recorded history nor had the impact that the Bible has had on societies. If a truly openmined individual will examine the secular facts about the Bible, the secular history gives credit to the Bible.

To provide some clarity regarding the Bible, and maybe add some issues, is that the Bible although taken down by humanity, was not written by humanity, it is inspired by God. Meaning God, through His Power has allowed Man to know certain things, and that He used humanity as a tool to communicate.

The point of the Bible is not to answer all questions of existence nor to provide an altruistic view of humanity, but to show that humanity once was in the good graces of God, and through humanity's choice lost that grace. We only can have it through Jesus Christ, who redeemed us. Can we live perfectly like Jesus? No. But we have to believe and obey His commandments, put forth in the New Testament to receive that grace.

The Bible is about regaining grace and having salvation inspite of our failure as humanity. Using the Bible to answer all of life's questions (like how it all started) is an issue many people use to throw the entire Bible away and ignore it and criticize those who believe and obey the Word.

The bottom line is that you have the choice to either accept the Bible for what it is, or reject it. But if you reject it, it is completely arrogant and rude to say that someone who does believe in the Bible to be a simpleton.

Just an odd question here, but is the bible copywrited at all?

quote Originally posted by Fiero5: Just an odd question here, but is the bible copywrited at all?

The actual word from Genesis to Revelation I don't believe is. But companies that manufacture Bibles often include commentary and study material, and I believe that is protected.

Mach: it's not the fact that I can't change your mind...it's the way in which most Evolutionists simply SLAM Creationists, like we're worshipping fairies or something. A good debate without mud-slinging would be an interesting conversation, and that's why I was ever in this thread. The simple-minded mud-slinging is why I'm not going to debate it anymore.

Johnny: I never called anyone here anything that would be edited out in *s. Not sure what your problem is. What I did do is use the "fairy tale" comment, as an attempt at a humorous satire at its use, I apparently failed.

Catchya'all in Genral Chat.