Creation vs. Evolution

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Your argument is based on absolutely no fact and in fact I can point out the fallacy in your argument using your example. If you start out with a breed of dog and slowly breed characteristics which are good for certain functions you are evolving the animal. As we know evolution is supposed to take place over thousands of years or more. So in that thousand years we have created several different variants of dogs that are good for doing different things. Terriers make good rat hunters because of their small stature and long snout, hounds make great tracking dogs because of their well deveolped sense of smell and greyhounds make great racing dogs because they are lean light and agile. People have evolved dogs from their original form to all the different variants of dogs you see now. That is evolution at work.

Evolution is the changing of animals to adapt to their surroundings.

You are not producing any facts here at all. At least make an attempt to back up your claims with specific examples.

Where is it ever recorded that god puts limits on what animals can do?

I guess to the uninformed your argument might seem convincing

[Cerran]

While I believe strongly in god and I believe the bible is generally a good account of history before and after th time of Jesus I refuse to believe it is the word of god. If it was meant to be the word of god he would have said so at the preface of the bible. I repeadely hear from fundamentalists poor unsubstantiated arguments of why things are and why the bible is right. The problem is, they never come up with a sound argument that isn't full of holes.

At least with science they are willing to accept that their ideas are theories and subject to change as new information presents itself.

I'm with James Madison when he said:

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."

To believe that the bible is without error and not subject to the whims of men who had an agenda is foolish at best. The bible is a great story and a good account of history but it is hardly the word of god. The teachings of Jesus are definitely worth reading, but much of the book is so contradictory it's not worth believeing that it's the word of god.

As for your reply you are basing your knowledge off of a paltry 3000 years of written human knowledge. The theory Evolution on the grand scale takes tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years. You are also forgetting that gene coding changes slightly with each animal that is born. If DNA were identical than every dog would be identical and they aren't. Again your argument doesn't hold water.

[VRSpock]

You know, what's always amazed me is how artists can come up with an accurate depiction of any animal simply be looking at its skeleton? Duh...

There is, in my opinion, no way to accurately render the flesh, muscle tone, hair or the lack thereof, by simply viewing a skeleton.

This whole evolution thing is nothing more than yet another Satanic deception. A deception designed to make us doubt our Lord, and His holy scriptures. Satan wants as many as possible to separate from God. The theory of evolution is just another one of his tools to accomplish this.

Just my 2

[nebula]

You know, what's always amazed me is how artists can come up with an accurate depiction of any animal simply be looking at its skeleton? Duh...

There is, in my opinion, no way to accurately render the flesh, muscle tone, hair or the lack thereof, by simply viewing a skeleton.

Well, in all fairness, it is possible to get a semblance of form based on current animals. That is, you take the skeleton of a modern animal, have next to it the animal with its flesh, and determine the muscle mass and flesh overlay by comparison and such. (Simplified version.)

For the fossils, you use the modern animal as an analogy. It is hard to say if it will be "perfect" but it should be close enough. Once you understand muscle overlays on creatures we know, assuming one for the unknowns is not that difficult.

A real artist could explain this much better.

Now, as for skin and hair/fur/scales/other outer covering - yes, that part is speculative. I often wonder if the dinos actually had some kind of covering. I think the Discovery Channel did a dino documentary that showed dinos with some.

[VRSpock]

Cerran: Why don't you read through the other thread called "Evolution - do you accept it or not."?

We've discussed the many problems with evolution on that thread already. There were two arguing for evolution there. One was an open-minded believer in evolution who has since changed his mind. The staunch athiest evolutionist keeps disappearing. We have to keep reposting the same questions to him whenever he comes back. Long story short, many of the tough questions we ask him simply don't seem to get answered.

I came to the conclusion that if I have a problem with the very first chapter of the very first book of the Bible, then I have a serious problem with God's word. If we have a strong relationship with God then we must rely on His Word for the answers to all of our questions. Once we rely on that, then the real truth of all the mysteries of the universe will be revealed to us in time. Of that I have no doubt.

There are some great references in the other thread for scientific evidence in support of creationism.

Also, there are many books that prove, through logical reasoning, that the Bible is very accurate in its translation from its original text and is very authoritative. I always had a misconception that it was some catholic monk hid up in a dark room somewhere that translated everything by candle light. Simply one of many of Satan's illusions to lead us to hold God's Word under scrutiny.

[Rick]

While I believe strongly in god and I believe the bible is generally a good account of history before and after th time of Jesus I refuse to believe it is the word of god. If it was meant to be the word of god he would have said so at the preface of the bible. I repeadely hear from fundamentalists poor unsubstantiated arguments of why things are and why the bible is right. The problem is, they never come up with a sound argument that isn't full of holes.

At least with science they are willing to accept that their ideas are theories and subject to change as new information presents itself.

I'm with James Madison when he said:

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."

To believe that the bible is without error and not subject to the whims of men who had an agenda is foolish at best. The bible is a great story and a good account of history but it is hardly the word of god. The teachings of jesus are worth reading, but much of the book is so contradictory it's not worth reading.

As for your reply you are basing your knowledge off of a paltry 3000 years of written human knowledge. The theory Evolution on the grand scale take tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years. You are also forgetting that gene coding changes slightly with each animal that is born. If DNA were identical than every dog would be identical and they aren't. Again you argument doesn't hold water.

From your post you have stated that you believe in God. Yet you do not believe the Bible to be God's word. That leaves me with a question, Just where do you form your opinion of God from?

If you have formed it outside of the Bible what sources have you used?

Just from observation, it appears as if you have created your own god. One that you can define within the boundaries you have set for him. Maybe you do not view your less than all powerful god as a creator, and you shouldn't. For in this instance you are the creator. You have created your own god. One that is incapable of preserving his word to mankind. One that has left man's soul in the hand's of chance, struggling to know who his god is, and never knowing if he has ever found him. Being left with nothing but a vain imagination.

I think the reason for the confusion is that we are talking of two seperate gods. One is the Creator of man, the other is created by a man.

Rick

[Cerran]

I believe god is an all powerful creator but I don't believe he meant the bible to be taken literally or he would have said so. The bible never claims to be the word of god. In fact the bible various so much from the orignial text found in the dead sea scrolls it's amazing.

The King James version of the bible was assembled in the 1600's and leaves out some texts that were in the original works. And if the bible were written by god, it would have no contradictions like it does. I believe the bible to be an inspired work, but by it's very nature as being written by man it is fallible.

[Cerran]

Another group of reasons why I believe the bible isn't the word of God.

...and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. (Matthew 1:16) Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, ... (Luke 3:23)

According to Morris (Many Infallible Proofs p. 62) it is Jewish custom to consider one's father-in-law as a father, which would explain Joseph's two fathers. I find this somewhat lacking, however, because we see that the lineage converges further up at King David, which would indicate that Joseph and Mary were related.

I've also heard that one of the lineages describes the line of Mary, while the other describes the line of Joseph. Strangely, though, they both end in Joseph.

So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself. (Matthew 27:5) (With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out...) (Acts 1:18)

One reconciliation of these passages is that he tried to hang himself, but was unsuccessful, so he jumped off a cliff that was on his property. (Or that he hanged himself near a cliff, and the rope broke.) But the first passage doesn't say that he tried to hang himself, and mentions nothing of his body bursting open. Likewise, the second passage says that he fell head first in a field, not down a cliff.

Again the anger of the Lord burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, "Go and take a census of Israel and Judah." (2 Samuel 24:1) Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel. (1 Chronicles 21:1)

Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death. (Exodus 21:12) Do not repay any one evil for evil. (Romans 12:17, likewise Matthew 5:39)

I have heard the explanation that a person who is harmed should not harm another in return, but rather the community should serve the punishment. And the Romans commandment is for personal affairs, while Exodus is a community law. But the second passage makes no qualifications. I can think of another simple command: "...love your neighbor as yourself..." (Leviticus 19:18). Can this statement also be conditional?

... Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, ... (2 Samuel 21:19) .. Elhanan son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, ... (1 Chronicles 20:5)

Morris says,

One possible solution to this problem would be to assume there were two giants named Goliath, one of whom was slain by David. The other was then slain by Elhanan, who also slew his brother. There were two Elhanans of Bethlehem (II Samuel 23:24), so why not two Goliaths of Gath? ... It has been argued very effectively by Old Testament scholars that the apparent discrepancy in this case with II Samuel 21:19 arose by a copyist's error in the latter. One other possibility, with some support in Jewish tradition, is that Elhanan was another name for David and Jair another name for Jesse. In any case, there is certainly no proof of a contradiction. (Morris Many Infallible Proofs pp. 225-226)

Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he said this, he breathed his last. (Luke 23:46) When he received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. (John 19:30)

The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, ... (1 Corinthians 2:15) Therefore judge nothing... (1 Corinthians 4:5)

Christian response: Finish the second quote "...before its appointed time." These two can be reconciled as, "The spiritual man judges all things, but not before their appointed time."

They were also the chief officials in charge of Solomon's projects -- 550 officials supervising the men who did the work. (1 Kings 9:23) They were also King Solomon's chief officials -- two hundred and fifty officials supervising the men. (2 Chronicles 8:10)

Factual Errors

A bat is not a bird. Note that this isn't just an arbitrary classification that the Western and European world has created. A bat is a bird as much as a Cocker Spaniel is a cat.

These are the birds you are to detest and not eat because they are detestable: the eagle, ... any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat (Leviticus 11:13-19)

You may eat any clean bird. But these you may not eat: the eagle, ... any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat. (Deuteronomy 14:11-17)

Rabbits do not chew their cud (bring up previously swallowed food to chew). They do eat their own dung, but I have heard that there is a Hebrew word for that which would have been used if that was the meaning.

The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; ... (Leviticus 11:6)

Insects, as part of their definition, have six legs. (Spiders are arachnids, not insects.)

All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: ... Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket, or grasshopper. (Leviticus 11:20-22)

Snakes don't eat dirt.

So the Lord God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, ... You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust..." (Genesis 3:14)

Camels have split hooves.

There are some that only chew the cud or only have a split hoof, but you must not eat them. The camel, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is ceremonially unclean for you. (Leviticus 11:4)

However, of those that chew the cud or that have a split hoof completely divided you may not eat the camel, the rabbit or the coney. [1] Although they chew the cud, they do not have a split hoof; they are ceremonially unclean for you. (Deuteronomy 14:7)

The earth isn't stationary as once thought.

... The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved. (Psalms 93:1)

... The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved. (1 Chronicles 16:30)

He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved. (Psalms 104:5)

Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel: "O sun, stand still over Gibeon, O moon, over the Valley of Aijalon. (Joshua 10:12)

Note that the first reference to "world" may mean "the way things are", and that in the last reference "earth" may mean "land". In the context the writer discusses clouds, winds, waters, and mountains, which seem to support this view.

These passages were used by the Church to convict Galileo of heresy.

The earth is not flat, as once thought. It has no corners at all, and "ends of the earth" is not typically interpreted as from outer space. (Besides, what would be the ends? Why should the magnetic poles be "ends" as opposed to the axis of rotation?)

... he will assemble the scattered people of Judah from the four quarters of the earth. (Isaiah 11:12)

After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, ... (Revelation 7:1)

Oh Lord, ... to you the nations will come from the ends of the earth... (Jeremiah 16:19)

... and there before me stood a tree in the middle of the land. Its height was enormous. The tree grew large and strong and its top touched the sky; it was visible to the ends of the earth. (Daniel 4:10-11)

The first quotation is rendered as "four corners" in the King James Version. I have heard that this is a mistranslation of the original Greek.

[artsylady]

I believe god is an all powerful creator but I don't believe he meant the bible to be taken literally or he would have said so. The bible never claims to be the word of god. In fact the bible various so much from the orignial text found in the dead sea scrolls it's amazing.

We went through a lot of this on the other thread "evolution - do you believe it or not".

What's meant to be taken literally is quite obvious. "God created the world" "God told Noah to build a boat" "Moses grew up" etc, etc.

What is meant to be taken metaphorically is also quite obvious. "I am the vine, ye are the branches" "The Lord is my shepherd" etc, etc.

Most Bible scholars also believe that Genesis was written to be taken literally.

[artsylady]

...and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. (Matthew 1:16) Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, ... (Luke 3:23)

According to Morris (Many Infallible Proofs p. 62) it is Jewish custom to consider one's father-in-law as a father, which would explain Joseph's two fathers. I find this somewhat lacking, however, because we see that the lineage converges further up at King David, which would indicate that Joseph and Mary were related.

Yes, Joseph and Mary were likely cousins.

What's the problem with naming different lineages. Can't you trace 2 different lines from your mother?

A lot of the NT 'contradictions' are really not such at all. They are written by different people. A good book is "The Case For Christ' by Lee Stroebel. He was an athiest when he started doing his research.

There are some of the 'contradictions' you mention that I don't have time to look up right now, but most often when someone posts a contradiction, it's not that hard to figure out. Maybe others have already done the research.

Factual Errors

A bat is not a bird. Note that this isn't just an arbitrary classification that the Western and European world has created. A bat is a bird as much as a Cocker Spaniel is a cat.

When did the method of classification become practise? The 1800's or so? It wasn't until that it was decided how to classify a bat.

Rabbits do not chew their cud (bring up previously swallowed food to chew). They do eat their own dung, but I have heard that there is a Hebrew word for that which would have been used if that was the meaning.

I've heard this one before too. Think of how the English language evolved. Just read the whole text regarding 'rabbit' and you'll see that it certainly isn't what we today call a 'rabbit'. A rabbit used to be called a 'hare'. I'm not sure when we started calling it a rabbit, but look in very old literature and they'll call it a hare.

A rubber used to be something you'd use to erase pencil marks. Imagine my kids embarrassment when we were shopping for back to school and I said to them "Don't you need some rubbers?"

Insects, as part of their definition, have six legs. (Spiders are arachnids, not insects.)

Again, modern classification has redefined these animals only recently.

So the Lord God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, ... You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust..." (Genesis 3:14)

Nobody knows exactly what the serpent was.

What do you think Leviathan and Behemoth or Unicorn are?

The unicorn certainly isn't a horse with a horn, as legend would have it.

... The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved. (Psalms 93:1)

This also may not mean it doesn't rotate. It doesn't move from it's position, it's tilt (which is perfectly designed for the tides btw)

These passages were used by the Church to convict Galileo of heresy.

The earth is not flat, as once thought. It has no corners at all, and "ends of the earth" is not typically interpreted as from outer space. (Besides, what would be the ends? Why should the magnetic poles be "ends" as opposed to the axis of rotation?)

Some of the OT verses also were used by Columbus to convince Queen Isabella that there was more land and people. I'm not sure which scriptures he used, but he used the Bible.

Four corners could be north, south, east, west. When you look at the earth, you certainly don't see it as square or having any corners anyway, so it has to mean something else.

... and there before me stood a tree in the middle of the land. Its height was enormous. The tree grew large and strong and its top touched the sky; it was visible to the ends of the earth. (Daniel 4:10-11)

This sounds like a vision. Especially if it's from Daniel.