Creation or Evolution: Which is more accurate?

Posted by: subdeo

What do you think?

  • Creation

  • Evolution

35% 113 votes
65% 206 votes
  • An honest look at the evidence in the world around us tells us that everything could not have been created by nothing. It is also preposterous to imagine all the current life forms arising form nothing at all. I have yet to hear an evolutionist explain to me how the first cell came about. However, the evidence we do see clearly tells me that the world is thousands, not millions of years old, and was made by an intelligent being.

    Posted by: subdeo
  • Makes more sense to me. Evolution is a racist ideology

    Posted by: SegBeg
  • Evolution theory is stupid and not smart. God created earth. I don't understand how atheist minds work because if we came from monkeys why are there still monkeys. Because apparently chickens came from dinosaurs and their aren't any dinosaurs walking around.

  • it is true it is in many document dont be dumb

  • The bible never specified that God could not change his creation. There is always room for poking and prodding that God may have partaken in. However, I do not believe that humans derived from monkeys or apes. There are many similarities and yes 99% of our genes may be similar, but again, God has a plan and who knows, maybe his plan was to create animals, some close to what humans look and act like.

  • Based on the incoherent gibberish spouted by some on the evolutionists side of this discussion, I might be brought to believe that they did evolve from apes, but have not completed the transition to thinking human yet. The only possible, logical, reasonable explanation for the existence of all the laws, systems, functions, and absolute exactness of the universe is a thinking, intelligent, wise, reasonable, powerful source for the order. Order does not come from random chaos.

  • There are people who believe that it is likely that we either evolved from monkeys/apes or fish. Which is the truth? I have no idea. Believing in a God does not mean the negation of science. Just as science cannot come up with a coherent evidence for everything, the same can be said of religion. Just because we cannot prove something does not mean it is not real, it just means our minds have not evolved enough to see the truth. This applies for science and religion. The one goal for humans is to reach the divine and be forever in God's grace. Jesus became human/flesh so that we may be divine/spirit. This in itself can almost be taken as a form of evolution. God leaves clues into human life in everything, we just have to look for them.

  • People seem to think that the Bible is untrue, yet is has been proven true multiple times, unlike evolution, which is only a theory.

  • I have always believed this and it makes way more since

  • i just dont believe in evolution:/

  • Evolution still has no evidence to how the first bacteria formed on the Earth, therefore leaving us no evidence to how the chain began

  • How can we be made from Monkeys. That is impossible unless, GOD CREATED OUR ANSECTORS

  • Considering we recently found the fish species we were supposedly descended from and their skeletal structure hasn't changed at all....

  • With Darwin say that everything came from a premordial ooze is bull. Order can not be made from Chaos if you see a clean side walk an o windy day and then come back and see a pyrimid the who made it definitely not the wind.

  • Guys... Think about symbiotic relationships, specifically mutualism. How would those have evolved without one or both dying off? And more importantly, why did they evolve into a state where they are dependent on another species? That, and the fact that Earth itself in many ways, (including but not limited to it's general beauty, the very specific way our atmosphere is constructed to serve as a shield, the complex ecosystems that exist, the fact that we have Jupiter dragging planet-shattering rocks away from hitting us, the fact that we are the perfect distance from the sun, and much more...) defies unbeatable odds to end up the way it is now, I don't have enough faith to believe that everything here is chance.

  • if someone say that's the origin of man is monkey, say to him those are your ancestors not mine

  • The amounts of faith evolutionists have is incredible. I can't have such gigantig faith and rather go for creation :p /friendlytaunt

  • If scientists say we evolved from monkeys and apes shouldn't all the monkeys and apes evolve by now and become humans. If you go into a zoo and see a monkey I'm a 100% sure that it won't just turn into a human. I believe that humans were created by God and God alone. Evolution doesn't make any sense. There are way too much errors with that theory and I strongly believe that it is wrong. Humans and the entire universe was created by God and God alone.

  • There is evidence all around that supports creationalism

  • not everything needs an explanation.

  • As “evidence” to support their theory, most books on evolution include a reference list (bibliography) of other books and articles that also support the theory of evolution. We spent a great deal of time examining these sources and saw only a “circle of information,” with each document pointing to the next source as their “proof.” In college, we cynically called this procedure the “tower of babble.” (Yes, “babble” is the right word—this phrase is a pun.) To perform this procedure, the graduate student wrote their thesis based on the work and assumptions made by a previous graduate student. Of course that previous student did the same thing using the material of a still earlier student. By adding plenty of scientific terms and classifications, you not only sounded scholarly, but the thesis looked impressive to your family and friends! Unfortunately (and we really do mean unfortunately) we found that the writings on evolution are the same. We could not locate any with testable, scientific, first generation evidence. (We will discuss the scientific facts later.) The bulk of the material was based on the assumption that evolution is the only mechanism though which present day life arose. Ultimately, each document traced its beliefs back to Darwin’s theoretical writings. If you think we are exaggerating, examine the documentation yourself. By the way, the web contains many online versions of Darwin’s book. Why is this theoretical book so prominently available (and always recommended reading) if it is not the primary foundation of (and evidence for) the theory of evolution? By the way, we realize that many of the writings that support the Bible’s creation account also have flimsy or questionable evidence. We are trying to break out of that behavior pattern. We are not proposing that every science book should throw out the evolution model and stick in the Bible’s creation account instead. We propose that the Biblical model should be mentioned and given “equal time,” with an unbiased treatment showing how it agrees with the facts. If you want to find someone who can compose the biblical side, write us:address So, How Do I Get to the Facts? If you like reading books, a good one on this topic is The Collapse of Evolution by Scott M. Huse. Another good book is Darwin’s Black Box by Michael J. Behe, a Professor of Biochemistry. There is one advantage to a book—you can carry it around more easily than your computer, and you do not need an Internet connection, either! Both of these books qualify as “best sellers.” In the following section, we will apply the scientific method to the known, scientific facts relevant to the origins of our world (and the plants and animals on it). For those who are not familiar with the “scientific method,” it states the proper way to test and answer questions scientifically. It has four steps: State the question. Form a hypothesis (educated guess of the answer to the question). Do experiments (to test whether the hypothesis is right or not). Interpret the data (results) and draw conclusions. For the purpose of this page, the scientific method applies as follows: The question: “Where did life (and people) come from?” The two hypotheses: The “creation model” as written in the Bible tells us how we got here. The “evolution model” using abiogenesis combined with macroevolution tells us how we got here. The experiments: Various tests and discoveries by paleontologists, biologists, geologists, and other scientists. The data (results): Listed under “Scientific Facts” in the table below. We draw conclusions and mark the hypothesis that fits the data best with a red dot. There are some cases where both hypotheses fit the facts. In those cases, we gave both models a red dot. To see the reasoning behind any evaluation, click on the topic or the red dot and it will “jump” you to the explanation. Use your browser’s back button to return to approximately where you were before the “jump.” Scientific Facts Compared to the Bible’s Creation Account and the Theory of Evolution Scientific Fact Creation Model Evolution Model Scientists developed ways to measure the universe (and therefore its age). red ball red ball Scientists have found a large number of fossils. red ball The earth’s surface is deposited in layers. red ball red ball The layers of the earth’s surface contain different fossils. red ball red ball Many fossils have been discovered that span many geologic layers. red ball Large groups of fossils are often found together. These “graveyards” contain a wide variety of animal remains. red ball Scientists have successfully arranged groups of animals into a “tree of life” (phylogenetic tree). red ball Scientists have discovered transitional forms (missing links). red ball Many animals appeared suddenly at the start of the “Cambrian Period,” even though only a few multicellular fossils appear in “earlier” rock layers. red ball Scientists discovered “living fossils” like the coelacanth that have not changed in form for “millions of years.” red ball Scientists discovered “modern men” in Pliocene deposits. red ball

  • Because matter cannot be created or destroyed, but can only change form, all of the matter we see in the universe has always been here, right? Where did it come from? Although the Big Bang is now more a discredited theory (it goes against all laws of physics), there's got to be a way that that matter came into existence. Literally the only plausible solution to this problem is the Creation account in Genesis, where an Almighty God created everything ex nihilo--out of nothing.

  • A belief in evolution is no different than believing that randomly changing lines of code in your computers operating system will make it run better. Ain't gonna happen.

  • That means that you believe that a meteor crashed down and made the earth we live on today. Yes we have similar traits to monkey / apes but we are made by gods image.

  • Evolution is psuedoscience.

  • The Evolution depicted IS FALSE and always HAS been. I'm truly sorry, people, you've been DUPED by people using big words. Science (again) Never CREATED a single living breathing LIFE, which IS what every creature, that walks, crawls, swims, flies, eats, poops, And reproduces by egg. I know, but, but, but. Look let's do this the way that really actually counts okay? Put the created living, breathing, walking, crawling, or flying, pooping, eating, reproducing by egg LIFE that Evolutionary experiments REALLY DID CREATE. Right here for all of us to go see:________________________. Yes I know you can't put anything , because they NEVER created life itself, no reproducing animal that CREATED offspring, babies, children. Bacteria, microbes that's it. Nothing that ACTUALLY evolved into anything that reproduces by egg, WHICH everyone knows IS EACTLY HOW all life is reproduced in nature by all real living breathing animals ... egg. Hey in Scientist defense, YOU allowed yourself to be hoodwinked, they omitted, the truth, BUT, rather than being regaled by their use of big words, you could have easily said .... yeah, yeah, yeah, show me the critter you created that evolved into REAL LIFE, And show me its FIRST baby? They of course, would have been silent, and YOU could have announced to the World, they lied! Course that wouldn't do you any good, cause I've tried, EVERYBODY is completely fooled by science use of big words that they simply CAN'T hear you. Sorry to be the one to break it too you, BUT, that DOES open the opportunity for you to get your head out of the clouds and SEEK God for REAL. God WILL forgive you for being ignorant, we were ALL taken in by Science at one point in our life, till we found out that God was on the up and up, and offered to give us eternal Life FREE, forgive us, help us, teach us .... the whole Shabang. Gods really great, don't be unintelligent guys, God is the real deal, but Time is growing short. So consider the realities of your life? Your eternities is only a heartbeat away! - A car crash - A stray bullet - An unexpected stroke - You have an appointment and you are going to die on time! - No accidents in Gods kingdom - Where will you find yourself? - How sure are you? - What is the basis of your conviction? Your right to CHOOSE ends upon your death. I KNOW. Can you truly say the same? The responsibility is yours, as is its consequence. People want to make it someone else's job to "prove" Gods existence too them. Wrong my friend I have no such requirement. Mine is to tell you as is required in Ezekiel 3:18-19 18 When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand. 19 Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul. You have been so warned. Seek Him while you are still able..... sup to you.

  • LOL Monotheists vs Atheist. Yet again.

  • The hypothesis of Evolution is a recent development in human history that has been invented to avoid accepting the truth of God's Word.

  • You see, I am very skeptical about things. I Am Christian and I do support creationism. Even though it is unbelievable, it has a lot more evidence to support it. "The Big Bang Theory" is completely fake in my opinion. How does nothing make something? And if is just a "Theory" why is it being taught in universities? Go search up evidence for creationism, you will find a lot.

  • Personally, they both make sense. If God's original humans resembled apes, it's plausible they could have evolved as the theory states. I have yet to come across or think up a theory on how the Big Bang was actually generated.

  • There is no science that supports the first life on earth. It can't be repeated in a lab.

  • Actually, they both are correct. I'm you look to the biblical version of the creation of the universe and compare it to how we predicted the universe and life began, you will find that it happens in the same order. Understand that a million years for us would be a day for god. After all, our days are made through the sun, god and man both do not look to the sun to measure days and time. Let there be light - the big bang. Seas and sky - this is when water formed on earth. Sun moon stars - by this time the light of the stars would reach earth and the sun and the moon would have formed and be made visible. Land plants and trees - by this time dry land would have formed, plants would have started growing and bacteria and microscopic organisms would appear on earth(it isn't mentioned in the bible because they are tiny and wouldn't be considered as life back then) . Creatures of the sea - the microscopic organisms evolve and grow bigger with more complex features, eventually becoming fish, whales, snails, etc. Animals (man) - by this time, fish crawled out of the sea and through evolution became what we call, animals. God rests - after that, no more new species, just the evolution of old ones. Creationism proves evolutionism, however, evolutionism alone is not real. And if anyone is wondering, no I am not an adult, I am a 13-year-old catholic who is a huge science geek. Thank you ;)

  • There are just to many gaps in the argument given for evolution.

  • Since neither can be physically proven due to the fact that they concern past events, we must look at what is and determine whether creationism or evolutionary theory is easier to believe. Let’s look at DNA. It is like a book or a code. Now, if you are going to tell me that such a highly sophisticated, complex piece of information came about by spontaneous, random ecolutionary processes, you must have a lot if faith in chance. In fact, I would say that it is even easier to believe that the universe was created. After all, we see things that are created everyday, such as computers and cars. However, I have never seen a pile of miscellaneous junk put spontaneously put itself together into a functioning machine. With that said, I must vote for creationism.

  • Here's the thing... in the Bible it says that the world was created in seven days... but does it ever specify how long a day is? Many people assume that when it says day it means 24 hours but how are we to know? Because it is never stated, each day could have been BILLIONS of years! Also, I believe in the Bible, I believe every word was written for people from the mouths of prophets but I also believe in evolution. It is scientifically proven (by Darwin and others) that evolution occurs and is constantly occurring with species as environments change. There is no reason that people can only believe in one or the other. Often times if you dig deep enough you will find that science and true religion go hand in hand.

  • ===================================================

  • Eh, anything's more believable than a giant being in the sky. The Bible itself is a contradictory, homophobic, sexist piece of drug-induced crap.

  • Why are there so many people who think everything in the Bible is meant to be taken literally? The Creation story is a poem which contains theological truths like God creating the Universe, but the author didn't know how it literally happened. The Bible is infallible, but you have to take the genre into consideration. The Creation story wasn't meant to be scientific because science didn't even exist, so admitting that evolution is true doesn't mean denying the Bible's infallibility.

    Posted by: Taust
  • I believe in deistic evolution. God created the laws of nature, set everything in motion, and let the universe follow its course.

  • bug nipples

  • we have to think realistic here we evoled

  • Everything on earth has adapted to how the environment over millions of years. Also, god isn't real so.

  • While this is a dividing issue on origins (especially in the U.S.) we must define our terms and see which may be supported by science. Evolution can simply mean a gradual change over time. This is an obvious scientific truth. Creationism can simply mean that a creator created the universe or a specific aspect of it (in terms relating to science). However, it is largely more specifically seen as young-earth creationism (God created earth, universe, and life 6000-10000 years ago), while Evolution is seen as Darwinian theory of origin of species through natural selection (Life gradually evolved over a long period of time from a single life form and became the diverse life we see today. With these, it becomes quite clear which is more practical and supportable, Darwin's theory of evolution. Modern mainstream academic research has been affirming many predictions made. It is now accepted without question by the scientific community. Creationism always had and always will be based on a religious interpretation of a text written long before the age of science. Its claims are not scientifically feasible, just religion that lacks empirical support for its claims. It then becomes clear what we must accept in light of critical thinking. This doesn't mean you must doubt your religion or accept Darwinian evolution unquestionably, it just means we must be open minded and critical towards ideas. Darwinian evolution does much better under this than creationism.

  • It's just fact

  • Evolution has quantifiable evidence that can be analysed and help prove its truth. These would include procedures such as radiometric dating and osteology. While creationism cant be disproved, it is as valid as the faith that is had in the religion. It is as valid as any other guess with its only proof being reference to religious texts.

  • Wow.

    Posted by: Sporus
  • Its factual not theoretical.

  • It is more logical and has scientific evidence to back it up.

    Posted by: Arjan
  • Evolution is actually based on something that has already been proven

  • There is so much evidence showing that evolution not only happened in the past, but is occuring presently. The common mistake on this topic is the mixing of the topics of evolution, which is the progression of organisms, and abiogenisis, which is the very beginning of life.

  • As many would claim "all this could not have come from nothing." And they are right, it didn't. We have no idea where the building blocks of the universe came from. There mountains of evidence pointing to evolution and on the other side of that argument are stone age religious books and conspiracy theories which are incredibly flawed to begin with. Claiming evolution doesn't exist because the bible says otherwise is like claiming the earth is flat because the bible says so, it clearly contradicts all of science yet people ignore it because of belief.

  • Evolution has much more of a logical explanation than creation. We slowly evolved from apes. There are many reasons why this is true. But with evolution, did god just zap Adam and Eve down to earth, and it all came from there? Didn't Adam and Eve have boys? They would have to have sex with Eve to keep the human race alive. Isn't incest against the word of "God?" The bible and Christianity confuse me anyway. That's why i'm an athiest.

  • Occam's Razor: "Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected." Generally speaking there are fewer assumptions to be made with the theory of evolution.

  • Evolution is happening right now underneath our noses. To deny evolution is to deny antibiotic resistance. Everything evolves, and species evolve over a long time. The DNA evidence is overwhelming. Abiogenesis is nothing to do with evolution, but there are multiple hypotheses explaining how it could happen. To just say that God did it raises more questions than it answers. Occam's Razor suggests that we should therefore believe the explanation based on observable evidence.

  • It's... the only one of the two choices based on reality.

    Posted by: THsea
  • There is actual evidence supporting evolution, but creationism has an old book that is a horrible representation of the human race.

  • Well just look at evidence and plain common sense

  • So far there is 0 sustainable proof for creationism or any religion, yet evolution has been proven time and time again.

    Posted by: Sinque
  • No one knows where we came from or where we are going. There is no proof of anyone from any religion that "they" are the creator.

  • i am a christian, i believe in god and in his power. but evolution has been nearly entirely proven throughout history. it is clear to me and should be clear to others that natural selection and species evolution occur and that humans came about by these processes. however, i believe god had a part in this process and that he could have poked and prodded at evolving species and guided science. i cannot believe that people are saying that evolution is only a theory, but that the bible has been entirely proven. i believe in the bible and god, again, but i cannot think of a single way that creationism has been proven with tangible, concrete, scientific and historical evidence

  • Evolution has vast amounts of evidence to support the claim. Creationism is based upon a religion which has little to no evidence and is dependent upon geographical location.

  • I'm a Christian, and I was always confused about this. But seeing that the Bible tells me that there's some giant being in the sky that forgot about dinosaurs and is watching us poop, I'm not buying it.

  • Let's be realistic here. We have tangible evidence of evolution, which kind of solidifies it as fact. Biblical Creationism does not come along with tangible evidence of anything and is therefore only based on belief that is most likely untrue.

  • There is literally no scientific evidence to back up the theory of creation, while there has been evidence found for Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. I totally respect everyone's beliefs and religion, but still think that science is more probable.

    Posted by: brph98
  • Discounting the 'word of god' and the writings in the bible (because they were written by man and open to interpretation) the question I would pose is this... What EVIDENCE do creationists have that there is a god/divine being? You can't say 'because there are gaps in evolutionists knowledge that it is evidence for creationism' because that is intellectually incompetent. I would go so far as to say that if you believe in God do you believe in the tooth fairy or the flying horse? If you don't then why not? If you do then where is the evidence? Because I don't see the evidence for any of those three.

  • There is overwhelming evidence for evolution found in DNA, Fossils, physical traits and distribution of animals. It explains a great deal of what we can observe today, such as animal behaviors, similarities between species and how bacteria resist vaccines. On the contrary, there is no evidence for creationism. Different faiths have different creation myths, and none of them fit in with out scientific understanding of the universe.

  • Believe a 2017 year old book or in modern science. Yeah I think we know a lot more then them old boys.

    Posted by: pbheye
  • Its just more complex and answers more questions than the belief that we were created by an outside being.

  • There is absolutely no possible way a fucking man in the sky created everything. Creationism is absolute bullshit and is hateful to other people whom either don't follow it/believe it or don't fit the standards of it.

    Posted by: Lilat3
  • 1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law. Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth. In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling. All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain. 2. Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest. "Survival of the fittest" is a conversational way to describe natural selection, but a more technical description speaks of differential rates of survival and reproduction. That is, rather than labeling species as more or less fit, one can describe how many offspring they are likely to leave under given circumstances. Drop a fast-breeding pair of small-beaked finches and a slower-breeding pair of large-beaked finches onto an island full of food seeds. Within a few generations the fast breeders may control more of the food resources. Yet if large beaks more easily crush seeds, the advantage may tip to the slow breeders. In a pioneering study of finches on the Galápagos Islands, Peter R. Grant of Princeton University observed these kinds of population shifts in the wild [see his article "Natural Selection and Darwin's Finches"; Scientific American, October 1991]. The key is that adaptive fitness can be defined without reference to survival: large beaks are better adapted for crushing seeds, irrespective of whether that trait has survival value under the circumstances. 3. Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created. This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad areas: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution looks at changes within species over time--changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related. These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in Grant's studies of evolving beak shapes among Gal¿pagos finches). Natural selection and other mechanisms--such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridization--can drive profound changes in populations over time. The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest-known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 100,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominid creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not--and does not--find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (144 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly. Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence. It should be noted that the idea of falsifiability as the defining characteristic of science originated with philosopher Karl Popper in the 1930s. More recent elaborations on his thinking have expanded the narrowest interpretation of his principle precisely because it would eliminate too many branches of clearly scientific endeavor. 4. Increasingly, scientists doubt the truth of evolution. No evidence suggests that evolution is losing adherents. Pick up any issue of a peer-reviewed biological journal, and you will find articles that support and extend evolutionary studies or that embrace evolution as a fundamental concept. Conversely, serious scientific publications disputing evolution are all but nonexistent. In the mid-1990s George W. Gilchrist of the University of Washington surveyed thousands of journals in the primary literature, seeking articles on intelligent design or creation science. Among those hundreds of thousands of scientific reports, he found none. In the past two years, surveys done independently by Barbara Forrest of Southeastern Louisiana University and Lawrence M. Krauss of Case Western Reserve University have been similarly fruitless. Creationists retort that a closed-minded scientific community rejects their evidence. Yet according to the editors of Nature, Science and other leading journals, few antievolution manuscripts are even submitted. Some antievolution authors have published papers in serious journals. Those papers, however, rarely attack evolution directly or advance creationist arguments; at best, they identify certain evolutionary problems as unsolved and difficult (which no one disputes). In short, creationists are not giving the scientific world good reason to take them seriously. 5. The disagreements among even evolutionary biologists show how little solid science supports evolution. Evolutionary biologists passionately debate diverse topics: how speciation happens, the rates of evolutionary change, the ancestral relationships of birds and dinosaurs, whether Neandertals were a species apart from modern humans, and much more. These disputes are like those found in all other branches of science. Acceptance of evolution as a factual occurrence and a guiding principle is nonetheless universal in biology. Unfortunately, dishonest creationists have shown a willingness to take scientists' comments out of context to exaggerate and distort the disagreements. Anyone acquainted with the works of paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University knows that in addition to co-authoring the punctuated-equilibrium model, Gould was one of the most eloquent defenders and articulators of evolution. (Punctuated equilibrium explains patterns in the fossil record by suggesting that most evolutionary changes occur within geologically brief intervals--which may nonetheless amount to hundreds of generations.) Yet creationists delight in dissecting out phrases from Gould's voluminous prose to make him sound as though he had doubted evolution, and they present punctuated equilibrium as though it allows new species to materialize overnight or birds to be born from reptile eggs. When confronted with a quotation from a scientific authority that seems to question evolution, insist on seeing the statement in context. Almost invariably, the attack on evolution will prove illusory. 6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? This surprisingly common argument reflects several levels of ignorance about evolution. The first mistake is that evolution does not teach that humans descended from monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor. The deeper error is that this objection is tantamount to asking, "If children descended from adults, why are there still adults?" New species evolve by splintering off from established ones, when populations of organisms become isolated from the main branch of their family and acquire sufficient differences to remain forever distinct. The parent species may survive indefinitely thereafter, or it may become extinct. 7. Evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on earth. The origin of life remains very much a mystery, but biochemists have learned about how primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry. Astrochemical analyses hint that quantities of these compounds might have originated in space and fallen to earth in comets, a scenario that may solve the problem of how those constituents arose under the conditions that prevailed when our planet was young. Creationists sometimes try to invalidate all of evolution by pointing to science's current inability to explain the origin of life. But even if life on earth turned out to have a nonevolutionary origin (for instance, if aliens introduced the first cells billions of years ago), evolution since then would be robustly confirmed by countless microevolutionary and macroevolutionary studies. 8. Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance. Chance plays a part in evolution (for example, in the random mutations that can give rise to new traits), but evolution does not depend on chance to create organisms, proteins or other entities. Quite the opposite: natural selection, the principal known mechanism of evolution, harnesses nonrandom change by preserving "desirable" (adaptive) features and eliminating "undesirable" (nonadaptive) ones. As long as the forces of selection stay constant, natural selection can push evolution in one direction and produce sophisticated structures in surprisingly short times. As an analogy, consider the 13-letter sequence "TOBEORNOTTOBE." Those hypothetical million monkeys, each pecking out one phrase a second, could take as long as 78,800 years to find it among the 2613 sequences of that length. But in the 1980s Richard Hardison of Glendale College wrote a computer program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed (in effect, selecting for phrases more like Hamlet's). On average, the program re-created the phrase in just 336 iterations, less than 90 seconds. Even more amazing, it could reconstruct Shakespeare's entire play in just four and a half days. 9. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that systems must become more disordered over time. Living cells therefore could not have evolved from inanimate chemicals, and multicellular life could not have evolved from protozoa. This argument derives from a misunderstanding of the Second Law. If it were valid, mineral crystals and snowflakes would also be impossible, because they, too, are complex structures that form spontaneously from disordered parts. The Second Law actually states that the total entropy of a closed system (one that no energy or matter leaves or enters) cannot decrease. Entropy is a physical concept often casually described as disorder, but it differs significantly from the conversational use of the word. More important, however, the Second Law permits parts of a system to decrease in entropy as long as other parts experience an offsetting increase. Thus, our planet as a whole can grow more complex because the sun pours heat and light onto it, and the greater entropy associated with the sun's nuclear fusion more than rebalances the scales. Simple organisms can fuel their rise toward complexity by consuming other forms of life and nonliving materials. 10. Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features. On the contrary, biology has catalogued many traits produced by point mutations (changes at precise positions in an organism's DNA)--bacterial resistance to antibiotics, for example. Mutations that arise in the homeobox (Hox) family of development-regulating genes in animals can also have complex effects. Hox genes direct where legs, wings, antennae and body segments should grow. In fruit flies, for instance, the mutation called Antennapedia causes legs to sprout where antennae should grow. These abnormal limbs are not functional, but their existence demonstrates that genetic mistakes can produce complex structures, which natural selection can then test for possible uses. Moreover, molecular biology has discovered mechanisms for genetic change that go beyond point mutations, and these expand the ways in which new traits can appear. Functional modules within genes can be spliced together in novel ways. Whole genes can be accidentally duplicated in an organism's DNA, and the duplicates are free to mutate into genes for new, complex features. Comparisons of the DNA from a wide variety of organisms indicate that this is how the globin family of blood proteins evolved over millions of years. 11. Natural selection might explain microevolution, but it cannot explain the origin of new species and higher orders of life. Evolutionary biologists have written extensively about how natural selection could produce new species. For instance, in the model called allopatry, developed by Ernst Mayr of Harvard University, if a population of organisms were isolated from the rest of its species by geographical boundaries, it might be subjected to different selective pressures. Changes would accumulate in the isolated population. If those changes became so significant that the splinter group could not or routinely would not breed with the original stock, then the splinter group would be reproductively isolated and on its way toward becoming a new species. Natural selection is the best studied of the evolutionary mechanisms, but biologists are open to other possibilities as well. Biologists are constantly assessing the potential of unusual genetic mechanisms for causing speciation or for producing complex features in organisms. Lynn Margulis of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and others have persuasively argued that some cellular organelles, such as the energy-generating mitochondria, evolved through the symbiotic merger of ancient organisms. Thus, science welcomes the possibility of evolution resulting from forces beyond natural selection. Yet those forces must be natural; they cannot be attributed to the actions of mysterious creative intelligences whose existence, in scientific terms, is unproved. 12. Nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. Speciation is probably fairly rare and in many cases might take centuries. Furthermore, recognizing a new species during a formative stage can be difficult, because biologists sometimes disagree about how best to define a species. The most widely used definition, Mayr's Biological Species Concept, recognizes a species as a distinct community of reproductively isolated populations--sets of organisms that normally do not or cannot breed outside their community. In practice, this standard can be difficult to apply to organisms isolated by distance or terrain or to plants (and, of course, fossils do not breed). Biologists therefore usually use organisms' physical and behavioral traits as clues to their species membership. Nevertheless, the scientific literature does contain reports of apparent speciation events in plants, insects and worms. In most of these experiments, researchers subjected organisms to various types of selection--for anatomical differences, mating behaviors, habitat preferences and other traits--and found that they had created populations of organisms that did not breed with outsiders. For example, William R. Rice of the University of New Mexico and George W. Salt of the University of California at Davis demonstrated that if they sorted a group of fruit flies by their preference for certain environments and bred those flies separately over 35 generations, the resulting flies would refuse to breed with those from a very different environment. 13. Evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils--creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance. Actually, paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. A flock's worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found. A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus. Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition [see "The Mammals That Conquered the Seas," by Kate Wong; Scientific American, May]. Fossil seashells trace the evolution of various mollusks through millions of years. Perhaps 20 or more hominids (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans. Creationists, though, dismiss these fossil studies. They argue that Archaeopteryx is not a missing link between reptiles and birds--it is just an extinct bird with reptilian features. They want evolutionists to produce a weird, chimeric monster that cannot be classified as belonging to any known group. Even if a creationist does accept a fossil as transitional between two species, he or she may then insist on seeing other fossils intermediate between it and the first two. These frustrating requests can proceed ad infinitum and place an unreasonable burden on the always incomplete fossil record. Nevertheless, evolutionists can cite further supportive evidence from molecular biology. All organisms share most of the same genes, but as evolution predicts, the structures of these genes and their products diverge among species, in keeping with their evolutionary relationships. Geneticists speak of the "molecular clock" that records the passage of time. These molecular data also show how various organisms are transitional within evolution. 14. Living things have fantastically intricate features--at the anatomical, cellular and molecular levels--that could not function if they were any less complex or sophisticated. The only prudent conclusion is that they are the products of intelligent design, not evolution. This "argument from design" is the backbone of most recent attacks on evolution, but it is also one of the oldest. In 1802 theologian William Paley wrote that if one finds a pocket watch in a field, the most reasonable conclusion is that someone dropped it, not that natural forces created it there. By analogy, Paley argued, the complex structures of living things must be the handiwork of direct, divine invention. Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species as an answer to Paley: he explained how natural forces of selection, acting on inherited features, could gradually shape the evolution of ornate organic structures. Generations of creationists have tried to counter Darwin by citing the example of the eye as a structure that could not have evolved. The eye's ability to provide vision depends on the perfect arrangement of its parts, these critics say. Natural selection could thus never favor the transitional forms needed during the eye's evolution--what good is half an eye? Anticipating this criticism, Darwin suggested that even "incomplete" eyes might confer benefits (such as helping creatures orient toward light) and thereby survive for further evolutionary refinement. Biology has vindicated Darwin: researchers have identified primitive eyes and light-sensing organs throughout the animal kingdom and have even tracked the evolutionary history of eyes through comparative genetics. (It now appears that in various families of organisms, eyes have evolved independently.) Today's intelligent-design advocates are more sophisticated than their predecessors, but their arguments and goals are not fundamentally different. They criticize evolution by trying to demonstrate that it could not account for life as we know it and then insist that the only tenable alternative is that life was designed by an unidentified intelligence. 15. Recent discoveries prove that even at the microscopic level, life has a quality of complexity that could not have come about through evolution. "Irreducible complexity" is the battle cry of Michael J. Behe of Lehigh University, author of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. As a household example of irreducible complexity, Behe chooses the mousetrap--a machine that could not function if any of its pieces were missing and whose pieces have no value except as parts of the whole. What is true of the mousetrap, he says, is even truer of the bacterial flagellum, a whiplike cellular organelle used for propulsion that operates like an outboard motor. The proteins that make up a flagellum are uncannily arranged into motor components, a universal joint and other structures like those that a human engineer might specify. The possibility that this intricate array could have arisen through evolutionary modification is virtually nil, Behe argues, and that bespeaks intelligent design. He makes similar points about the blood's clotting mechanism and other molecular systems. Yet evolutionary biologists have answers to these objections. First, there exist flagellae with forms simpler than the one that Behe cites, so it is not necessary for all those components to be present for a flagellum to work. The sophisticated components of this flagellum all have precedents elsewhere in nature, as described by Kenneth R. Miller of Brown University and others. In fact, the entire flagellum assembly is extremely similar to an organelle that Yersinia pestis, the bubonic plague bacterium, uses to inject toxins into cells. The key is that the flagellum's component structures, which Behe suggests have no value apart from their role in propulsion, can serve multiple functions that would have helped favor their evolution. The final evolution of the flagellum might then have involved only the novel recombination of sophisticated parts that initially evolved for other purposes. Similarly, the blood-clotting system seems to involve the modification and elaboration of proteins that were originally used in digestion, according to studies by Russell F. Doolittle of the University of California at San Diego. So some of the complexity that Behe calls proof of intelligent design is not irreducible at all. Complexity of a different kind--"specified complexity"--is the cornerstone of the intelligent-design arguments of William A. Dembski of Baylor University in his books The Design Inference and No Free Lunch. Essentially his argument is that living things are complex in a way that undirected, random processes could never produce. The only logical conclusion, Dembski asserts, in an echo of Paley 200 years ago, is that some superhuman intelligence created and shaped life. Dembski's argument contains several holes. It is wrong to insinuate that the field of explanations consists only of random processes or designing intelligences. Researchers into nonlinear systems and cellular automata at the Santa Fe Institute and elsewhere have demonstrated that simple, undirected processes can yield extraordinarily complex patterns. Some of the complexity seen in organisms may therefore emerge through natural phenomena that we as yet barely understand. But that is far different from saying that the complexity could not have arisen naturally. "Creation science" is a contradiction in terms. A central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism--it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms. Thus, physics describes the atomic nucleus with specific concepts governing matter and energy, and it tests those descriptions experimentally. Physicists introduce new particles, such as quarks, to flesh out their theories only when data show that the previous descriptions cannot adequately explain observed phenomena. The new particles do not have arbitrary properties, moreover--their definitions are tightly constrained, because the new particles must fit within the existing framework of physics. In contrast, intelligent-design theorists invoke shadowy entities that conveniently have whatever unconstrained abilities are needed to solve the mystery at hand. Rather than expanding scientific inquiry, such answers shut it down. (How does one disprove the existence of omnipotent intelligences?) Intelligent design offers few answers. For instance, when and how did a designing intelligence intervene in life's history? By creating the first DNA? The first cell? The first human? Was every species designed, or just a few early ones? Proponents of intelligent-design theory frequently decline to be pinned down on these points. They do not even make real attempts to reconcile their disparate ideas about intelligent design. Instead they pursue argument by exclusion--that is, they belittle evolutionary explanations as far-fetched or incomplete and then imply that only design-based alternatives remain. Logically, this is misleading: even if one naturalistic explanation is flawed, it does not mean that all are. Moreover, it does not make one intelligent-design theory more reasonable than another. Listeners are essentially left to fill in the blanks for themselves, and some will undoubtedly do so by substituting their religious beliefs for scientific ideas. Time and again, science has shown that methodological naturalism can push back ignorance, finding increasingly detailed and informative answers to mysteries that once seemed impenetrable: the nature of light, the causes of disease, how the brain works. Evolution is doing the same with the riddle of how the living world took shape. Creationism, by any name, adds nothing of intellectual value to the effort.

  • Evolution is the only logical answer and is the only answer with evidence to back it up. The bible was never proof of anything other than the fact that people have known to read and write for quite some time.

  • To deny that we are animals is denying science

  • I'm a Christian and yet reading some of the creationist answers still makes me want to bang my head against a wall. I believe in the scientific method and evolution is a sound theory. I also believe that God created the universe in the beginning and caused the big bang, and had a plan of events that was eventually followed to us.

  • I do believe in religion and that their is a higher power, but you can't argue with science, and science can explain mostly everything.

  • I'm Protestant, and yet I still believe in evolution, kind of both in a way. God is real for me, truly real among the universe, but Darwin's theory of evolution explains so much about our race. We began as algae, small little creatures growing on a developing Earth being protected by the Moon and Mars (that's why the Moon has many craters). We couldn't just appear in the mist with trees fully grown, grass sprouted, and humans, well humans. We had to grow, because it is our nature. Everyone says that the chances of the Earth being born is one in trillions, but there is something called infinite universes with infinite possibilities. We are alive in a universe where the Earth does exist, and there is probably more intelligent beings outside of the Milky Way.

  • This is the only option backed up by actual science. The other one is just unproven religion.

    Posted by: cchu
  • God & science can coexist! I do consider myself a spiritual girl, but I don't allow the Bible to blind me or make me ignorant to things like education & science. Science told us that Jesus Christ did exist - the controversy is regarding his divinity. Ultimately, nobody knows who or what made all of existence. That's what faith is all about, isn't it? However, there is scientific & physical proof of evolution with explanations that can be tested. We cannot deny researches, tested, & proven sources like fossil records or DNA analysis. Some people are saying evolution is not any more provable than the theory of creationism & will mention that on a smaller scale there is no cure for diseases & the monkeys/apes we evolved from still exist. To put it shortly, evolution took millions of years. This isn't meant to sound insulting or offensive, but if that's your argument, you don't have an understanding of what evolution is or how it works. We do have common ancestors; we did not evolve straight from monkeys & apes though. The process took something like 30 million years (if I'm not mistaken - sorry). Consider how sharks, some shellfish, bees, alligators, & crocodiles still exist. They're all prehistoric creatures. In regard to diseases still existing: our bodies & genes have evolved, so they adapt, too. Diseases evolve in the same way human societies do.

  • There is more evidence for Evolution than there is for Creationism. Evolution is change overtime. While Creationism is just some invisible man in the sky said "let there be light" and then created everything. I mean we are related to monkeys but the reason why they exist along side us is because they can survive in their environment. So there is always going to be more evidence for Evolution than Creationism.

  • Something ive noticed is that many people in the comments act as if Christianity is the only religion based on Creationism. So, im going to debate it on a standard level. Evolutionist believe in, basically, logic. Now, you may say "well where did we come from?", well where did the creator came from? Its a matter of perspective. However we got here, i highly doubt it was by some magical being or some form of kami. Creationism is holding science back, we need to think logically to advance and improve our future. We cant all depend on something that we havent seen.

  • God told me I'm right.

    Posted by: Hyde1
  • Where did we come from? Some dude in the sky that created us himself imperfectly, killed us all for being imperfect, then sent his son to be killed by us so we are forgiven as long as he's killed, which he than reappears 3 days later. Great homophobic genocide story, my favorite bit is where the magical carnivores got on the ark than didn't eat the other animals, or maybe when god had the power to kill everything including innocent animals with a flood, but didn't have the power to make basic vegetables grow for the remaining survivors to eat. The food chain and how well adapted every animal is proves survival of the fittest, therefore evolution. Evolution is flawed, your book is shit. If i could stop a murder from happening in front of me i would, and god wouldn't appear and stop it. If he does exist he's either not all good or not all powerful.

  • Religion was, For the most part, Made to make sense of our little understanding of the world around us. Then it eventually came into the basis of forming laws to control people, But since we've learned so much about our world, Religion is becoming outdated. Evidence for Evolution, Even in the short term: Farming, Flu strains, And countless others.

  • Alright, This is an age old debate. And lets be honest, An age old debate is age old because neither side is willing to cave. No one caved back then, No one will cave today. The only solace I have is that at least 64% of all people are educated enough to understand why evolution is real. Evolution is backed up with evidence. (Read Darwin's Origin Of Species) (Creation is not. Creation is still a theory postulated through human intuition. [just like the "earth is flat" theory dictated by optical intuition]). Evolution's evidence is not limited to Darwin however. Have any of the creationists even researched about the chain between chimps and homo sapiens(aka humans)? Probably not, Since they were reading their little fairytales. . Oops I meant religious texts. Anyway my goal isn't to educate or insult anyone. Instead I'm merely saying it's not their fault, Since we naturally have herd mentality. So, We'll follow the people we've grown up knowing. However, It would do them some good to open their eyes once in a while.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Amarandum says2017-01-31T15:09:26.5876578Z
Creationists like to say that because we don't yet know how the first life form came about (it would have been much simpler than a cell) this is somehow evidence that Yahweh of the Bible made us all six thousand years ago. I encourage everybody to Google "God of the Gaps fallacy" as this has been taken down long ago.
Amarandum says2017-01-31T15:15:30.5356578Z
Additionally, we know the carbon-14 atom decays at a specific rate. We can use decayed carbon-14 in fossils as a geological 'ruler' of sorts, and get an accurate age on fossils. Also, the closest star is many millions of lightyears away. If light travels one lightyear every calendar year, and the universe is six thousand years old, we should see no stars. Any creationists, please feel free to challenge me to a debate.
cass45 says2017-01-31T19:22:45.1158880Z
Evolution makes more sense. "Everything could not have been created by nothing. It is also preposterous to imagine all the current life forms arising form nothing at all" Any basic biology class will tell you different. Everything comes from nature, the trees, bugs, animals. We have evolved from an older species that has over time created what is now mankind. Nothing was just placed here all of a sudden. We come from other species that have developed, grew, learned. Mankind is still constantly changing and developing. We have evolved.
subdeo says2017-01-31T23:38:03.0321830Z
@cass45: You seem to think that, "Nothing was just placed here all of a sudden. We come from other species that have developed, grew, learned." But what was the first species of all? How did it come into being?
Amarandum says2017-02-01T03:35:33.1797830Z
Subdeo, we don't know yet! We're working on it! But it's not helpful to postulate a creator for which we have no evidence. Perhaps we can't duplicate the situation because our atmosphere has changed dramatically. If the multiverse theory is true, the improbability of life arising doesn't matter, as there would be (theoretically) infinite universes. Why do you use "god of the gaps" reasoning to ignore all available science? You realize we have many, many thousands of fossils and geologic markers that point to evolution, right?
subdeo says2017-02-01T14:24:16.6301252Z
Amarandum, you said, "...We don't know yet! We're working on it! But it's not helpful to postulate a creator for which we have no evidence." As far as I am concerned there is evidence for a creator. What about all the prophecies that were written hundreds of years before they were to occur, and then happened? And I don't mean nonspecific prophecies either. I am not using "God of the gaps" fallacy. I am just arguing that there are many holes, inconsistencies, and weaknesses in the evolutionary theory that cause me to turn elsewhere. Is that so fallacious?
Amarandum says2017-02-01T15:01:49.7029318Z
Subdeo, those prophecies have been taken down a long time ago. The truth is that they were written long after the events and ascribed to mythological prophets who never lived. Don't you think it's a little too good to be true to have a book that tells the future?
Amarandum says2017-02-01T15:04:44.1421318Z
Bible scholar Bart Ehrman has one example: “The historical problems with Luke are even more pronounced. For one thing, we have relatively good records for the reign of Caesar Augustus, and there is no mention anywhere in any of them of an empire-wide census for which everyone had to register by returning to their ancestral home. And how could such a thing even be imagined? Joesph returns to Bethlehem because his ancestor David was born there. But David lived a thousand years before Joseph. Are we to imagine that everyone in the Roman Empire was required to return to the homes of their ancestors from a thousand years earlier? If we had a new worldwide census today and each of us had to return to the towns of our ancestors a thousand years back—where would you go? Can you imagine the total disruption of human life that this kind of universal exodus would require? And can you imagine that such a project would never be mentioned in any of the newspapers? There is not a single reference to any such census in any ancient source, apart from Luke. Why then does Luke say there was such a census? The answer may seem obvious to you. He wanted Jesus to be born in Bethlehem, even though he knew he came from Nazareth ... There is a prophecy in the Old Testament book of Micah that a savior would come from Bethlehem. What were these Gospel writer to do with the fact that it was widely known that Jesus came from Nazareth? They had to come up with a narrative that explained how he came from Nazareth, in Galilee, a little one-horse town that no one had ever heard of, but was born in Bethlehem, the home of King David, royal ancestor of the Messiah.”
Amarandum says2017-02-01T15:12:08.4301318Z
Subdeo, can you clarify what evolutionary inconsistencies you're referring to, and why you think they should counter the geological and cosmological markers that point towards an old earth? I'll give you something to think about from evolution: Our shoulders, our eyes and our teeth are so poorly designed for their respective jobs that there's no way an intelligent designer would be so stupid as to include them. The only way they make sense is as remnants from our animal ancestors. If God made us w/out evolution, why do a half-baked job of it?
Amarandum says2017-02-01T15:21:48.9217318Z
Also, there are inconsistencies in evolution that make you reject it, but not Christianity? If God is real, he's a war criminal. What about Moses commanding the mass murder and rape of children found in Numbers 31, or the slaughter of entire cities of innocent Amalekites in the Old Testament? Or the command in Deut 13 to stone all nonbelievers, or when Leviticus told priests to immolate their daughters? And before you say "that was the old testament, it doesn't matter" let me ask you why you would want to worship a God who thought it was ok AT ALL, let alone deny all of science to suit his mythological creation story.
subdeo says2017-02-01T23:32:25.7417914Z
First of all, Amarandum, we do have evidence for the census recorded in Luke. For example, archaeological evidence indicates that these censuses were likely taken every 14 years. In addition, Quirinius (the governor that ordered the census) probably ruled twice (according the Lapis Tiburtinus inscription). Also, archaeology indicates that citizens were to go to the place of their ancestry. Secondly, you say that, “ Our shoulders, our eyes and our teeth are so poorly designed for their respective jobs that there’s no way an intelligent designer would be so stupid as to include them.” Could you please give me one example of how they are poorly designed? Even if they did not meet your criteria for human eyes, teeth and shoulders, that still does not compel me to believe that all humans are descended from animals. You asked for examples of evolutionary inconsistencies? What about the fact that we only see microevolution occurring, but no examples anywhere at all of macroevolution or transitional species. Microevolution operates on existing genetic information, whereas macroevolution requires entirely new information, something that has never been proved to happen. Finally, in your third comment you say, “…there are inconsistencies in evolution that make you reject it, but not Christianity?” Firstly, we are not debating Evolution versus Christianity, but Evolution versus Creation. However, I will address the points you mentioned. Numbers 31: “mass murder and rape of children” I have read this chapter and see no reference to raping children. As far as “mass murder” goes, this was a special situation for these exceptionally wicked people. Old Testament: These were not “innocent” Amelekites; these people killed their own children. Deuteronomy 13: “stone all unbelievers” The Israelites lived in a Theocracy (a society ruled by God) therefore treason against God was treason against the state, therefore something that warranted death. Leviticus: “told priests to immolate their daughters” This is not in the Bible. Mind showing me your reference?
subdeo says2017-02-02T14:27:07.1571744Z
Revision: My rebuttal to your first argument (about the census) was incomplete. Here is my updated response: We do have evidence for the census recorded in Luke. For example, archaeological evidence indicates that these censuses were likely taken every 14 years. In addition, Quirinius (the governor that ordered the census) probably ruled twice (according the Lapis Tiburtinus inscription), and would have likely had two censuses. One in 6 or 7 a.D, the other earlier (around the time Jesus was to be born in 1-3 a.D.) Archaeology indicates that citizens were to go to the place of their ancestry. Also, we must remember that while that may have caused ample disruption then, it was not nearly as much as would happen if such a thing happened today.
Amarandum says2017-02-02T18:02:52.0371744Z
Subdeo, I'm well aware of Quirinius' census, but are you aware that the Bible puts Luke's census within the reign of Herod the Great, at least ten years before Quirinius' census was implemented? Nice comeback though, you're sharp. Even if the timeline did match up, I seriously doubt that Joseph was able to keep a thousand years of family history in an age where survival was a priority. As for an example of botched design, the light sensitive cells within the eye are faced away from the retina, with the nerves that carry the signals blocking incoming light. When light comes through, it has to penetrate through a forest of nerves before it can reach the light sensitive cells that are facing away from the light source. A fuller explanation can be found in the book "The Greatest Show on Earth" by evolutionary biologist and professor Richard Dawkins. As for why we can't see macro-evolution occurring, that's a bit of a fallacy. We have pretty solid evidence of evolutionary changes occurring in bacteria, which constantly adapt to the latest antibiotics we produce. We can't see this in larger creatures so well because there's a lot more biology to change. It's been likened to a detective arriving on the scene of a crime, who puts together clues to determine what has happened. He didn't actually see the crime being committed, true, but that doesn't mean he can't figure out who's guilty. Evolution has a LOT of clues to back it up. The whole 'transitional fossils' argument is simply not true. I used to believe the same thing when I was a Creationist. This humorous video will give you many examples of transitional fossils: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwBWvVLlC2g
Amarandum says2017-02-02T18:13:21.1383744Z
Numbers 31 explicitly refers to virgins as 'plunder' to be divided among the soldiers and priests. "The plunder remaining from the spoils that the soldiers took was 675,000 sheep, 72,000 cattle, 61,000 donkeys and 32,000 women who had never slept with a man." Given the culture of the Near East, we can be fairly sure the author referred to them as virgins for one reason. Despicable. "'Have you allowed all the women to live?' he asked them. 'They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.'" 'Save for Yourselves'. Yes, I'm sure he had the noblest intentions in mind here. You say the boys were guilty of a crime? What crime? What crime except being in a nation that opposed the armies of Moses? If you're going to try and say the murder of nonbelievers was justified, or that a theocracy is any way to rule a nation, you clearly don't believe in that beautiful document you have as your profile picture. What about the right of the people to worship as they please? It said nothing of the people violently opposing Yahweh. The Leviticus quote is from chapter 21: “‘If a priest’s daughter defiles herself by becoming a prostitute, she disgraces her father; she must be burned in the fire.'" And if you're going to argue that immolation is a worthy punishment for prostitution, which it isn't, consider that the word 'prostitute' has long been a derogatory term for any sexually active woman. Many non-prostitutes were almost certainly burned alive because of this mandate. All quotes taken from the New International Version.
AmericanDeist says2017-02-03T20:57:28.4945103Z
Creationists tend to not understand evolution. It's not that we came from monkeys, yet there are still monkeys, but rather that all primates shared a common ancestor at some point, and different branches of the evolutionary tree grew from that common point. There is even evidence of evolution in the human body right now. Many people no longer develop wisdom teeth because our diets have changed. Our bodies are adapting. 10% of the population do not have the palmaris longus tendon in their wrist.
subdeo says2017-02-04T18:14:22.5379684Z
http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/5645/how-could-jesus-be-born-during-the-reign-of-herod-and-when-quirinius-was-govern Above link is to answer your question about Luke's census. I am by no means an expert, however, I would say that the "botched" design of the eye seems to not be such a mistake. Aside from mutational errors etc., humans are able to see just fine. Normal human tasks are able to be easily accomplished. Perhaps if there were no nerves to block light, and the light sensitive cells were facing towards light, the cells would be damaged by concentrated light. The video of transitional fossils you sent me did not present any argument whatsoever. It gave an unsupported claim that scientists have proven all those bones and skeletons are transitional. I would like to see some kind of report or document that gives reasonable arguments, not a video that just tells me to take their word for it. About the "virgins to be divided as plunder", we must understand the culture at this time in history. At this time, women had virtually no means to provide for themselves. Without either a father, husband, or even a son, the woman would most certainly live in poverty. The best option for these captive women was to be absorbed into the Hebrew culture as wives to be provided for. These were not "sex slaves", these were wives. To address the seeming problem of all the boys and men being annihilated, I will say again that this was a very specific situation for these very wicked people. Norman Geisler says it well at the end of this article: https://bible.org/question/how-could-loving-god-tell-israelites-kill-their-enemies-even-children Lastly, I would differ that Leviticus 21 "commands priests to immolate their daughters". To immolate is to kill as an offering. These were not sacrifices, but legal penalties. I would also differ that the term "prostitute" has long been a derogatory term for a sexually active woman. Sex in and of itself is not evil, nor a disgrace. Sexual immorality and prostitution, however, is.
Amarandum says2017-02-05T02:29:01.5806350Z
I found the article you provided unconvincing. It ultimately resorted to incomplete records: "Being 2,000 years removed from this, our historical data and understanding are certainly not what they would have been to first century readers of Luke's account. It is doubtful that Luke would have created such a glaring inconsistency, and if there were one, the readers of that day would surely have raised objection to it and discounted the narrative." This is word salad and rationalizing. The fact is that no serious scholar (whether religious or not) actually believes the Bible is inerrant or that the Gospels were written as first person accounts. I'm sorry to say that your analysis of the eye was ridiculously simplistic. Because we can see well, that means it was designed well? I'm sorry, but no. No biologist would ever agree with that. The video I offered was somewhat simplistic, and I apologize. It was meant to be a starting point for further research as opposed to an argument. Maybe this article from LiveScience will do the trick: http://www.Livescience.Com/3306-fossils-reveal-truth-darwin-theory.Html Or maybe an article from Scientific American: https://www.Scientificamerican.Com/article/the-fossil-fallacy/ The moment you try to say Numbers 31 is about absorbing women into the loving arms of the Hebrew the culture is the moment you have succumbed to naivety and apologetics for genocide. Burning women alive is justifiable if they're a prostitute? This is almost beyond reason. I used to do the same thing; convincing myself that God had some good purpose for everything he did, before I realized that he was a hateful, jealous, war criminal. I had to ask myself, still thinking he was real, whether or not I was okay with the genocide of the 'evil' Amalekites, or the justifications for slavery, or the mandates for theocracy. The boys who were killed were evil? How? How were the children and infants evil? God rained fire on Gomorrah, but did nothing about Nazi Germany? One city filled with homosexuals did more evil than a whole country that threw millions of His 'chosen people' into furnaces and caused the deaths of sixty million people? Your God is a moral thug, and if Hell is real, I can't wait to go there with the knowledge that I have vastly more ethical fortitude than the creator of the Universe. Cheers friend.
Amarandum says2017-02-05T02:31:47.3306350Z
For any curious creationists, here is a directory of major creationist claims, provided with the necessary explanations to refute them all: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/
subdeo says2017-02-06T17:00:48.6394712Z
First of all, you say that, “No serious scholar” actually believes the Bible is inerrant. Actually, there are. For one, the Southern Baptist convention, R.C. Sproul, Billy Graham, and Norman Geisler all believe in the inerrancy of the scriptures. This link should further address the alleged discrepancy in the biblical account of the census. http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/11/01/Once-More-Quiriniuss-Census.aspx There will always be some things that we don’t know. However, more and more archaeology proves that more and more biblical claims are correct. I read the article from the Scientific American (the one from Live Science did not work for me). The reason that it is reasonable to think that dogs came from wolves is because that is a change within the genetic code, and is not a major change (comparatively speaking). However, a change from a single cell to all we see today is truly ridiculous, a scientific misunderstanding of the greatest proportions. You think that those women were not being “lovingly absorbed”? Putting yourself in their shoes, what would you prefer; poverty in a strange land, or being married into Hebrew families, according to the humane laws of the Hebrew culture? You ask how the boys were somehow evil. This link should help answer that question. Http://www.Crivoice.Org/terms/t-herem.Html In short, although it is difficult to understand, especially without accepting the scriptures as truth, these peoples posed a religious threat to the Hebrews and would pull them to other gods. The children had likely already been indoctrinated into the cultures and gods of their land and would also pull the Hebrews away to other gods. We also must understand that these situations were extremely limited and not very frequent. I hope this helps you understand. By judging Sodom and not the Nazis does not mean God thinks that the sodomites were more evil necessarily, it just means that according to Gods plan it was time to bring judgment to the sodomites and not the Nazis. I hope to God that your wish to go to hell is not granted (though I’m afraid that if that is where you want to go, that is where you will end up).
Taust says2017-02-07T01:00:02.3190700Z
AmericanDeist, there's the appendix, too. It's a shame that most people don't understand what evolution actually is, but it's not really their fault because it's often explained badly.
Amarandum says2017-02-07T20:47:35.2175412Z
@Subdeo, were you referring to the Billy Graham who called Jews the "synagogue of Satan", and advised President Nixon to kill a million Vietnamese soldiers during the war? Or the Southern Baptist Convention that said: "Man was not made for woman, but the woman for the man. Woman is the glory of man. Woman would not have existed without man", and disapproves of women becoming pastors? It's not that these people aren't decent enough, but the fundamentalism simply radiates off of them, so their opinions should be taken with a grain of salt. The other two gentlemen you mentioned have degrees in theology and philosophy. I was referring to linguistic and historical scholars, or scholars of comparative religion. Of course men who have degrees in "Christian-ology" and whose careers depend on Christianity believe Christianity is true. As for the biological points, I don't know what else to tell you. Creationists believe in small changes in species, right? As long as you accept the standard age of the earth, there is nothing to stop small changes from getting bigger over time. Science has no distinction between 'micro' and 'macro' evolution. Evolution is evolution. If you deny the age of the earth, you are in conflict with all available science. You realize that there are trees alive today that are older than 10,000 years, right? How can molecules to man be a scientific misunderstanding if the vast majority of scientists agree with it? Evolution is as basic to biology as the idea that planets orbit suns is to astronomy. I'm not making this up - you can talk to any highschool science teacher about this. As for the war-crimes point, like I said, I was a Creationist Southern Baptist for more than a decade. I rationalized all that to myself for the longest time. It's more than a little naive to assume those virgins didn't get raped just because God said so. They all got raped; come on. With regards to the boys, why is their different religion a grounds for slaughter? What about the basis of the Constitution and this country? What about their right to worship peacefully? Do you support theocracy? Was the only thing wrong with 9/11 that the hijackers didn't share your religion, or was it wrong because it was intolerant and hateful? You say that it was somehow better because these situations were rare. Okay, let's put the shoe on the other foot. You're a conservative, as am I. Do you think Clinton's defense of abortion as "Safe, legal, and rare" is at all satisfactory? Does this slogan take away from the crime of abortion? Or is abortion bad no matter what, no matter how often? Why would the rules be different for the slaughter of thousands of children?
Tom-The-Hypocrit says2017-02-09T10:48:23.7007353Z
When people say order does not come from chaos... Look at every revolution in existence lol
subdeo says2017-02-10T00:21:48.6179651Z
First of all, discounting the opinions of the individuals I listed because of other things they said is a genetic fallacy (condemning an argument because of who is behind it). By listing them, I am not saying that I agree with everything they have said, only that there are some scholars who do believe the inerrancy of the scriptures. Also, I do not accept the standard age of the earth. Anyway, all the time in the world will not create matter. My main “bone to pick” with evolution is that it cannot explain the origin of original matter. You also ask how “Molecules to man {can} be a scientific misunderstanding if the vast majority of scientists agree with it”. This is a major “appeal to the people” fallacy, which says that because many people think something to be true, it must be true. Even if the virgins did get raped outside of God’s command, that does not mean God condoned it, and is therefore not guilty of a war crime. Finally, to address the point of genocide. Again, this is difficult to understand. I will clarify that I am only saying that it was rare to give context. Obviously if it actually was wrong, it would still be wrong, no matter how rare it was. I, however, hold that it was not wrong for the following reasons. A. These Amelekites had consistently been brutal enemies of the Hebrews and had attacked them without provocation in addition to other times. When they would do this, Hebrew children were killed. B. As a minor reason, the Amelekites themselves would kill the children of opposing armies that they were attacking. C. The Amelekites hated the Hebrew’s guts. Even many years later, a descendant of the king of the Amelekites tried to annihilate the Jews again. The only way to prevent more things like this was to destroy all those who had been indoctrinated into hating the Hebrews and into serving gods that thirsted for the blood of children. This link gives additional information; also, I am citing it as a source: http://matthiasmedia.Com/briefing/2013/08/the-amalekite-genocide/
Amarandum says2017-02-10T02:18:23.3368078Z
Subdeo, I committed no genetic fallacy. My point was that the men/groups you mentioned are well known fundamentalists who let what the Bible says lead them to bigoted conclusions. The Bible does in fact say that Jews caused the death of Jesus, so that's why Billy Graham dislikes Jews. The Bible is against women's rights, so that's why the SBC is sexist. I was trying to say that of course they believe the Bible to be inerrant, look at what they're willing to do and say for it. It's all they have. They can't do math or mix chemicals or build things for money, so they turn to faith. They're fundamentalist theologians; that's literally their job. Many Muslim scholars think the Koran is inerrant, know why? Because they're Muslims my friend! As for not accepting the age of the earth, that's your business. If you want to believe mythology over thousands upon thousands of hours of independent corroboration, more power to you. Just please don't try to teach it to my kids like it's science, okay? If you want to put it in a religious studies class, great, so long as you also tell them about Hindu creation scientists who think humans have existed for billions of years - just to be fair. I take it you like the Constitution? So do I, especially the part about the Government not recognizing any one religion over another. We need evolution to produce drugs that cope when bacteria adapt to human immune systems. Our knowledge of where certain creatures lived millions of years ago helps us find out where to dig for oil. Evolution is totally responsible for the field of bioinformatics, where we can see the genetic variation within ourselves and chimps and dogs and see how exactly we are all related. Nothing even remotely close to this can be said of creationism, because it has absolutely no predicting power. The whole purpose of science is to be able to predict things. I think your understanding of the 'appeal to the people' fallacy is somewhat limited. It only applies to cultural bandwagons, not an area of specific expertise. I'll use an example: the majority of doctors think leaching is discredited, but some don't. Is this an appeal to authority, or is it just a consensus? God did in fact condone all manner of atrocities sir, he was the one who commanded the Hebrews to demolish the Amalekites. If this were to happen today, what would happen? Iran hates the US with a passion. Does that give us the right to murder their sons and take their daughters as plunder? Ezekiel 18:20 says that it is the sinner who should be punished, not their children or grandchildren.
Bi0Hazard says2017-02-10T04:32:35.8237088Z
Creationism is not science. Period.
subdeo says2017-02-10T22:10:18.6800975Z
Actually, Bi0Hazard, according to Merriam Webster, the definition of science is as follows: "Knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method". Creation fits this definition, thus is science.
Bi0Hazard says2017-02-10T23:56:24.3224975Z
Subdeo, by that definition, creationism is not science. Creationism is at best pseudoscience (better described as religious doctrine). Lets see: 1. Creationism lacks empirical support. 2. Creationism lacks a tentative hypothesis. 3. Creationism is not falsifiable since it describes the history of the earth in terms of supernatural untestable causes. 4. Creationism is based entirely on... RELIGION! Believe what you want, but it is better we focus on scientific hypothesis', theories, and facts rather than very old religious texts in a science class. We will keep that for a religious studies or ancient history courses.
subdeo says2017-02-11T19:11:58.0910090Z
Actually, Amarandum, The Bible is not against women's rights. Give some evidence to back up claim. As far as believing the inerrancy of the Bible, like you say, everyone is entitled to their beliefs. However, using your example of the Muslims, Muslims do not believe the Koran because they are Muslims, but they are Muslims because they believe the Koran. It is the same way with Christians. I believe that these theologians we are discussing are not defending the Bible for the money as you seem to think. That is their specialty, yes, but they are not doing it for the money. That's just what they believe. Everyone has the right to teach their children what the think is right. Science, however is a field that should be kept as unbiased as possible in pursuit of truth. While it is okay to teach one's children the way one believes to be right, it is unacceptable to try to monopolize science and confine contested theories to a Bible study. This is not true science. Also, your statements about how we "need evolution" I find highly unscientific. We do not "need" one theory to be right over another, we need the truth. Creation does not attempt to explain natural phenomena, only the origin of all things. Thus, the fact that it has a "no predicting power" is like judging Colin Kaepernick by his ability to play ping pong. Also, like you point out, it is okay to join consensus. However, it is not okay to completely deny a theory for the sole argument that it is unpopular, or accept a theory as fact for the sole reason that it is popular (which is exactly what your statement said). Again, I repeat, God did not command atrocities. The destruction of the Amalekites was justified because of their exceptional wickedness. I have already explained the case of the infants. Obviously, today is a different scenario. The Hebrews were part of a rare theocracy. Also, these countries were effectively at war, with the Amalekites attacking the Hebrews whenever they could, and without provocation. No, children should not suffer for the sins of their parents. However, I have already explained in previous posts how this rare circumstance was justified.
Amarandum says2017-02-12T22:44:10.8717995Z
Subdeo, have you ever actually read the Bible? All it would take is to Google 'sexism in the Bible'; how hard is that? Apparently it's not enough that daughters are to be burned alive and virgins taken as plunder - where is this commanded of men? "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." -- Genesis 3:16. "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." -- 2 Timothy 2:11-14. "When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her." Deuteronomy 25:11-12. "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." -- 1 Corinthians 1:3-9. You'll notice that sexist comments are to be found throughout both Testaments, so no excuse of context will justify the above passages. Here is a London Telegraph article where a female Christian explores biblical sexism and how the Good Book can't be taken literally. Once again, your own text is one of the greatest weapons against faith. All quotes taken from the King James Version.
Amarandum says2017-02-12T22:45:16.9221995Z
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/10635510/Women-bishops-We-Christians-need-to-face-up-to-facts-about-Bible.html
Amarandum says2017-02-12T23:37:26.2407247Z
I'd say Muslims believe the Koran because they're Muslims, AND they are Muslims because they believe the Koran. It's a tautology. The vicious circle of religion goes something like this: "Jesus is God's son", "we know this because the Bible is infallible", "it's infallible because it tells us it's infallible", "we can trust this because it talks about Jesus". Once you grant one of the above statements on faith, the whole circle begins. Let me rephrase what I said about the theologians, since I didn't mean that they are in it solely for the money. My mother, who raised me into creationism, was converted to Christianity by Billy Graham, so maybe in my haste to kill this man's career I didn't put my point clearly enough. People who have strongly held beliefs in one area should be looked at with extra caution when they provide arguments in favor of those beliefs provided they lack adequate credentials to make an informed decision on something. I'm not saying we should discount them out of hand, but Billy Graham asserts the complete historical veracity of the Bible when: A) we now know for a fact this is not true, and B) he has absolutely no authority to make such a claim. He's not a historian, or a linguist, or even a scholar of religion; he's a theologian, which means his specialty is being a charismatic preacher and telling people how the Bible applies to them. When you say we need the truth, I would agree. 'Theory' means the highest level of probability and evidence a scientific claim can ever reach. Germs are still 'just a theory' (ie Germ Theory of Disease). We often refer to gravity as a Law, but formally it's still a theory that might one day be disproven, though we all know it won't be. Creationism is not even close to this; it is a flawed hypothesis at best. In the words of Matt Dillahunty, evolution is when you've graduated from college with your doctorate degree in astrophysics, and creationism is like your first day of preschool - and you've left your lunch at home. It has zero evidence to back it up, no predicting power, and it rests upon your religion. You don't understand science if you don't understand that it's purpose is to make predictions about the world, so your Kaepernick analogy is flawed (though I imagine he'd be terrible at hitting a ball, since he can't throw one to save his life). What about Hindu creation scientists like Michael Cremo, who believe humans are many billions of years old? Their claims have about the same level of evidence as any other myth; be it the Jewish one, or the Vedic idea that we came from a cosmic egg, or the Norse idea that we are the innards of a frost giant. One myth is not any more untested than the other, because they are all fictitious. Your statement that God has commanded no atrocities is simply not true. I'll stop with trying to convince you that war-crimes are bad no matter who commits them or where, since I feel like we could talk around each other until the universe dies a slow entropic heat death, but your statement that God has never commanded an atrocity is demonstrably false. In literally any other circumstance, you would agree with me. If I asked you, "is genocide wrong", you would say 'yes'. If I asked you, "should anyone who commands genocide be punished", you'd say 'yes'. Why then are the rules different for God? The idea that more power means more leniency with the rules is the most anti-libertarian thing I've ever heard. What about the notion that absolute power corrupts absolutely? This changes when the subject in question is invisible?
subdeo says2017-02-16T01:37:16.0008792Z
I have read all of the passages you cited, and I will address each one. Genesis 3:16-- This is part of the curse. If you look at the context, you can see that men are also cursed in the next verse (Genesis 3:17). Both parties receive a curse, and this is not sexism. 2 Timothy 2:11-14-- Men and women are not better or worse than each other, they are just different. This verse highlights the different roles of the genders. It is not the role of women to teach men about God. Deuteronomy 25:11-12-- This verse is a penalty for an obvious offense. The definition of sexism is, “prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination on the basis of sex” Thus, this penalty is not sexism. 1 Corinthians 1:3-9—I think you meant to cite 1 Corinthians chapter 11, not 1? Anyway, these verses primarily describe a dress code, and are not sexist. It is not the role of women to lead in a household. That is the man’s job. The rest of the verses just point out those roles. Women are not worth less than men or vice versa. However, they do have different, necessary, and complementary roles. It is important to understand that the Hebrew culture, and later the Christians showed more respect and honor to women that just about any culture at their time. The article you sent me I would obviously disagree with. It claimed the Bible should not be taken as infallible. As you know, I beg to differ. Like you say, we could argue till the world's end, we will obviously not convince each other. I have already presented arguments to support this claim. You have a right to be as suspicious as you like with anyone's opinions, but Billy Graham is qualified to make the statements he does about the Bible's veracity. He is a theologian, meaning his whole life is dedicated to studying the Bible. Of all people, he is a reasonable enough person to take his opinions seriously. Mr. Dillahunty is entitled to his own opinions on the subject, but creationism does have evidence to back it up, thus, I differ that it is only a "flawed hypothesis". This link gives a few of the many evidences, in audio form. For one, it talks about how Jupiter gives off more energy than it receives, which is an unsustainable amount, leading us to believe that it is not billions of years old. It also gives other evidences [1]. Creationism is distinguished from other mythological ideas of how life originated by the fact that it has evidence. The frost giant, and other ideas like it, have no evidence. We both will never convince each other of our own opinions regarding the destruction of the Amelekites. Your statements at the end of your post assume that what God commanded was a war-crime. This is where we disagree. [1] http://www.icr.org/topic/400/ (The podcast is #4, titled, “The Age of the Universe”, about 13 min long)
mdmark says2017-02-16T17:51:54.7747737Z
Evolution is racist??? We have achieved new levels of stupid.
Amarandum says2017-02-16T18:08:12.9245520Z
Subdeo, I guess you're right; we'll have to agree to disagree. I can't see how those passages can be construed as anything other than war crimes, sexism and bigotry. I'm sure you're a decent fellow, but I think you're being conned like I was conned. The link you provided was from ICR, which is more than a little biased. Can you provide a single article from a peer-reviewed scientific journal? If National Geographic, or Scientific American, or Science Magazine published an article about how a single evidence of creationism is valid, the whole world would be in an uproar. As someone who works closely with scientists of every stripe, I can tell you that every one of them wants to be the next Copernicus or Einstein. Everyone wants to change the face of science, so if one of the foundational pillars of biology, medicine, and genetics (evolution by means of natural selection) was seriously flawed, everyone would be pointing a finger at it. Evolution is as foundational to biology as The Germ Theory of Disease is to medicine, or the idea that planets revolve around suns is to astronomy. It may be hard to realize this, but a biologist who denies evolution is like an astronomer who thinks the world is flat. That's not an exaggeration or ad hominem, that's literally the magnitude of what we're talking about here. There are astronomers who believe the earth is flat, and they will twist the evidence and quote authorities out of context to prove it to themselves. Your profile says you're seventeen. I encourage you to speak with your science professors about this (provided they teach the current US curriculum). They will validate everything I've said about biology (the stuff about God being evil is obviously not within the domain of science). Or, simply googling "evidences for evolution" will bring up numerous articles and videos on the topic. Of particular interest is the directory of major creationist claims, provided with the necessary explanations to refute them all: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/
Amarandum says2017-02-16T18:21:30.4291737Z
As for Billy Graham being an impartial source, I have to say this is more than a little silly. His degree isn't in linguistics or ancient history, or classics -- it's in preach-the-Gospel-ology. Are Muslim theologians likewise impartial when it comes to the infallibility of the Koran? Are Scientologist clergy impartial when it comes to the infallibility of L. Ron Hubbard? Are cryptozoologists impartial when it comes to the existence of Bigfoot? You believe that there exists a book on this earth that not only accurately portrays all of history, but tells the future as well. Doesn't this sound a little too good to be true? There is no historical or scientific evidence for God, which is why religion is called "faith". The only difference between you and me is that I don't believe anything without evidence, and you only believe one thing without evidence. That's it! Other than that, we're both atheists about Zeus and Brahma and all the rest of it.
JonHouser says2017-02-16T20:23:37.4233138Z
Amarandum, you sound more like an anti-theist rather than an atheist. There is clearly evidence for God, and the validity of the Bible. Just one among many books on the subject is "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. He was an atheist journalist who when on a mission to disprove the Bible and the existence of God. In his efforts he proved that God exists, that the Bible is true, and he converted himself to being a believer in Christ. Like you, I don't believe just anything, but I have seen enough evidence for the existence of God, and for the validity and truth of the Bible, that there is no doubt in my mind that what you believe is wrong. You don't have to believe it too, but I would ask you, "Why do you believe what you believe?"
reece says2017-02-16T22:20:06.3156041Z
You must have faith to believe in God.
subdeo says2017-02-17T01:00:05.5585138Z
Amarandum, does it matter if ICR is “biased”? In actuality, all people are biased to some degree. However, that does not make the things they believe false. National Geographic and those other sources you mentioned are all biased themselves in their own way towards ideals of evolutionary origins and secular thought. So long as it is true, it does not matter who says it, or how biased they are. Bias is not inherently a bad thing (though it should be avoided when doing science, etc.). When reading (or in this case, listening to) material, the primary objective should be to determine if what is being conveyed is the truth, not whether or not the person saying it agrees with us on all other matters. Whether or not evolution is “fundamental” to biology is not the point. Haven’t other fundamental beliefs also been challenged in the past, and been proved to be wrong? Here are two links that list just some of the “fundamental” ideas that were proved false. Https://www.Famousscientists.Org/10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-were-later-debunked/ http://blog.Chron.Com/sciguy/2010/11/the-top-10-most-spectacularly-wrong-widely-held-scientific-theories/ I never claimed the Bible portrayed all of history; it only accurately describes the parts of history it talked about. And yes, the Bible does “Tell the future”, in the sense that it made many prophecies that were fulfilled, sometimes hundreds of years after they were prophesied. These prophecies are part of the proof we have that God (the biblical Yahweh) exists.
Amarandum says2017-02-17T04:15:25.3918694Z
JonHouser, I'm not an anti-theist or even an atheist. I call myself an agnostic because I have no idea whether or not gods exist or heaven is real. I just say that I refuse to believe anything without evidence, and there is currently no evidence for the God of the Bible (aside from arguments from design, which would be powerful were it not for the whole multiverse idea). I am anti-creationist for the same reason that I am anti-flat earth and anti-leaching; because they are pseudoscientific and delude people to suit a narrative. I've never said creationism should be illegal, because I believe in religious liberty. I just think sunlight is the best disinfectant. There is sufficient evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, but considering the canonical Gospels were written decades after his death, they're probably about as historically accurate as "Abe Lincoln: Vampire Slayer." I'm familiar with Mr. Strobel's book "The Case for A Creator" from my religious days, but I've never read the one you're referring to. I'll definitely check it out from my local library, or maybe buy it off of Amazon. I'd like to recommend three books for your consideration, one is written by a Christian/Deist/Gnostic scholar and another is written by a fellow agnostic who lost his faith after studying the history and linguistics of the Bible. They are, respectively, "How God Became God" by Richard Smoley, and "How Jesus Became God" by Dr. Bart Ehrman. The third is a book of evidences for evolution called "The Greatest Show on Earth" by a doctor of zoology and fellow of the Royal Society named Richard Dawkins. If you have the time, I recommend reading these three books in this order to get a sense for just how weak Christianity's foundations are.
reece says2017-02-17T04:31:19.4028041Z
Agnostics are atheist.
Amarandum says2017-02-17T04:42:32.5966694Z
Subdeo, yes bias does matter, as you yourself admit: "it should be avoided when doing science,". This is my point exactly. Here is a quote from the website of Michael Cremo, an archaeologist and devout Hindu who believes in Hindu creation science (for clarity, the vast majority of scientists say humanity is only about 100,000 years old): "Over the past two centuries researchers have found bones and artifacts showing that people like ourselves existed on earth millions of years ago. But the scientific establishment has ignored these remarkable facts because they contradict the dominant views of human origins and antiquity." Does his bias matter? Does the fact that Hinduism teaches an old humanity have anything to do with his work? Of course it does! To deny this would be naive. Does this portrayal of the scientific establishment as corrupt and 'anti-religion' sound at all familiar to you? Maybe it's because ICR has a similar narrative: "There are many scientific evidences for a relatively recent creation of the earth and the universe, in addition to strong scientific evidence that most of the earth's fossiliferous sedimentary rocks were formed in an even more recent global hydraulic cataclysm." What I want to show is that there are many kinds of creationism, none of which have any scientific backing or any articles in any respectable journals. National Geographic and other magazines/journals don't support evolution because they were indoctrinated into it as children -- they support it because it is what thousands upon thousands of hours of independent experimentation and analysis have lead to. I know many paradigms have shifted in the past, which is exactly the purpose of science! The weak or absurd arguments die in the combat of debate and only the strong, exceedingly likely, or nearly certain survive. Creationism stays strong in America only because most of our people are scientifically illiterate. It's no surprise that the areas where creationism is strongest are the areas that consistently underperform on exams (Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, etc).
Amarandum says2017-02-17T04:47:23.4898694Z
For the love of Zeus, can someone please provide me with a prophecy that was fulfilled after it was written and the appropriate historical evidence that shows this? If not, Occam's Razor says we should go with the more likely explanation... Namely that it's phony.
Amarandum says2017-02-17T04:51:49.9152041Z
@reece, "Atheism is about belief, or specifically what you don't believe. Agnosticism is about knowledge, or specifically about what you don't know. An atheist doesn't believe in any gods. An agnostic doesn't know if any gods exist or not." -- atheism.About.Com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/Atheist-vs-Agnostic-Difference.Htm
reece says2017-02-17T05:42:05.4334694Z
@Amarandum You're right, but you only go half way. Belief is based on knowledge. A lack of belief is based on a lack of knowledge.
reece says2017-02-17T05:43:58.3620798Z
@Amarandum Agnostics don't believe either...
Amarandum says2017-02-17T07:07:31.5310694Z
Reece, I could say that people believe because they lack knowledge. I think the quote was referring to belief as something to be awarded once sufficient evidence has been presented. Atheists dismiss theism as being absurd. I say I'm willing to believe any absurd proposition so long as you provide sufficient evidence. This is kind of abstract as nearly everyone describes these terms differently. Matt Dillahunty's definition of atheism is identical to my agnosticism. Richard Dawkins says atheism includes the rejection of the supernatural, which I believe is at odds with the multiverse,etc. One thing we (and the majority of theists) can agree on is that creationism is utterly ridiculous and without any redeeming qualities whatsoever.
reece says2017-02-17T07:46:57.8640798Z
@Amarandum You don't lack knowledge if you believe. Like you asserted, sufficient evidence is subjective to the context. Strawmanning arguments gets us nowhere. Atheism doesn't dismiss theism as being absurd. Atheism by its very definition is a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. It says nothing about absurdness. The rest of your argument is irrelevant to our conversation I think.
reece says2017-02-17T07:51:51.4402694Z
Replace asserted with implied.
Amarandum says2017-02-17T15:07:35.1676101Z
Well, you could say evidence is relative for anything. The evidence is relative for you, and me, and that's the end of the debate. That's a bit of a cop-out. Surely you don't mean that the evidence changes from person to person? We all have the same bucket of evidences to pull from, and there is a way to analyze the data that is correct, and a way to analyze it that is fallacious. The fact remains that there exists a correlation between a lack of knowledge and creationism, ie my previous post about low test scores in the US (Though I freely admit less of a correlation exists with regards to Islamism). I fail to see how pointing out a correlation equates to a straw man. Maybe you thought I was referring to religion in general? If your definition of atheism is different, that's fine. Like I said, if you ask ten atheists what they mean, you'll get eleven different answers. All my atheist friends are likewise anti-leprechaun and anti-Bigfoot. This implies that they think the idea of God is absurd.
Taust says2017-02-17T21:39:18.8488274Z
You three should really make a forum for this instead of posting here.
reece says2017-02-17T22:32:21.9820274Z
@Amarandum Would you rather me move my goalposts like you're doing?
Amarandum says2017-02-18T02:22:52.0353543Z
Reece, what are you talking about? You're arguing about the semantics of a topic that we both agree on. It really doesn't matter what an atheist or an agnostic is defined as so long as we clarify our positions. I don't know what else you want me to say. Why does the exact definition matter?
reece says2017-02-18T02:44:01.9552274Z
@Amarandum So is an agnostic an atheist?
Amarandum says2017-02-18T03:09:18.1192274Z
@reece, As per the link I provided, no. As per the definitions used by almost every secular commentator, no. As per the structure of the words themselves, (a-none; theos-god; gnosis-knowledge) no. That being said, I know people who use the two interchangeably. If you do too, more power to you. I like to think grammar and syntax mean something. It doesn't matter when we're both secularists and both evolutionists and the poll/discussion is about religion and creationism. You read through the comments and decided my inadequate use of the word atheist was the only thing you should object to? Not the apologetics for genocide or the denial of science, but my vocabulary? I just don't get that man. Can we at least agree that creationism is ridiculous?
reece says2017-02-18T03:34:30.1024274Z
@Amarandum So why are you claiming that we agree on the semantics?
reece says2017-02-18T03:56:28.7217543Z
Knowledge adheres to belief. A lack of knowledge adheres to a lack of belief.
Amarandum says2017-02-18T06:42:29.7585543Z
When in our whole text exchange did I ever say that we agree on the semantics? The whole point is that we disagree on the semantics; you want to argue about belief vs. Knowledge, and I don't care. Do you understand that we're supposed to be on the same side here? I will ask again: why do the semantics matter at all?
Amarandum says2017-02-18T06:43:36.5299064Z
When in our whole text exchange did I ever say that we agree on the semantics? The whole point is that we disagree on the semantics; you want to argue about belief vs. Knowledge, and I don't care. Do you understand that we're supposed to be on the same side here? I will ask again: why do the semantics matter at all?
reece says2017-02-18T08:58:22.2249680Z
"You're arguing about the semantics of a topic that we both agree on." I thought you were talking about the topic we're disputing over. There are no sides. You become a partisan hack thinking like that.
reece says2017-02-18T09:11:27.4509680Z
You as an independent thinker is all that matters. If your ideology lines up with others who have the same sort of belief system, then great. Just don't let the side of the field you're on degrade your intellectual integrity.
Amarandum says2017-02-18T19:33:20.9419237Z
(long exasperated sigh) The topic we agree on is creation vs. Evolution. Ya know, the topic of this poll? For the third bloody time, you're the one who cares about semantics -- not me. I'm partisan and divisive because I wonder why a self-admitted secular atheist would rather critique my vocabulary than engage in a real debate with two creationists? Cool. That's great. Can we at least move this debacle forward by agreeing that an anti-evolution stance is an anti-science stance?
Amarandum says2017-02-18T19:39:27.6667237Z
And yes, of course there are two sides to every debate! There's pro and con, or in this case evolution or creationism. I get the distinctive feeling that you get off on trolling people. If not, maybe there's something wrong with our communication.
reece says2017-02-18T22:13:28.1116291Z
@Amarandum I'm not arguing over the semantics of creationism and evolution. I think the communication problem is yours. I'm not trolling you. I just to get to the bottom of agnosticism and atheism.
reece says2017-02-18T22:16:08.7136291Z
I just want to*...
Amarandum says2017-02-19T02:26:54.4612291Z
@reece, well alright. Did you think a forum on DDO was the best place to go for that information? You could have googled everything we talked about.
reece says2017-02-19T02:34:47.4844291Z
Do you accept that a lack of knowledge adheres to a lack of belief?
Amarandum says2017-02-19T04:52:44.8601258Z
@reece, well alright. Did you think a forum on DDO was the best place to go for that information? You could have googled everything we talked about.
Amarandum says2017-02-19T04:55:16.2988583Z
I'd put it the other way around.
reece says2017-02-19T05:10:48.8261258Z
So you think knowledge is higher?
reece says2017-02-19T05:11:36.4841258Z
So you think knowledge is higher order?*
Amarandum says2017-02-19T05:43:59.3176583Z
I think human experience can be charted thusly: perceptions--knowledge--beliefs--opinions--actions. If this chart is correct, knowledge could be called more foundational to human experience than beliefs, even if beliefs are unconscious responses to the environment and knowledge is a conscious act of recording information. I don't know. Abstract philosophy isn't really my forte.
reece says2017-02-19T10:47:35.5936583Z
@Amarandum Awesome. So you wouldn't put it the other way around?
reece says2017-02-19T11:11:47.8774355Z
My point (If you agree) is that belief encapsulates knowledge, or lack thereof. Agnosticism is lower order. Atheism encapsulates agnosticism. Use Russian dolls as something basic to help you visualize the concept.
subdeo says2017-02-19T16:13:16.3897966Z
Amarandum, you say that there is no evidence for the God of the Bible, excepting arguments from design. You dismiss those arguments, you say, because of the multiverse hypothesis. But don’t you think that if anything should be dismissed for lack of evidence, it would be the multiverse hypothesis, which is even sometimes considered pseudoscience? This is flawed logic. Yes, bias is “bad”, but because we are humans, it is impossible to remove all bias completely. Thus, unless we plan to ignore the opinions of everyone on the planet, we must take all opinions for what they are worth, and decide for ourselves what is right. The opinions of religious scientists, though they may have some bias, should also be considered, and not discounted simply because of whom they come from. In addition, many of the weak ideas that have been since rebutted existed for extended periods of time. Though it is true that many times weak ideas die quickly, many times this is not the case, as may someday be with evolution. Finally, do you know where the theory of evolution got it's first grounds? It was in the minorities and the few, who were considered "scientifically illiterate". It is almost the same way with creationists (though there are many more creationists than the evolutionists would have us believe).
Amarandum says2017-02-19T20:30:51.7184376Z
@reece, no. If knowledge is more foundational, then a lack of belief would necessarily adhere to a lack of knowledge. If that's what you mean, then I would agree, but like I said, I don't engage in epistemology all that often.
Amarandum says2017-02-19T20:43:40.6393966Z
@Subdeo, the moment you compare creationism to the multiverse is the moment you've shown your hand at how little you really know about science. The multiverse is a necessary outgrowth of string theory and Riemann's higher-dimensional mathematics that has mountains of mathematical support. If you mean it still has problems to work out, and it hasn't been confirmed at the level of atoms or gravity (or evolution for that matter) you'd be accurate. That physicists who have spent their entire adult lives doing math are debating it is cause for celebration, not worry. This is so far removed from the nonsense of creationism as to be laughable. I don't dismiss religious scientists out of hand; when did I ever say that? One of my personal heroes is Isaac Newton, who thought if you measured the proportions of King Solomon's Temple you'd unlock the mysteries of the universe. Being smart doesn't automatically make you some kind of prophet. If Stephen Hawking says something ridiculous, the scientific community will laugh at him. If a creationist brings up a valid point, the scientific community will applaud him. Science's loyalties don't rest with public opinion or popularity; rather they rest with the evidence.
Amarandum says2017-02-19T23:05:25.1696376Z
@reece, I don't think atheism would encapsulate agnosticism at all. Atheists generally agree that the evidence is in, and that it conclusively demonstrates the nonexistence of god. Agnostics like me generally say that no such evidence has come in, nor is it likely to ever come in, so we should live our lives on the foundation of the null hypothesis. Same conclusion, different way to get there. Dawkins is really a sexed-up agnostic while people like Larry Krauss are atheists by the true definition of the word.
reece says2017-02-19T23:44:48.2264376Z
@Amarandum Knowledge is a given if a higher order has already been achieved. Let me finish my second reply first before rebutting.
reece says2017-02-19T23:55:18.8564376Z
Atheism is a disbelief, or a l̲a̲c̲k̲ ̲o̲f̲ ̲b̲e̲l̲i̲e̲f̲ in God or gods. Don't generalise what atheists "believe" and say that's what atheism is. That's being intellectually dishonest.
subdeo says2017-02-19T23:58:09.0735498Z
I mentioned the multiverse hypothesis because you discounted creationism on its account. This is particularly disturbing because, like you say, arguments from design are powerful and should not be dismissed because of a relatively unfounded theory.
Amarandum says2017-02-20T01:17:52.7355498Z
@subdeo, right, I got the point of your post. My point was that the multiverse is far from unfounded. It has mountains of mathematical support behind it. Additionally, any physicist you can point to who says the multiverse can't work is also going to be a physicist who accepts evolution. Why would you trust them about the multiverse and not evolution?
Amarandum says2017-02-20T01:25:17.9127498Z
@reece, I said generally because we've already established that these definitions are tricky. Is it intellectually dishonest to regulate one definition to each word? Can atheism mean 'a lack of belief' and also 'a lack of knowledge' and also whatever definition you see fit to add? If that's the case, then I suppose I'm intellectually dishonest. I think a word should mean what it means, and nothing else. If you don't think that, then what is there to discuss?
Amarandum says2017-02-20T01:30:28.5867498Z
@ reece, ""An atheist lacks faith in God, believes there is no god, or lacks awareness of gods. An agnostic either believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a god or is noncommittal on the issue. The difference may seem small, but atheism and agnosticism are actually vastly different worldviews. To claim there is no point in trying to prove or disprove God’s existence (as many philosophers have done) is to acknowledge the limits of human perception. To take the bold stance that there definitely is no god (as a few philosophers have done) implies that human perception is not so limited and that we can make such claims about the universe. These positions (as well as the position that God does exist) give rise to fundamentally disparate philosophies."" -- http://grammarist.com/usage/agnostic-atheist/
subdeo says2017-02-20T01:37:19.8284376Z
@Amarandum, the reason I trust some scientists on some things and not on others is because I do not believe for the sake of the scientist, but for the sake of the science. For example, though I disagree with Dawkins and others like him, that does not stop me from citing him on other issues.
Amarandum says2017-02-20T01:40:45.7851498Z
@reece, with regards to the philosophical hubbub, picture the human experience levels I listed as the rectangular blocks of a tower. Perceptions would be the bottommost block, and actions would be the highest block. If you lack the 'knowledge' block, it is impossible to build the tower any higher. This is what I mean by belief being dependant upon knowledge - knowledge is more foundational than pure belief.
Amarandum says2017-02-20T01:47:54.3896376Z
@subdeo, So... You're saying that you pick and choose what science you believe based on your holy book? If it goes counter to the book (evolution, multiverse, big bang) then it goes to the rubbish heap, no matter the huge levels of support it has from people who both believe and disbelieve in the book? I admire your intellectual honesty! Ken Ham won't even admit that!
subdeo says2017-02-20T01:55:25.1048376Z
@Amarandum, although it is true that if a theory goes against God's word, I reject it, there are something which the Bible has no specific message about. It's those things that I do my best to make an educated, independent decision on. In the case of evolution, not only does it violate "The Book", but it violates science as I see it.
Amarandum says2017-02-20T02:03:27.9147498Z
@subdeo, what would you say to the huge number of Christians, both scientists and laypeople, who accept evolution and think Genesis 1 is a symbolic account of our ascent from the carbon in the earth? Isn't it possible for the Bible to be symbolic in certain areas and literal in others? There are many Christian linguists who say Genesis is written in the same poetic style as Psalms and Proverbs. Doesn't this show that it was never meant to be taken literally?
subdeo says2017-02-20T02:20:07.1204376Z
@Amarandum, Although it is possible for the Bible to be literal in some places and symbolic in others, I believe that the Genesis account is intended to be taken literally. First of all, any Christian who supposes all of Genesis to be figurative I would question whether or not they truly are saved. I believe it is a fundamental doctrine to believe the scriptures as fact. In the case of figurative writing, it is always made clear in the scriptures when this is being used. This is not the case in Genesis, however. So, according to Occam's Razor (which you cited earlier) we should opt for the idea that is based on the least assumptions.
Amarandum says2017-02-20T02:24:48.6068376Z
@subdeo, Okay. For the sake of clarity, may I ask you why you take the Bible literally when it is filled with so many contradictions and historical inaccuracies? Additionally, do you acknowledge that if the Bible is not wholly historically accurate, then creationism is unnecessary?
reece says2017-02-20T03:12:28.6172376Z
@Amarandum 1. These definitions are tricky to who? I don't find the definition of atheism a problem. If anything, I'm trying to help you understand. It's intellectually dishonest if you're not being objective about it and you're trying to make it appeal to consequences. "Can atheism mean 'a lack of belief' and also 'a lack of knowledge' and also whatever definition you see fit to add?" A lack of knowledge is a given if there's a lack of belief. Do you understand? This is important. 2. Take "An atheist lacks faith in God" and "An agnostic either believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a god or is noncommittal on the issue." So what's vastly different between those two? 3. Like I've said, knowledge is a given.
reece says2017-02-20T03:22:01.2363498Z
Theism proposes the belief in a god, atheism is the refusal of said belief. A belief is a conviction, a lack of belief is a lack of conviction. So anyone not convinced that an actual deity really exists, is an atheist. If you disagree, please tell me why.
Amarandum says2017-02-20T03:58:01.0251498Z
@reece, I have no idea why this is so important to you, but whatever. I said that many different people have many different connotations surrounding the word 'atheist'. Take yourself for example. You say: "anyone not convinced that an actual deity really exists, is an atheist." I disagree. I think anyone who flat-out denies the existence of a god is an atheist, and anyone who says this is unknowable is an agnostic. The two links I provided agree, as do the definitions Merriam Webster gave me agree: Agnostic- "a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god." Atheist-"a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods." If you don't like these definitions, that's fine. Once again, this doesn't matter when the poll is about creation and evolution. How about we call ourselves secular evolutionists and go about debating the actual topic?
reece says2017-02-20T04:12:51.3327498Z
I don't have a problem with the Merriam Webster definitions. They don't invalidate my stance.
Amarandum says2017-02-20T04:14:45.2632090Z
@reece, cool. Care to tell me why it matters at all?
reece says2017-02-20T04:17:08.0968090Z
@Amarandum I just want you to admit agnosticism falls under atheism and mean it.
Amarandum says2017-02-20T04:23:05.9571498Z
@reece, No. Is that all?
reece says2017-02-20T04:29:42.6807498Z
@Amarandum For logical reasons, or emotional?
Amarandum says2017-02-20T05:11:56.7640090Z
@reece, for psychological reasons. Continuing this circular conversation will drive me to madness.
reece says2017-02-20T05:24:21.2896090Z
@Amarandum That's why you don't move your goalposts.
Amarandum says2017-02-20T05:52:57.9760090Z
@reece, Whatever that means. I've tried to tell you that I don't care how you define these words. I've cited three different websites now that agree with my definition. All you've responded with is philosophical word-salad and rationalizations. Even if you were to come back with a website that supports your opinion, that would still be okay, as the definitions don't matter. You still have yet to respond as to why you care so much about this. You're either a troll or a creationist posing as an atheist. I really don't care.
reece says2017-02-20T06:08:46.9477036Z
@Amarandum Moving the goalposts is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. That is, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt. The problem with changing the rules of the game is that the meaning of the end result is changed, too. I don't see how the definition of the 3 websites you've given invalidates my stance. Can you please tell me how they contradict my definitions? You seem to avoid my questions.
Amarandum says2017-02-20T15:26:14.4156457Z
Reece, I'm well aware what moving the goalpost means! I'm saying your entire conversation is irrelevant to the topic. Moving my goalposts requires me to have goalposts in the first place, and I've already made clear that I see absolutely no purpose to this discussion. I don't know what posts you read, but the definitions I provided do not support your meanings at all. You have said: 1) Atheism and agnosticism are the same thing. 2) Atheism encapsulates agnosticism. You have implied: 3) Atheists do not disbelieve in a deity. 4) We should ignore the grammatical structure of the words themselves for no foreseeable reason. None of the links agree with these points in the slightest, nor could I find any that could. You seem to think that because an atheist philosopher and an agnostic philosopher would both come to the null hypothesis about God, this means they are the same thing, even if their methods are vastly different from each other. These words could easy be replaced with some variant of 'secular', which is why it matters very little in the first place.
Amarandum says2017-02-20T15:29:03.0346326Z
"easily"
Amarandum says2017-02-20T15:33:54.7536243Z
@reece, What makes this all the more frustrating is that you could google all of this! Or start a forum! Do you understand that I'm not just whistling dixie and making this up in my head? These are the definitions all my professors use, all my classmates use, secular commentators use, and almost every philosopher uses. This doesn't seem debate worthy to me at all.
subdeo says2017-02-20T16:19:29.1961956Z
@Amarandum, although many claims are made against the validity of the Bible on account of alleged contradictions, I believe that these claims are unfounded. Tell me of a specific discrepancy, and I will address it. I agree that if the Genesis account is not accurate or intended to be such (but rather to be figurative), then creationism is not necessary.
Amarandum says2017-02-20T16:28:30.3445956Z
@Subdeo, I thought you'd never ask! This is a short list: A. River Gihon could not possibly flow from Mesopotamia and encompass Ethiopia (Gen 2:13) B. The name Babel does not come from the Hebrew word 'balbal' or 'confuse' but from the babylonian 'babili' or 'gate of God' which is a translation of the original Sumerian name Ka-dimirra. (Gen 11:9) C. Ur was not a Chaldean city until 1000 years after Abraham (Gen 11:28, 15:7) D. Abraham pursued enemies to 'Dan' (Gen 14:14). That name was not used geographically until after the conquest (Judge 18:29) E. Gen 36:31, telling of Jacob and Esau, lists kings of Edom "before there reigned any king over the children of Israel." This must have been written hundreds of years later, after Israel had kings. F. Joseph tells Pharaoh he comes from the "land of the Hebrews" (Gen 40:15). There was no such land until after the conquest under Joshua. G. The Egyptian princess names the baby she finds "Moses" because she "drew him out" of the water (Heb meshethi). Why would she make a pun in Hebrew (Ex 2:10)? H. No Egyptian record exists mentioning Moses or his devastation of Egypt. I. Moses refers to "Palestine" (Ex 15:14). No such name was in use then. J. Law of Moses is the "statutes of God and his laws" (Ex 18:26), but it closely mirrors the Code of Hammurabi, which was penned 1800 BC, hundreds of years before Moses. K. Priests are mentioned at Ex 19:22-24, but they are not provided for until Ex 28:1. L. Moses mentions Rabbath, where Og's bedstead is located (Deut3:11). Moses could not have any knowledge of Rabbath,which was not captured by the Hebrews until David's time,500 years later (2 Sam 12:26). M. Jericho and Ai (Josh 8) were both ancient ruins at the time of the conquest of Canaan, according to archaeologists. Jericho's walls were destroyed centuries before Joshua. N. Kings are referred to at Deut 17:17-19, before Israel had kings. O. The Wilderness is viewed as history at Num 15:32, showing that Numbers was written later. P. The Sabbath law was unknown when the man gathered sticks at Num 15:32-34. Q. Book of Joshua refers to Book of Jasher in the past, mentioned at 2 Sam 1:18, therefore Joshua must be post-David. R. Captivity is mentioned at Judg 18:30, making it post-Exile. S. David took Goliath's head to Jerusalem (1 Sam 17:54). But Jerusalem was not captured until 7 years after David became king (2 Sam 5). T. David paid 600 shekels of gold for the threshing floor (1 Chron21:22-25). But shekels of gold were not yet used in business transactions (this is the only use of the term in the OT). U. Psalm 18:6 mentions the temple, thus cannot be by David. V. Defeat of Sennacherib did not happen at Jerusalem, but at Pelusium, near Egypt, and Jews were not involved, contrary to 2 Kings 19. W. Ninevah was so large it took three days to cross, i.e. about 60 miles (Jonah 3:3-4). Yet it had only 120,000 inhabitants, making a population density of of about 42 people per square mile for a city. X. Daniel's account of Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar is historically inaccurate; Nebuchadnezzar was never mad. Belshazzar, whom he says was king, was never king, but only regent. Belshazzar was not the son of Nebuchadnezzar, but of Nabo-nidus. Babylon was not conquered by Darius the Mede, but by Cyrus the Great, in 539 BC (Dan 5:31). Darius the Mede is unknown to history. Y. Chronology of the empires of the Medes and Persians is historically incorrect in Isa 13:17, 21:2, Jer 51:11, 28 Z. Esther (and all the characters in the Book of Esther except Ahasuerus [= Xerxes]) is unknown to history, even though it claims that its events are "written in the chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia" (Est 10:2). The Book of Esther is not quoted by any pre-Christian writer, nor mentioned in NT, nor quoted by early Christian fathers.
reece says2017-02-20T22:05:30.6624243Z
@Amarandum No, I did not tend to imply atheists don't believe in a deity (I assume you're meaning actively not believing), same goes for -- 'we should ignore the grammatical structure of the words themselves'. I've pointed out that you generalising what atheists "believe" and then saying that's what atheism is, is wrong. Again, atheism is the disbelief or l̲a̲c̲k̲ ̲o̲f̲ ̲b̲e̲l̲i̲e̲f̲ in the existence of God or gods. You still avoid my questions. Can you tell me h̲o̲w̲ the definitions you've given are uncomfortable with mine, please.
Amarandum says2017-02-20T23:16:02.7240243Z
@reece, I already have! This is ridiculous. Let me explain this as simply as I can. You say atheism and agnosticism are the same thing, or that one encompasses the other. This is in contrast to almost all definitions used by contemporary scholarship, as well as the mutually exclusive structure of the words themselves. The word 'atheist' is a conjoining of a- (without) and -theos- (god), literally meaning 'one without god'. 'Agnostic' is a- (without) and -gnosis- (knowledge), literally meaning 'one without knowledge (of god)'. An atheist is almost universally defined as a person who denies the existence of a god, while an agnostic is almost universally defined as a person who doesn't know whether or not a god exists, but lives their life on the null hypothesis. This is the definition propounded by all three of my links, nearly every religious/secular commentator on the planet, and the vast majority of philosophers. If you have a different personal connotation for each, that's okay, but please don't tell me I have it wrong when I'm the one in accordance with the mainstream. I bet you're familiar with Pascal's Wager, yes? The whole purpose of Pascal's Wager is for someone who is agnostic about the existence of a god. Pascal's Wager doesn't apply to atheists because atheists (by the definition above) flat-out deny the existence of a god. If this is a generalization, then your problem is with the English language, not me.
Amarandum says2017-02-20T23:29:06.6708243Z
@reece, Atheists and agnostics come to the same conclusion, but through different means. Let me use an analogy. When an architect begins his job, no building exists. After he has finished his job, a building exists. Likewise, when construction workers begin their jobs, no building exists. When they have finished, a building exists. You could say that both achieve the same result, but through different means. That's why we have two separate words for each way to achieve the result; for precision, for accuracy.
reece says2017-02-21T00:03:55.0190749Z
My nose is starting to bleed. You say -- "The word 'atheist' is a conjoining of a- (without) and -theos- (god), literally meaning 'one without god'." Which I have no problem with. But then you go on to say -- "An atheist is almost universally defined as a person who denies the existence of a god". That's quite a leap. I think by "universally", you mean what most people believe it to mean. Yes, people who deny the existence of a god are still atheists, but they are not the only ones atheism encompasses. Have you heard of the bandwagon fallacy? I'm getting sick of you telling me what most people believe. Yes, atheists flat-out deny the existence of a god, but again, those atheists are not the only people atheism encompasses. Do you understand? My problem in't with the English language. It is not the one generalising. Let me finish my second reply.
reece says2017-02-21T00:13:47.9082699Z
@Amarandum Don't construction workers fall under the architect?
Amarandum says2017-02-21T00:50:01.2266749Z
@reece, I'm going to say this one more time, and if you don't acknowledge this, I'm done replying to you. Different people have different definitions for atheism and agnosticism. Yes. I know. That's perfectly fine. I DO NOT care what words you or anyone else want to use. American Atheists define atheism in a different way than most definitions I found. That's okay. If you use 'atheism' to encapsulate 'agnosticism', go ahead and do it! I wish you the absolute best in your endeavors. What I'm not going to do is abandon the mainstream definition just because you want me to, especially when you give me arbitrary reasons for not accepting the consensus. You say: "That's quite a leap." Why? Why is it so strange to adopt the definition the majority of people use? Because it's a bandwagon? Okay, I'm guilty of accepting the consensus definition. Lock me up now. Why do different definitions matter? If you and I had the same definition, would that somehow help our case against creationism? The majority of people I know of use the definitions I provided, which is why I use them myself. My intention is not to misrepresent anyone's views; why would I want to misrepresent my own view? If it's a generalization to want precision and accuracy by assigning a specific definition to each word, then I'm generalizing. So what? Why does any of this matter? Please give me something to latch onto here! Is there some point you wanted to make? Is there an argument against creationism that my vocabulary was hindering? Are you really high and looking for a debate? Is there ANY reason for this? Or are you just that pedantic?
Amarandum says2017-02-21T00:52:09.9422749Z
@reece, No, construction workers are not the same thing as architects. Architects design buildings, construction workers build them.
Amarandum says2017-02-21T00:57:20.0078749Z
@reece, Can I ask you a question? Of all the places you could go to debate someone on these definitions, why would you: 1) Choose the comments of a poll on creationism and evolution, and 2) Continue to push the issue when I've already made clear that your definitions are perfectly fine with me?
reece says2017-02-21T01:36:06.3110749Z
@Amarandum My definition encapsulates the mainstream definition. You still don't understand the position. Atheism simultaneously encapsulates people who deny the existence of a god, people who are agnostic on the topic, and people who aren't capable of believing in a god (such as lacking the concept of one).
reece says2017-02-21T01:37:30.6290749Z
@Amarandum I didn't say construction workers are not the same thing as architects. But yeah, your analogy sucks.
reece says2017-02-21T01:40:35.3175015Z
@Amarandum I didn't say construction workers are not the same thing as architects.* 1) I live in the polls. 2) If they were perfectly fine with you, you would accept it.
reece says2017-02-21T01:41:59.8694749Z
I didn't say construction workers are the same thing as architects.** *sigh* sorry.
Amarandum says2017-02-21T02:07:52.8963015Z
@reece, No, I would not accept it if I were okay with it! If you're okay with gay marriage, would you then marry a man? Or can I have my definition and you can have yours? Your quasi-totalitarian view of language disturbs me greatly. If you don't get my analogy, whatever. That was my attempt to extend an olive branch. You clearly want to enforce your view as law and condemn mine, no matter how much I try to bridge this gap. You've provided no response as to why I should care what you think or define anything as. I'm done with whatever this is. Enjoy the rest of your day.
reece says2017-02-21T04:02:53.6343015Z
@Amarandum Another bad analogy. It just goes to show how much you don't understand my position. You will be assimilated, resistance is futile. The bridge has long since been built. I'm trying to create a super city here. You should care because you live inside it. Enjoy the rest of your life.
subdeo says2017-02-21T04:12:48.6806749Z
Amarandum, I will restart this discussion next week, as I am very busy this week. Thanks for understanding.
Amarandum says2017-02-21T14:38:54.0458922Z
@Subdeo, Gotcha.
Amarandum says2017-02-21T14:43:37.9502922Z
@Subdeo, Gotcha.
stelladocks says2017-02-26T02:52:10.0901870Z
Evolution and it needs no explanation.
Spiffy-Gonzalez says2017-03-01T20:48:38.1853786Z
"Evolution has been proven/is scientific". Well, no offense, but we recently found the fish that we supposedly evolved from, and *gasp* it looks the exact same as millions/billions of years ago with no change in skeletal structure. If evolution is proven than why do we not have a single bone from ANY between-species animal and instead are left with imaginary plastic animals in their place in museums?
Amarandum says2017-03-02T01:35:14.2993786Z
(sigh) Oh brother, it's that ridiculous transitional fossils argument again. Do you people not have access to google? Just google: 'evidence for evolution', or, 'evolutionary biology experiments'. How hard is that?
Spiffy-Gonzalez says2017-03-02T02:44:57.5059630Z
Amarandum, yes, it's "the transitional fossil argument again". One of the many you don't seem to be able to answer without saying "f*ck Christianity". Don't you think that people already HAVE looked at evidence for evolution? The fact is that all you have to show for it is theories, skeletal remains of extinct species nowhere similar to any that exist (unless of course you're referring to the two or three times somebody put together a skeleton of different animal bones at an attempt to "prove" evolution), and no actual evidence to prove your exaggerated claims. You simply say "science says so" and point to people who agree and call it science. Now please, look at the evidence AGAINST evolution and tell me how were wrong. Oh wait, you don't need to. You'll simply point at the bible, shout "BLASPHEMY!" at anyone who disagrees with you, and claim them as ignorant without providing any actual evidence.
DrCereal says2017-03-02T03:46:55.0222073Z
This debate is the reason the human species is going to go extinct.
subdeo says2017-03-02T20:57:11.3823653Z
Alright, Amarandum, I’m back. I reviewed all your claims and wrote responses to each one. After each letter heading, there is a response to the corresponding letter of “contradiction” or “discrepancy”. A. This verse says that the river flows around Cush, which has not been fully identified, not Ethiopia. B. The verse does not say that the word comes from the Hebrew, though it may imply it. How do you know that it comes from Babylonian anyway? C. …AND…D. These verses were both written long after the events they describe occurred. These names were inserted for the benefit of the readers. E. I don’t get your point. The author was referring back into history. F. There wasn’t? “Land of the Hebrews” does not necessarily refer to Canaan. At this time, it refers to wherever the Hebrews lived. G. Why wouldn’t she? The baby was Hebrew. H. The Egyptians avoided recording their losses, so they would avoid recording Moses. Even still, there is some evidence. http://biblicalchronologist.org/answers/exodus_egypt.php I. The only place name in this verse is Philistia, no reference to Palestine. J. Perhaps, but there are more differences than similarities. Here is a link with the answer. https://www.gotquestions.org/Moses-Hammurabi-code.html K. Priests were officially provided for in the verse you mentioned, but the people still had religious leaders. Only, these leaders were not “official”. L. Even though David had not conquered Jerusalem yet, he could still know about it. In addition, he could have been allowed inside the city, seeing it was not particularly hostile to David yet. M. How do you know this? N. Actually, this is a *provision* for kings not an actual king. This was preparing the Hebrews for a king. O. I don’t get your point P. It says that the exact penalty was unknown, the law still was. Q. How is this a problem? R. Yes, this book was written post captivity. What about it? S. The answer for this is the same as the answer to L. T. Actually, this I not the only reference to shekels in the OT. E.g. Genesis 23:15 U. This verse is talking about God’s Temple in the heavens, not an earthly temple. V. Can you give evidence for this? W. The verse states that the 120,000 did not know right from left, in other words, children. This figure is not the total population. X. How do you know he was never mad? In the Bible, co-regents are commonly referred to as kings, so there is no discrepancy. Y. Could you elaborate? Z. Your point?
Amarandum says2017-03-02T23:55:47.9115653Z
Spiffy-Gonzalez, You claim to represent Christianity when the vast majority of Christians accept evolution. You claim I need to examine the evidence against it when I've already made clear that I was a creationist for over a decade. You claim the burden is on evolutionists to prove creationism wrong when we're the ones in accordance with the mainstream. I put the ball in your court; provide me with a scientific article which seriously questions evolution that was published in a peer reviewed journal or scholarly magazine (Scientific American, Nature, NatGeo etc., all of which have devout Christians on their faculty). If all you can give me is clearly biased sources and appeals to Scripture, I am warranted to reject your contention, even if I were religious. I wouldn't cite Breitbart articles to support Trump or Buzzfeed to support Obama. That's all I ask of creationists. If you come back at me with some spiel about the scientific community being out to get creationists for no reason, I will take this to be a baseless conspiracy theory, as nearly every poll shows a large number of scientists to be religious. All I want is non-biased scientific evidence. That's all. Then I'll give you articles from scholarly sources showing the evidences for evolution, since you seem to be incapable of googling it yourself, or visiting any museum that isn't run by Ken Ham.
Bi0Hazard says2017-03-03T00:03:02.1999653Z
I don't get how you would justify the assertion that we should automatically assume a view by someone that interprets a holy book of one religion in a certain way, and put the burden on all other views to be justified but keep this as the default view.
Spiffy-Gonzalez says2017-03-03T00:33:57.2310227Z
Bi0Hazars, Christians usually say theirs no evidence for or against creationism, we do not keep it as the "default" imposed onto others. This is simply stereotyped by people like you. All most Christians say it's that if you evolutionists commonly proclaim yourselves as scientific, than why do STILL have no evidence for evolution?
Bi0Hazard says2017-03-03T00:39:15.8415653Z
Spiffy-Gonzalez, that is what creationism is based on, the assumption that the bible is 100% true. They accept it as default. Evolution is based on evidence, which you surely deny because creationism as default, further demonstrating my point.
Spiffy-Gonzalez says2017-03-03T00:54:25.1382227Z
Amarandum, let's review some of your false claims first: 1.You said I claim to represent Christianity when I have yet to do anything of the sort. 2. You invited the idea that I somehow resort to scripture when I do not and have not, my entire argument is clearly based around science and logic. 3. You said most Christians believe in evolution. You may believe in the same God, and you Mau follow most of the bible, but the bible itself makes it pretty clear that unless you try to follow ALL of what the bible says, than you are NOT a Christian. The bible clearly stating that God created the world and all the animals therein, not following that means you are not Christian. 4. You claimed that you wouldn't use biased evidence (which first off all is complete B.S since EVERY source directly support an argument must be biased even if the evidence is factual, in which case fact is biased) then claimed you would use sources that are pro evolution. While not false, this is contradictory. 5.You claimed I have done no research on this subject. 6. You used polls as a reason to claim something is baseless which is illogical for two reasons. Firstly polls have been proven wrong many times, second just because the majority of people believe something, does not make it true. Not false, but illogical. 7. You claim to simply want scientific evidence when you have yet to disprove a single scientific fact I have given Now, first and foremost my argument is not that you must believe in Christian creationism, it is simply that there is no scientific backing for evolution, but if you so wish to start a discussion about such, than please, answer me this: how am I to scientifically prove a theory which in itself claims to be beyond the realm of science? Answer me this and I will attempt to answer it according to your standards (unless of course it is derogatory, illogical, baseless, or ignorant). I am not asking you to do anything I have not. I simply ask that you disprove creationism as I am attempting to disprove evolution. Or at the very least defend your side against the points I am making.
Bi0Hazard says2017-03-03T01:01:42.4647653Z
Spiffy-Gonzalez, "how am I to scientifically prove a theory which in itself claims to be beyond the realm of science?" That is a good question for creationists.
Vinnie_Cross_Briet says2017-03-03T14:17:22.7111908Z
@BioHazard, by logic and reason
Vinnie_Cross_Briet says2017-03-03T14:18:58.7915908Z
I mean, it is proven by logic and reason, on the basis of emperical scientific data. Atheism is senseless and unreasonable, according to emperical data
Spiffy-Gonzalez says2017-03-03T14:55:08.7827908Z
Bi0Hazard, for creationists it's actually pretty simple. Most support the existence of things beyond the reach of science, thus for them the creation itself is evidence of the creator. Evolutionists on the other hand support the idea that organisms less advanced than even chemoautotrophs combined together to create smaller microorganisms which then combined to (eventually) create L.U.C.A (the "father" species of every species which came thereafter). This is a bit of a problem however, due to the fact that many of the microorganisms they claim combined naturally do not/can not combine in nature, and many other species of microorganisms that are alike do not do so either. So to answer your question, you cannot. The only evidence for creationism is spontaneous unexplainable events which could have not physically occurred (unless something does in fact exists beyond science), along with the creation itself. So, I will ask you again to refute the arguments I am making while attempting to disprove creationism. Or you can choose to do only one of you wish, but simply taking the stance of "you are wrong because you are wrong" is not a valid rationale for decision making.
Amarandum says2017-03-03T18:06:13.8666674Z
Spiffy-Gonzalez, Let me try to take down everything that's wrong with your last comment, aside from your detestable grammar. Your 1st point is at odds with your 3rd point. My problem isn't with Christians, it's with creationists. Since you say creationism is a prerequisite to Christendom, you mean that all true Christians need to believe creationism to be a Christian. Since you represent creationism, you are absolutely claiming to speak for all Christians. Your second point confuses me. You're a creationist, yes? Meaning you believe in a literal reading of Genesis as opposed to evolution? How exactly is this not resorting to Scripture? If believing a book over biology isn't referring to Scripture, I don't know what is. As for the 4th point, let me elaborate: I will use sources which have not been indoctrinated into evolution since they could speak, and have absolutely nothing to lose and everything to gain if evolution is proven false. Yes, everyone has unconscious biases -- how does that refute their science? If you're going to use that "evidence is subjective" nonsense, then the world is factless and nothing is knowable. In response to 5, I will say that you haven't done enough research on the subject. This isn't a political discussion -- it's a scientific one. There is a right answer. No one who looks objectively at the evidence can disbelieve in evolution unless they've been indoctrinated to believe otherwise. You don't accept evolution, and you've clearly been indoctrinated to believe otherwise -- this leads me to think you haven't looked at the evidence objectively. In 6 you say I used polls to support my argument, but I have done no such thing, though I don't know why that would be bad (all polls are not fake, no matter how much Trump tells you otherwise). I only referenced a poll to say many scientists are religious. Have it your way man, very few scientists are religious, or all of them are religious. That doesn't help your case, as they all still accept evolution. You also bring up the bandwagon fallacy as if it applies here. Let me clarify what a bandwagon is: if all your friends like Coke over Pepsi, and you start drinking Coke just because they do, that is a bandwagon. Bandwagons do not apply to areas of scientific expertise and consensus based on thousands of research hours. Most doctors think leaching doesn't work; is this a bandwagon? Most astronomers think the world is a globe; is this a bandwagon? When we are talking about hard facts, you can't just through logical fallacies around willy-nilly as if they apply everywhere. In point 7 you say I need to refute your facts, and I will, but you are the one who is suggesting a new idea, so the burden of proof is on you to replace the old one. I love how you still have yet to provide any unbiased sources (by which I mean un-indoctrinated scientific professionals) to support your claim. In your last few sentences you say evolution is beyond the realm of science. Um, what? No, no it isn't. We have many thousands of transitional fossils, we can observe evolutionary changes in humans, animals and bacteria, we can use starlight and decaying elements to get an accurate age for our planet, we can examine the DNA of all species who have ever lived and chart the family tree of earth, we can use bioinformatics to determine when exactly we diverged from fish and lower mammals, we can use our knowledge of geological layering to determine that man and dinosaurs never lived together, and we can use astronomical observations to tell us how our planet formed. Creationists like to say that evolutionists 'believe' in evolution like they 'believe' in the Bible. This is simply not true! Just look at the mountains of evidence for evolution that Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Pagans, Jains, Buddhists, atheists, and agnostics all agree on! The only people who say the universe is ten thousand years old are fundamentalist conservative Christians who come from the parts of America that perform the lowest on science tests. Doesn't that say something?
Amarandum says2017-03-03T18:14:33.5346674Z
I googled 'evidence for evolution' and many scholarly articles came up. Here are a few: necsi.Edu/projects/evolution/evidence/evidence_intro.Html -- evolutionfaq.Com/articles/five-proofs-evolution -- https://www.Nap.Edu/read/6024/chapter/4 -- evolution.Berkeley.Edu/evolibrary/search/topics.Php?Topic_id=14 -- humanorigins.Si.Edu/evidence -- Here also is a humorous article from Scientific American which lists several responses to creationists' misunderstanding of science: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/. Finally, here is a directory of major creationist claims, provided with the necessary explanations to refute them all: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/.
Amarandum says2017-03-03T18:18:52.0578674Z
I googled 'evidence for evolution' and many scholarly articles came up. Here are a few: necsi.Edu/projects/evolution/evidence/evidence_intro.Html -- evolutionfaq.Com/articles/five-proofs-evolution -- https://www.Nap.Edu/read/6024/chapter/4 -- evolution.Berkeley.Edu/evolibrary/search/topics.Php?Topic_id=14 -- humanorigins.Si.Edu/evidence -- Here also is a humorous article from Scientific American which lists several responses to creationists' misunderstanding of science: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/. Finally, here is a directory of major creationist claims, provided with the necessary explanations to refute them all: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/.
Amarandum says2017-03-03T20:19:30.5723540Z
@Subdeo, A. No, no it doesn't. "And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia." B. This is a fair point. My source was a linguist. I'm guessing the OT refers to the Babylonian name elsewhere. C. & D. My point still stands. Moses (supposedly) lived 600 years after Abraham, and the city in point C. Was named 1000 years after Abraham. E. If Genesis were really written by Moses, he couldn't refer to something which hadn't happened yet. If a thousand years from now people claim you wrote a book, wherein you are quoted as saying: "Subdeo's father lived before there were kings in Canada", and you died before there were any kings in Canada, people would question whether you actually wrote the book or if somebody who lived long after you wrote it and ascribed it to you. Same problem here, which is why nearly nobody thinks Moses was a real person. F. Canaan couldn't be the land of the Hebrews if it belonged to the Canaanites and the Hebrews were squatting there. 'The Land of ...' means you own that land. They had no land of their own until the Conquest! If illegal immigrants from Mexico came to America, would they start calling America 'the land of illegal Mexican immigrants'? Does that make sense? This passage was written hundreds of years later when the Hebrews actually had their own land; that's why all these dates and phrases are mixed up. G. Well, for one, it's in bad taste. Two, she had no way of knowing the baby was Hebrew, which is why she kept it. The Hebrews were slaves, remember? If she had realized the baby was Hebrew, why raise it as her own? Even if she did know somehow, it is beyond ridiculous to imagine that she would keep a slave baby as her son. How many times did this happen in the American south? H. Even if the source your link provided is accurate (which it isn't - more on that in the next sentence), it says nothing about Pepy II drowning, or that he lost thousands upon thousands of Hebrew slaves. The link also did a bloody poor job of connecting Pepy I to the biblical pharaoh. Moses and Pepy I lived a thousand years apart. I. You and I must be using different translations. The KJV says: "The people shall hear, and be afraid: sorrow shall take hold on the inhabitants of Palestina." J. Granted, similarities don't prove plagiarism, but given the fact that most scholars doubt the existence of Moses altogether, and that the Jews have a history of plagiarizing from their neighbors (Genesis is stolen almost shamelessly from the Zoroastrian Avesta), I doubt have much faith that the Decalogue is divine. K. The point wasn't about 'leaders'. It talked specifically about priests before the duties of the priesthood were fully explained. Are you seeing a pattern here? This only way this works is if the text were written long after it's supposed author. L. Maybe you misunderstood. Moses could not know about Jerusalem. I wasn't talking about David. M. Respected archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon showed as far back as the 1950s that Jericho was destroyed by an Egyptian war campaign, not by a bunch of Hebrews playing trumpets. N. Fair point. O. I see. I guess this passage wasn't referring to the Hebrews' march through the wilderness, but something else. My mistake. There's still something to be said for the fact that your god would put a man to death for gathering sticks on the Sabbath though. Seems like a disregard for human life to me. P. No, it was not. The Decalogue says not to work on the Sabbath. To say this applies to the gathering of sticks is absurd. Any physical activity whatsoever was restricted? So any Jew who walked around and picked things up was put to death? Or is it more likely the TC referred to a career or job, and the leaders of the Hebrews needed a reason to legally have this guy murdered? Let's say you're right, and they didn't know the punishment for picking up sticks; would you support their decision to put him to death? Q. The Bible says Joshua lived before David. This is incorrect. R. The book was supposedly written before this period! The Babylonian exile was hundreds of years after Judges takes place. Does it not trouble you that many times the biblical authors are not who they claim to be? Why would the word of God lie? S. The Egyptians ruled Jerusalem before David. Why would he take the head of Goliath to an enemy stronghold, where he would have been killed on the spot? T. Shekels of gold. They were a unit of measurement before this, but they were not used as coins during this time. U. The passage says no such thing. V. Long story short, the Bible says one thing, history says another. Ancient History Encyclopedia says: "With order now restored and rebellious populations decimated and deported, Sennacherib turned his attention again to Jerusalem. Although Hezekiah had paid him a handsome tribute, Sennacherib was not one to forgive and forget. He marched on the city and, according to his inscriptions, took it by siege: 'As to Hezekiah, the Jew, he did not submit to my yoke, I laid siege to his strong cities, walled forts, and countless small villages, and conquered them by means of well-stamped earth-ramps and battering-rams brought near the walls with an attack by foot soldiers, using mines, breeches as well as trenches. I drove out 200,150 people, young and old, male and female, horses, mules, donkeys, camels, big and small cattle beyond counting, and considered them slaves. Himself I made a prisoner in Jerusalem, his royal residence, like a bird in a cage. I surrounded him with earthwork in order to molest those who were his city's gate. Thus I reduced his country, but I still increased the tribute and the presents to me as overlord which I imposed upon him beyond the former tribute, to be delivered annually. Hezekiah himself, did send me, later, to Nineveh, my lordly city, together with 30 talents of gold, 800 talents of silver, precious stones, antimony, large cuts of red stone, couches inlaid with ivory, nimedu-chairs inlaid with ivory, elephant-hides, ebony-wood, boxwood and all kinds of valuable treasures, his own daughters and concubines.' " --- www.ancient.eu/sennacherib/ W. I don't understand your meaning. X. No records ever call him mad. The Hebrews had a reason to call him mad, so it was likely propaganda. Can you please provide an example where a regent is referred to as king? I seriously doubt that ever happened anywhere -- what would be the purpose of the word 'king'? Y. Well, how about Isaiah (the book, not the nonexistent prophet) saying the stars and sun will cease to shine on God's enemies (presumably Babylon and Persia)? This isn't a figure of speech; he says the constellations will literally cease to give light. Jeremiah 52 says that Zedekiah, the king of Judah, would die a peaceful death, but Zedekiah was thrown in a Babylonian prison until the day he died. This is anything but peaceful. I'll leave it there since you already have a wall of text to read. Z. My point is that it's incorrect! You say the Bible is infallible, and here is evidence to the contrary!
Bi0Hazard says2017-03-04T03:20:10.0401406Z
Vinnie_Cross_Briet, empirical data doesn't tell you anything about theism, that is pretty clear by the fact that theism holds a basis in an independent existence of naturalism. Spiffy-Gonzalez, "Most support the existence of things beyond the reach of science, thus for them the creation itself is evidence of the creator. " Which is highly problematic for creationism, the premise that creationism rests on is based on specific logic that can have no basis in human experience and empirical observation. The only way of acceptance is to assume a specific interpretation of a specific ancient collection of books collected into a larger compilation that was translated many times over and distributed throughout time is true. What about evolution? Basic empirical evidence and passes the test of critical thinking. "This is a bit of a problem however, due to the fact that many of the microorganisms they claim combined naturally do not/can not combine in nature, and many other species of microorganisms that are alike do not do so either." That is because of the different variations overtime, biology doesn't remain the same forever, it changes (which is a central part of evolution).
Vinnie_Cross_Briet says2017-03-04T09:08:53.7413124Z
@BioHazard: Emperical data shows us this universe hangs upon complex mathematic formulas, and that in everthing, from the mechanisms of the universe all the way to that of our planet, to our bodies, to our DNA and molecules show a clear design. Then logic and reason tells us, that it is logical and reasonable to assume such comes from an intelligent mind, a designer, rather than non-intelligence. It always baffles me that the atheist cannot believe in a magical wizard man in the sky, even though that is a false description; yet, they cannot see what such a weird magical force evolution must be. A brainless force that brings about the complex math and design. There's a logical disconnection there.
Vinnie_Cross_Briet says2017-03-04T09:13:48.3161124Z
Probably watched too many hollywood films and scientiSM-priest doctrines that are mere theory and nothing more than that and have so little to do with science, such as Dawkins or De grasse Tyson, what a clows. Dawkins book the god delusion is embarresing)
subdeo says2017-03-07T00:22:34.2369258Z
A. This verse is in the past tense, and this verse is set before the Genesis flood. Likely, it refers to when the continents were together, and the Red sea was not there to block the river. It could have flowed in much the same path as the Nile, and crossed to Mesopotamia where the red sea is today. B. Fine, but how is this a problem for the scriptures, since they do not explicitly say the word comes from the Hebrew? C. Could you provide evidence that this city was named 1000 years after Abraham? E. Moses probably knew that there would be kings, and wrote this in anticipation, or God told him. F. Where they lived or settled was their land, even if it was in the territory of another. What else could he have said that would have conveyed the same meaning? The Pharaoh understood him. G. Actually, she knew that the baby was Hebrew. Why else would she say, “This is one of the Hebrew children.”? Perhaps it is unimaginable, but it happened. H. Here is another link demonstrating extra-biblical evidence for Moses and the ten Plagues, specifically. https://www.gotquestions.org/evidence-ten-plagues.html I. http://goedbericht.nl/english/palestinians-philistines/ This link explains how in the Hebrew language, Palestinia and Philistia mean the same thing. Even if the translators translated it wrong, it is no fault of the scriptures. J. You are entitled to your own opinion, but I could just as easily say that the Zoroastrian Avesta was stolen from Genesis, especially since it was written far after Genesis was! According to Scholars, Moses probably lived in the 12th or 15th centuries BC, whereas the founder of the Zoroastrian religion lived around the 10th! Below link is my source for the time of the life of Zoroaster: https://books.google.com/books?id=ffZy5tDjaUkC&pg=PA45&dq=#v=onepage&q&f=false K. I see no pattern here, except the one of faulty accusations against the scriptures. Since the Bible does not specifically say that Moses wrote the book, it is no fault of the Bible if that assumption is incorrect, if it even is incorrect. Yes, this was before the duties were fully explained, but the people still needed these leaders, who performed duties similar to those prescribed later. In addition, some of what God wanted was already known (such as sacrifices) and these men were the ones who did those activities. L. Even if Moses had not captured it yet, he still could have knowledge of Rabbath. M. Here is a link for your consumption on this topic: https://answersingenesis.org/archaeology/the-walls-of-jericho/ P. The Hebrews understood the rule, and it was just. Given the circumstances, I would support the penalty given. Q. The Bible is correct. The Book of Jasher was a long lived book, and something like a collection always being added to. As such, it was possible for it to be referred to past tense in Joshua and in 2 Samuel. R. Judges was written post captivity, but was a record of past events. The Bible never claimed it was written before captivity. S. He would not have been killed on the spot; they were not hostile to him yet. The point was that it was a “popular” place, so bringing the head there would be a good public announcement. T. Gold is measured in weight, and the text speaks of measurement by weight of gold, something that was done at that time. U. Looking at the context, we can see that David is speaking figuratively (unless we choose to believe that David was really caught in a trap labeled death). Since no physical temple existed at the time, and since in other texts, God’s abode in the heavens is referred to as his temple (e.G. Revelation 11:19), we can safely say that this also is intended to be figurative. V. Your own source says that, “Whatever happened outside of Jerusalem, whether God’s intervention, a plague, or God’s intervention in the form of the plague, the city remained intact and Sennacherib returned to Nineveh.” More information can be found in your source. Obviously, there is some disagreement about what happened, and Sennacherib’s account is not universally accepted as history. Perhaps Sennacherib’s “account” was a phony, or just a lie. W. You say that since Nineveh had 120,000 citizens and was about 60 miles across, it must have had a population density of 42 people per Mi2. However, the city actually had more than 120,000 people, because that figure represents children only (they did not know right from left, otherwise meaning the “age of accountability”). That figure does not include adults. X. One such example can be found here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah15087/abstract;jsessionid=BF6A82C2B6BBD13D89108FD1D4003B67.f02t02?userIsAuthenticated=false&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage= Notice in the abstract where it says “co-equal kings”, kings being plural. Y. Actually, it is a figure of speech, what makes you think that it is supposed to be literal? I have read Jeremiah 52 in detail and saw no reference to Zedekiah dying a peaceful death. Z. The records mentioned in this verse are lost to history. Also, it does not matter if no one else quoted or mentioned it: that does not make it false.
subdeo says2017-03-07T00:24:12.3304277Z
A. This verse is in the past tense, and this verse is set before the Genesis flood. Likely, it refers to when the continents were together, and the Red sea was not there to block the river. It could have flowed in much the same path as the Nile, and crossed to Mesopotamia where the red sea is today. B. Fine, but how is this a problem for the scriptures, since they do not explicitly say the word comes from the Hebrew? C. Could you provide evidence that this city was named 1000 years after Abraham? E. Moses probably knew that there would be kings, and wrote this in anticipation, or God told him. F. Where they lived or settled was their land, even if it was in the territory of another. What else could he have said that would have conveyed the same meaning? The Pharaoh understood him. G. Actually, she knew that the baby was Hebrew. Why else would she say, “This is one of the Hebrew children.”? Perhaps it is unimaginable, but it happened. H. Here is another link demonstrating extra-biblical evidence for Moses and the ten Plagues, specifically. https://www.gotquestions.org/evidence-ten-plagues.html I. http://goedbericht.nl/english/palestinians-philistines/ This link explains how in the Hebrew language, Palestinia and Philistia mean the same thing. Even if the translators translated it wrong, it is no fault of the scriptures. J. You are entitled to your own opinion, but I could just as easily say that the Zoroastrian Avesta was stolen from Genesis, especially since it was written far after Genesis was! According to Scholars, Moses probably lived in the 12th or 15th centuries BC, whereas the founder of the Zoroastrian religion lived around the 10th! Below link is my source for the time of the life of Zoroaster: https://books.google.com/books?id=ffZy5tDjaUkC&pg=PA45&dq=#v=onepage&q&f=false K. I see no pattern here, except the one of faulty accusations against the scriptures. Since the Bible does not specifically say that Moses wrote the book, it is no fault of the Bible if that assumption is incorrect, if it even is incorrect. Yes, this was before the duties were fully explained, but the people still needed these leaders, who performed duties similar to those prescribed later. In addition, some of what God wanted was already known (such as sacrifices) and these men were the ones who did those activities. L. Even if Moses had not captured it yet, he still could have knowledge of Rabbath. M. Here is a link for your consumption on this topic: https://answersingenesis.org/archaeology/the-walls-of-jericho/ P. The Hebrews understood the rule, and it was just. Given the circumstances, I would support the penalty given. Q. The Bible is correct. The Book of Jasher was a long lived book, and something like a collection always being added to. As such, it was possible for it to be referred to past tense in Joshua and in 2 Samuel. R. Judges was written post captivity, but was a record of past events. The Bible never claimed it was written before captivity. S. He would not have been killed on the spot; they were not hostile to him yet. The point was that it was a “popular” place, so bringing the head there would be a good public announcement. T. Gold is measured in weight, and the text speaks of measurement by weight of gold, something that was done at that time. U. Looking at the context, we can see that David is speaking figuratively (unless we choose to believe that David was really caught in a trap labeled death). Since no physical temple existed at the time, and since in other texts, God’s abode in the heavens is referred to as his temple (e.G. Revelation 11:19), we can safely say that this also is intended to be figurative. V. Your own source says that, “Whatever happened outside of Jerusalem, whether God’s intervention, a plague, or God’s intervention in the form of the plague, the city remained intact and Sennacherib returned to Nineveh.” More information can be found in your source. Obviously, there is some disagreement about what happened, and Sennacherib’s account is not universally accepted as history. Perhaps Sennacherib’s “account” was a phony, or just a lie. W. You say that since Nineveh had 120,000 citizens and was about 60 miles across, it must have had a population density of 42 people per Mi2. However, the city actually had more than 120,000 people, because that figure represents children only (they did not know right from left, otherwise meaning the “age of accountability”). That figure does not include adults. X. One such example can be found here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah15087/abstract;jsessionid=BF6A82C2B6BBD13D89108FD1D4003B67.f02t02?userIsAuthenticated=false&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage= Notice in the abstract where it says “co-equal kings”, kings being plural. Y. Actually, it is a figure of speech, what makes you think that it is supposed to be literal? I have read Jeremiah 52 in detail and saw no reference to Zedekiah dying a peaceful death. Z. The records mentioned in this verse are lost to history. Also, it does not matter if no one else quoted or mentioned it: that does not make it false.
subdeo says2017-03-07T00:25:49.8304277Z
A. This verse is in the past tense, and this verse is set before the Genesis flood. Likely, it refers to when the continents were together, and the Red sea was not there to block the river. It could have flowed in much the same path as the Nile, and crossed to Mesopotamia where the red sea is today. B. Fine, but how is this a problem for the scriptures, since they do not explicitly say the word comes from the Hebrew? C. Could you provide evidence that this city was named 1000 years after Abraham? E. Moses probably knew that there would be kings, and wrote this in anticipation, or God told him. F. Where they lived or settled was their land, even if it was in the territory of another. What else could he have said that would have conveyed the same meaning? The Pharaoh understood him. G. Actually, she knew that the baby was Hebrew. Why else would she say, “This is one of the Hebrew children.”? Perhaps it is unimaginable, but it happened. H. Here is another link demonstrating extra-biblical evidence for Moses and the ten Plagues, specifically. https://www.gotquestions.org/evidence-ten-plagues.html I. http://goedbericht.nl/english/palestinians-philistines/ This link explains how in the Hebrew language, Palestinia and Philistia mean the same thing. Even if the translators translated it wrong, it is no fault of the scriptures. J. You are entitled to your own opinion, but I could just as easily say that the Zoroastrian Avesta was stolen from Genesis, especially since it was written far after Genesis was! According to Scholars, Moses probably lived in the 12th or 15th centuries BC, whereas the founder of the Zoroastrian religion lived around the 10th! Below link is my source for the time of the life of Zoroaster: https://books.google.com/books?id=ffZy5tDjaUkC&pg=PA45&dq=#v=onepage&q&f=false K. I see no pattern here, except the one of faulty accusations against the scriptures. Since the Bible does not specifically say that Moses wrote the book, it is no fault of the Bible if that assumption is incorrect, if it even is incorrect. Yes, this was before the duties were fully explained, but the people still needed these leaders, who performed duties similar to those prescribed later. In addition, some of what God wanted was already known (such as sacrifices) and these men were the ones who did those activities. L. Even if Moses had not captured it yet, he still could have knowledge of Rabbath. M. Here is a link for your consumption on this topic: https://answersingenesis.org/archaeology/the-walls-of-jericho/ P. The Hebrews understood the rule, and it was just. Given the circumstances, I would support the penalty given. Q. The Bible is correct. The Book of Jasher was a long lived book, and something like a collection always being added to. As such, it was possible for it to be referred to past tense in Joshua and in 2 Samuel. R. Judges was written post captivity, but was a record of past events. The Bible never claimed it was written before captivity. S. He would not have been killed on the spot; they were not hostile to him yet. The point was that it was a “popular” place, so bringing the head there would be a good public announcement. T. Gold is measured in weight, and the text speaks of measurement by weight of gold, something that was done at that time. U. Looking at the context, we can see that David is speaking figuratively (unless we choose to believe that David was really caught in a trap labeled death). Since no physical temple existed at the time, and since in other texts, God’s abode in the heavens is referred to as his temple (e.G. Revelation 11:19), we can safely say that this also is intended to be figurative. V. Your own source says that, “Whatever happened outside of Jerusalem, whether God’s intervention, a plague, or God’s intervention in the form of the plague, the city remained intact and Sennacherib returned to Nineveh.” More information can be found in your source. Obviously, there is some disagreement about what happened, and Sennacherib’s account is not universally accepted as history. Perhaps Sennacherib’s “account” was a phony, or just a lie. W. You say that since Nineveh had 120,000 citizens and was about 60 miles across, it must have had a population density of 42 people per Mi2. However, the city actually had more than 120,000 people, because that figure represents children only (they did not know right from left, otherwise meaning the “age of accountability”). That figure does not include adults. X. One such example can be found here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah15087/abstract;jsessionid=BF6A82C2B6BBD13D89108FD1D4003B67.f02t02?userIsAuthenticated=false&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage= Notice in the abstract where it says “co-equal kings”, kings being plural. Y. Actually, it is a figure of speech, what makes you think that it is supposed to be literal? I have read Jeremiah 52 in detail and saw no reference to Zedekiah being predicted to die a peaceful death. Z. The records mentioned in this verse are lost to history. Also, it does not matter if no one else quoted or mentioned it: that does not make it false.
subdeo says2017-03-07T00:27:41.1832277Z
Yikes! Sorry about the multiple posts, you can ignore the first two. :)
DebaingDude says2017-03-07T18:23:29.3056990Z
There is no scientific evidence to support Creationism. All that there is in the way of proof is a book. While there is actual, proven evidence that evolution is why we are all here today. I don't mean to be rude to anyone, you believe in what you want to. But there is just no evidence at all to back it up. Scientists, both Religious and Atheist, that have found evidence for evolution is real. The fossils, DNA, and how closely related we are to apes, tadpoles, and the like on a purely genetic level, which proves that we evolved from them. I know that someone will make the "genetic disease" argument, and those are genetic anomalies, not certainties. I will rebuttal with this: If God controls our creation and what happens around us, why would he have people die of heart attacks, accident of any sort, and why would he give us Genetic diseases, or not allow people to get divorced? All of these things can cause extreme misery, and if God is supposed to love us, or exist at all, why would he put people through these awful things? Exactly. NOBODY HAS A GOOD OR LOGICAL ANSWER! Again, there is no evidence for Creationism, while there is enough to fill several books for evolution, I have simply stated the basics. Again, believe in what you want to, but evolution is why we are here today. The universe can not simply begin from God making it. Even if it did begin, it was from sicence. Not some dude in the sky who did it out of a whim. Scientists have also proven that Mary could not remain a virgin while still having Jesus. Impossible. Plain and simple. Sorry. There is also a good video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQ7VUZHwbEk linked here that convinced me that evolution is real. Check it out, and maybe it can convince you of science.
DebaingDude says2017-03-07T18:26:34.3528990Z
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQ7VUZHwbEk There is plenty of evidence for evolution and none for God. We are so closely related to apes and tadpoles, and skeletons overtime and DNA samples prove that we evolved. That is all I need to say. Check put this video, and hopefully I can sway you to the side of science.
subdeo says2017-03-08T00:14:52.4916867Z
Debaing Dude, your argument is fundamentally flawed. You state that Mary could not still be a virgin after having Jesus, however you ignore the fact that if he is God (which he is) he can accomplish anything he wants through supernatural means. In addition, you say that evolution has “books” of evidence. However, it has even more problems. How do you explain the evolution of consciousness? Or the origin of matter?
reece says2017-03-08T01:22:08.3988867Z
@subdeo consciousness is vague topic (Do you want my opinion on it?). As for the origin of matter, "“inflation,” particles (the most basic ingredient of everything in the universe) and anti-particles (the opposite of all that) co-existed in a rapidly expanding “hot soup.” The two could switch identities (in other words, anti-particles could turn into particles and vice-versa), but the laws of physics applied equally both, meaning they were created in perfect proportion. Shortly after inflation, the universe’s growth slowed and the two kinds of particles (which are perfectly opposed in mass and charge and effectively cancel each other out) began colliding and annihilating one another. The battle would have swiftly ended in the elimination of all forms of particles — a kind of cosmic mutually assured destruction — if not for one tiny, unexplained asymmetry in the size of their forces: For every 10 billion anti-particles, there were 10 billion particles — plus one. That marginal imbalance meant that matter was the last man standing, leading to the creation of the elements, stars, solar systems, planet Earth and every person on it."
reece says2017-03-08T01:23:07.2420867Z
Consciousness is a vague topic*...
subdeo says2017-03-08T01:25:26.0664867Z
You have a wonderful imagination, reece. Do you have any evidence to support this though? Even if it was true, where did those original particles come from?
reece says2017-03-08T02:14:21.4092867Z
@subdeo You're moving the goalposts. Anyway, they came from quantum fluctuations. Can you stop projecting yourself onto me? It isn't like I have an imaginary sky daddy wizard watching over me.
subdeo says2017-03-08T17:25:55.8863162Z
I am not moving my goalposts. Only now have you actually tried to answer the original question. Yet you still have to explain how quantum fluctuations came to be. No I am not goalpost moving, I am just trying to make you give me an answer for the origin of all things. I am asking you: From whence came matter, and the laws of physics? I am trying to pull you to the conclusion that origins are impossible without some kind of intelligent being starting it all.
reece says2017-03-09T00:38:19.2921612Z
@subdeo Quantum fluctuations isn't matter. We could keep going down this road but we'd end up with me just saying I don't know. Do you know why? Because I'm honest. Looking at the world fromn a bottum-up process is more logical than looking at the world from a top-down process. People only look at it from a top-down process because we're the ones at the top. They then think there must be some invisable supernatual being that is higher than us.
reece says2017-03-09T00:45:57.1209612Z
Sorry for the mistakes.
subdeo says2017-03-09T16:39:18.3480794Z
You are right, if we kept this up it would only end up with you saying that you don’t know. But why would you rather a theory that only leads you to “I don’t know”? Shouldn’t something that is supposed to be now proven have fewer “I don’t knows” and more explanations?
subdeo says2017-03-09T16:41:46.2672794Z
You are right, if we kept this up it would only end up with you saying that you don’t know. But why would you rather a theory that only leads you to “I don’t know”? Shouldn’t something that is supposed to be now proven have fewer “I don’t knows” and more explanations?
reece says2017-03-09T18:56:21.8428050Z
@subdeo The more we know about the world, the more questions there are to awnser. Think of our collective scientific knowlige of the world as an ever-expanding sphere. The circumference is our nescience. The question you're asking is bordering on the circumference. Anyway, it sure as hell beats having faith in a sky daddy wizard.
subdeo says2017-03-10T14:28:07.8661880Z
You are entitled to your own worldview. If you think you would rather believe in an unfounded theory, rather than God, so be it. We probably both share a collective amazement at each other, for each of our "rejections" of the evidence. The question is, who is right? And what are the consequences if one of us is wrong?
reece says2017-03-11T01:16:29.8556646Z
@subdeo "You are entitled to your own worldview." What does that actually mean (between the lines) when people say stuff like that? Is it just a cop-out, or is there some hidden authoritarian disposition that their trying to fight back against? Tell me, who needs reminding? What unfounded theory are you talking about?... Anyway, saying this "unfounded theory" is all you need to believe in a god, is little pathetic. There's a bunch of logical inconsistencies in the exsistance of gods. If you were wrong, it wouldn't matter, people would still believe. If you were right, God is responsibal for everything. With great power, comes great responisbility.
reece says2017-03-11T01:17:30.6800646Z
@subdeo "You are entitled to your own worldview." What does that actually mean (between the lines) when people say stuff like that? Is it just a cop-out, or is there some hidden authoritarian disposition that they trying to fight back against? Tell me, who needs reminding? What unfounded theory are you talking about?... Anyway, saying this "unfounded theory" is all you need to believe in a god, is little pathetic. There's a bunch of logical inconsistencies in the exsistance of gods. If you were wrong, it wouldn't matter, people would still believe. If you were right, God is responsibal for everything. With great power, comes great responisbility.
reece says2017-03-11T01:18:57.3692646Z
@subdeo "You are entitled to your own worldview." What does that actually mean (between the lines) when people say stuff like that? Is it just a cop-out, or is there some hidden authoritarian disposition that they're trying to fight back against? Tell me, who needs reminding? What unfounded theory are you talking about?... Anyway, saying this "unfounded theory" is all you need to believe in a god, is little pathetic. There's a bunch of logical inconsistencies in the exsistance of gods. If you were wrong, it wouldn't matter, people would still believe. If you were right, God is responsibal for everything. With great power, comes great responisbility.
Creationist_Debaters says2017-03-11T02:35:42.2708646Z
Interesting Discussion!
Creationist_Debaters says2017-03-11T14:16:18.3256431Z
"Leftytwo" (a DDO user) got it right when he said, "Think about symbiotic relationships, specifically mutualism. How would those have evolved without one or both dying off? And more importantly, why did they evolve into a state where they are dependent on another species? That, and the fact that Earth itself in many ways, (including but not limited to it's general beauty, the very specific way our atmosphere is constructed to serve as a shield, the complex ecosystems that exist, the fact that we have Jupiter dragging planet-shattering rocks away from hitting us, the fact that we are the perfect distance from the sun, and much more...) defies unbeatable odds to end up the way it is now, I don't have enough faith to believe that everything here is chance."
reece says2017-03-11T15:16:26.9644431Z
@Creationist_Debaters The Milkyway alone is estimated to harbor 40 billion Earth-sized planets in habitable zones of sun-like or red dwarf stars. There are about 500 billion galixies in the observable universe. That estimate goes up towards 1,000 trillion Earth-like planets if you include the 500 billion galixies. With those odds, you don't need chance. Anyway, the teleological argument is fallacious. Would you be here debating your existance if your parents didn't meet? Extrapolate.
Creationist_Debaters says2017-03-11T15:33:59.6836431Z
Even with all these "chances" we've yet to see conclusive evidence for one Extra-terrestrial, or habitable planet.
Creationist_Debaters says2017-03-11T15:39:29.1327084Z
Even with many chances, life cannot just evolve on its own.
reece says2017-03-11T15:45:57.1900431Z
@Creationist_Debaters Is it because we don't have the technoligy, or are we the only ones?
reece says2017-03-11T15:47:45.5632431Z
Yet we see life evolve on its own by natural law.
Creationist_Debaters says2017-03-11T15:47:48.2308431Z
It is probable that we are the only ones.
Creationist_Debaters says2017-03-11T15:50:01.7200431Z
Any "evolution" we see here on earth is micro evolution.
reece says2017-03-11T23:53:14.5597987Z
@Creationist_Debaters Microevolution and macroevolution abide by the same processes. It's just that macroevolution happens over a larger period of time.
reece says2017-03-11T23:54:44.9461987Z
How old do you think the world is?
Creationist_Debaters says2017-03-12T00:51:51.9971072Z
The world is about 7000-10000 years old. Actually, micro-evolution acts on existing genetic info, Macro evolution (supposedly) adds info.
reece says2017-03-12T01:17:22.2947072Z
@Creationist_Debaters Where are you getting your information from?
subdeo says2017-03-12T21:59:54.2198798Z
You there, Amarandum?
Amarandum says2017-03-13T23:54:47.1075472Z
@Subdeo, I am indeed. Sorry for the delay. Finals are in a week and I've been very busy. A. How does this justify the passage? The verse says it encompasses the whole land of Ethiopia. B. I've conceded this point; either the passage in question is to be found elsewhere, or my source was mistaken. C. "Abraham is identified as coming from 'Ur of the Chaldeans,' but the Babylonians were not known as Chaldeans until a much later time." --'Reconstructing the Society of Ancient Israel' by Paula McNutt, page 41 --https://books.Google.Com/booksid=hd28MdGNyTYC&pg=PA41#v=onepage&q=Abraham%20patriarchal%20%22known%20history%22&f=false. E. Moses never existed! Nearly every historian doubts the existence of Moses. To quote an article from the Washington Post: "Yet, outside of biblical scripture, there is next to no evidence in the archaeological and historical record of Moses's existence. There is no exact time frame for when the events of Exodus may have occurred -- with scholarly conjecture spanning more than half a millennium. Nor do we know the identity of the villainous Pharaoh in the Bible, cast in films repeatedly as Ramesses II. That pharaoh is famed for his conquests and building projects. But in their digs and readings of inscriptions and papyrus, historians have found no trace of Moses under Ramesses' reign." -- https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/12/10/was-moses-real/?utm_term=.38100fcbcd1c F. In every other situation, this phrase means 'the land of the Hebrews'. Given the shaky ground this whole book rests on (""According to Jewish tradition, the Torah is so sacred that even a single error made on a single letter renders the entire scroll unusable.And yet the Hebrew Bible — including the Torah, its first five books — is riddled with corruptions and alterations that have accrued and been passed down over the millennia."" -- Times of Israel), Occam's Razor suggests we go with the more likely explanation. --http://www.Timesofisrael.Com/controversy-lurks-as-scholars-suss-out-original-biblical-text/#ixzz31uFPqDC8 G. No, it did not happen! Moses never existed, and that preposterous tale helps to show my point. When I was a Christian, this was hard for me to accept, but all the evidence is against the veracity of the Bible. To quote from BBC Religion: "The story goes that Moses led two million Hebrews out of Egypt and they lived for 40 years in the Sinai desert - but a century of archaeology in the Sinai has turned up no evidence of it. If the Hebrews were never in Egypt then perhaps the whole issue was fiction, made up to give their people an exotic history and destiny. Some archeologists decided to search instead in the Nile Delta: the part of Egypt where the Bible says the Hebrews settled. They combed the area for evidence of a remarkably precise claim - that the Hebrews were press-ganged into making mud-bricks to build two great cities - Pithom and Ramses. Ramses II was the greatest Pharaoh in all of ancient Egypt - his statues are everywhere. Surely his city could be traced? But no sign could be found." All the evidence is against you my friend. H. Your link didn't work for me. I don't mean that I was unconvinced by it; the link would literally not pull up. Even if it had, GotQuestions.Org is notoriously unreliable, as it asks fundamentalist Christians to write articles supporting a fundamentalist worldview. Even most scholarly religious authorities doubt a literal reading of these texts: ""...The biblical Exodus route into the Sinai Desert has left no trace other than what the Bible tells us. 'There is virtually no evidence, as the Torah says, that 600,000 Jewish males, with their wives and children and elders, left Egypt in the Exodus,' said Rabbi Burt Visotzky, a professor of Talmud and Rabbinics at the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York. 'Those are big numbers. You'd think someone would notice.' ... 'When it comes to Moses, again, you have a really larger-than-life portrait,' said William Dever, a professor of archaeology from Lycoming College. 'I doubt that the miracles attributed to him ever took place. I don't think he led three million Israelites out of Egypt in an exodus across the Sinai.'"" --http://abcnews.Go.Com/International/exodus-moses-people-happen/story?Id=18068905 J. No, Genesis was not written before The Avesta; this is simply wrong. Abrahamic religions ascribe Genesis to Moses, but all available evidence says Genesis was written in the 6th century BCE. Many sources disagree on the life of Zoroaster, but the one I found (Britannica) says: "Some modern scholars, however, have suggested that he may have flourished around 1200 bce, while others have argued that he lived more than a millennium earlier than the traditional dates." Though his birth is tricky to pin down, nearly everyone agrees that his religion influenced Judaism. The same source says: "A major figure in the history of world religions, Zarathustra has been the object of much scholarly attention, in large part because of his apparent monotheism (his concept of one god, whom he referred to as Ahura Mazdā, or the “Wise Lord”), his purported dualism (evident in the stark distinction he drew between the forces of good and the forces of evil), and the possible influence of his teachings on subsequently emerging Middle Eastern religions (e.G., Judaism)." Keeping in mind that the ancient Hebrews were pagans, worshipping several gods alongside Yahweh, yet another source (history.Stackexchange.Com/questions/.../did-akhenatens-religion-influence-early-judaism) says: "It is generally believed that Judaism became monotheistic, claiming that other gods did not exist at all, during the Babylonian exile, probably influenced by Zoroastrianism. These events are in the 6th century BC..." To summarize, we have four points: 1) people disagree about Zoroaster, but we're really, really sure he lived before Genesis; 2) the vast majority of scholars think Moses wasn't real, or at least based off of legendary Hebrew folk heroes; 3) nobody disputes Judaism is a knockoff of Zoroastrianism; 4) the Hebrews were pagans until they came across Zoroaster's monotheistic religion. These four points are supported by much historical evidence. That's all there is to it. K. So, are you saying that you question whether or not the Pentateuch was written by Moses? Because that throws a massive wrench into your above points. Can you please clarify? You say Moses lived around 1000 BCE, but Genesis was almost certainly written around 600 BCE. Even if we assume he did exist (which he almost certainly did not) why would the Hebrews wait four-hundred years to write down the stories Moses gave them? Am I making more sense? If you say he wrote Genesis, then he is far, far younger than Zoroaster, as well as the Pharaoh most Christians say he opposed. If he didn't write Genesis, why would the Hebrews wait hundreds of years to write down the words of their holiest prophet? The Bible is caught in an absolute stalemate here: if Moses wrote Genesis, the narrative is stolen wholesale from Zoroaster; if Moses didn't write Genesis, it's reliability plummets to the level of a folktale. There's just no way out of this. L. Og was one of the Giants, remember? The ones who partnered with the Philistines in the whole 'David and Goliath' debacle? The Giants hated the Hebrews, and Og was the Giant king of Bashan. The book of Amos (2:9) says his height was like that of a cedar tree (ie about 50 feet). Ignoring the obvious mythology here, the passage has intricate knowledge of a fortress that was exceedingly hostile to the Hebrews. How the hell could they know anything about the enemy city that surely would have killed them on the spot? M. Please stop with the biased sources! Answers in Genesis? Come on, man! Would I cite Breitbart to support Donald Trump? Would I cite BuzzFeed to support Hillary? P. How in the world could you think this penalty was just? On second thought, nevermind. Rationalizations of biblical war crimes will get us nowhere. Q. The Book of Jasher doesn't exist. Several supposed 'found' books of Jasher have appeared, but these are all regarded as non-authentic apocrypha -- unless you happen to be a Mormon. R. No, this is simply incorrect. Abrahamic tradition holds that Joshua wrote it: "The earliest Jewish traditions, found within the Talmud, claim that Joshua wrote his own book except for the final section about his funeral. These traditionalists claim that Eleazar the son of Aaron wrote about Joshua's funeral and then a later editor added the last verses." My point still stands.--faculty.Vassar.Edu/jolott/old_courses/class%20of%2051/jericho/joshua.Html S. David was a child of the Egyptians' former slaves. Egypt and Israel still have a hostile relationship TODAY; of course they'd have killed David. T. What leads you to think this? U. Firstly, you can't compare Revelation to the OT - they are hundreds of years apart and from completely different parts of the world. Secondly, what would cause the author to use the word 'temple'? That doesn't strike you as a bit of a coincidence? We know these authors were fond of ascribing works to earlier people who never existed. You need to take all of this together instead of as separate points: the historical errors, contradictions, and confusion are too much to believe in this book's complete authority! V. I will admit his account may have been false if you admit the same of the Bible. I have little evidence that Sennacherib lied, and I have plenty of evidence that the Bible lies repeatedly. I'm not going to discredit somebody who, as far as we know, never lied about conquests versus a collection of pseudo-historical war crimes and mythology. Since the Bible's timetable is so disjointed, the passage may even be referring to a different account entirely. W. Where did you read that, and how do you know that's what 'right from left' means? X. Great, but how does this justify the passage? Y. Isaiah saying the constellations will cease is a figure of speech? Um, no. You take Genesis literally, but not this? Why? As for the bit about Zedekiah, the prophecy was in Jeremiah 34: "Yet hear the word of the Lord, O Zedekiah king of Judah; Thus saith the Lord of thee, Thou shalt not die by the sword: But thou shalt die in peace: and with the burnings of thy fathers, the former kings which were before thee, so shall they burn odours for thee; and they will lament thee, saying, Ah lord! For I have pronounced the word, saith the Lord." I forgot to add that to my last post; my apologies. Z. How in the hell could you possibly know they were lost to history? In historical research, what makes a claim strong is when it's supported by multiple sources, preferably of different worldviews and perspectives, so yes, this does cast serious doubt on the story. My future responses may take some time - sorry for that. Cheers.
AlFox says2017-03-14T03:31:33.7311477Z
You know what is the biggest thing that makes me believe more on evolution than creation? That in creation, you don't have evidence that says that. While in evolution, they have tons of evidence that says you that. Also, how do we know that god really exists? I think it exists, but more in your mind, as it is something you BELIEVE.
tpoche says2017-03-16T15:19:47.1758066Z
Evolution has been proed by science, and makes sense. The bible is folly, i grew up around orthodox jews. And its nonsense they argue about stuff that doesnt make sense. They make laws that are irrevelent to our time. The bible is a book in my opinion, i dont believe in god but i think if there is a religion they should at least follow every word of their "holy book". Like christianity and gays, gays should not be accepted by any christians, th ebible says against it yet they still accept them... They are hypocrites and if they put aside on thing strictly stated in the bible then why not just disregard everything else that is stated?..
Godstruth says2017-03-16T23:07:10.6406475Z
Good debate!
subdeo says2017-03-19T00:26:16.2413721Z
@Amarandum: No problem, take all the time you need. It seems that many of the letters of discussion hinge on whether or not Moses was real. Since it is useless to argue these points if we don’t even agree if Moses was real, I left these out of my rebuttals in favor of addressing the existence of Moses at the end. These letters are: E., G., and H. The letters B., D., I., M., N., O., and P. Have been conceded, or argumentation has been stopped. That leaves 16 letters, plus the argument on the existence of Moses. ------------------- A. It likely encompassed Ethiopia when there was no Red Sea to block its path. The Red sea is the only reason that anyone might hypothesize that It was impossible. -------------------------- C. Yes I’m quoting Gotquestions.Org, but since they are not actually addressing a point, and only giving information, my use is valid. According to them, the term Chaldeans, “…Is used to refer to Babylonians in general, but normally it refers to a specific semi-nomadic tribe that lived in the southern part of Babylon.” The rest of the short article gives more important information. Abraham was not being referred to as a “Babylonian” necessarily. That term was in use during the time of Moses (who presumably wrote the book), so he used it. Either that or the translators used the word Chaldeans for our benefit, as opposed to whatever term Moses used, however, the first explanation is more likely. Https://www.Gotquestions.Org/Chaldeans.Html --------------------------- F. Our entire discussion is trying to determine if the Scriptures are trustworthy. Your conclusion is rooted from a belief that the Bible is riddled with errors elsewhere, and so it cannot be trusted here, and my conclusion here is based off of the opposite belief. Further discussion on this letter is futile because of this. ----------------------------------------- J. Most of your argument here is subjective, and heavily disputed, and dependent on personal bias to believe one side over the other. The dates of Zoroaster are disputed, and the whole hypothesis relies heavily on the “fact” that Moses did not exist. As you said, “similarity does not prove plagiarism”. However, even if Moses and Zoroaster lived at the same time, Genesis still did not come from Zoroaster. There are far too many details in Genesis that Zoroaster did not dream up. According to you, he gave them the idea of monotheism. However, that is just one part of many of the laws and practices God gave to his people through Moses. --------------------------------------- K. No. It is highly probable and almost certain that Moses wrote Genesis (I would question the verity of your claim that Genesis was written in 600 B.C.). However, if you doubt this claim, don’t direct your disagreement at someone who didn’t say it (The Bible)! Your problem is with the theologians and historians who attributed it to Moses. ---------------------------------------------- L. In the same way that you know what the Eiffel tower looks like (If you’ve never been there). Through eyewitness reports, primarily. This would not have been an ordinary bed, and probably would have been at least relatively know throughout the area. ---------------------------------------------------- Q. You have no evidence for this. First, you try to discredit the Bible using this book, now you claim it never existed at all. --------------------------------------- R. Right, it is highly probable that Joshua wrote his namesake book. However, just like letter K., if you doubt this claim, don’t direct your disagreement at someone who didn’t say it (The Bible)! Your problem is with the theologians and historians who attributed it to Joshua. -------------------------------------------- S. So you agree that the Hebrews were enslaved? Anyway, we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I don’t think he would have been just killed on the spot. -------------------------------------------- T. Gold has always been measured in weight, and the Scriptures never said that these were coins. Just that he paid him that amount. ---------------------------------------------- U. I definitely hold that this is referring to God’s heavenly temple. Why would the Psalmist write this unless the people understood this was a metaphor? If not, who was he trying to fool? The contemporaries would have known very well that the Temple was not built yet, and would have discredited him. No, he was referring to a figurative temple. ---------------------------------------------- V. Your evidence for this point (“The Bible lies repeatedly”) is still in discussion. Arguing this particular point then is useless. ---------------------------------------------- W. Jonah 4:11 says, “And should not I pity Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than 120,000 persons who do not know their right hand from their left, and also much cattle?" it is reasonable to assume that this refers to those who have not reached the ”age of accountability”. What do you think “right from left” means? ------------------------------------------------ X. It means that there is no discrepancy when he says he was a king, while he was only co-regent. This helps to prove that co-regents are referred to as kings, so the scriptures have no err. --------------------------------------------------- Y. I can tell when someone is using a figure of speech and when someone is being literal. I base my judgment off of context, primarily, and through the “realistic-ness” of the statement. E.G., if someone says, “He raced past me at the speed of light!” I can understand a hyperbole here, quite obviously. So here, I can see that this is definitely a figure of speech. While Genesis is literal because the context is not that of poetic prophesy, but a narrative. ---------------------------------------------- Z. Unless you believe they never existed (which they did, all kingdoms kept records like this), these records must be lost, since we don’t have them. ------------------------------------------- Existence of Moses and the truth of the Exodus: You doubt the existence of Moses, saying, “Moses never existed.” However, I will argue that he was in fact real, and what the Bible says he did (including the Exodus) is the truth. The Ipuwer Papyrus gives potential extra-biblical evidence for the ten plagues. The oldest copy dates to around 1400 BC, placing it close to the time of the Exodus (circa 1446 BC). Here is information adapted from work by S. Michael Houdmann: “The first plague (turning the Nile to blood). ). The Ipuwer Papyrus says, “Plague is throughout the land. Blood is everywhere” (2:5–6). “The river is blood. . . . Men shrink from tasting—human beings, and thirst after water” (2:10). “That is our water! That is our happiness! What shall we do in respect thereof? All is ruin” (3:10–13). The ninth plague (darkness). For three days, the land of Egypt was covered in darkness. (Exodus 10:22–23). The Ipuwer Papyrus says, “The land is without light” (9:11). The tenth and last plague (the death of firstborn males). The Ipuwer Papyrus says, “Forsooth, the children of princes are cast out in the streets” (6:12). “He who places his brother in the ground is everywhere” (2:13). “It is groaning throughout the land, mingled with lamentations” (3:14). The Ipuwer Papyrus also contains a possible reference to the Hebrews’ departure from Egypt, laden with treasures: “Gold and lapis lazuli, silver and malachite, carnelian and bronze . . . Are fastened on the neck of female slaves” (3:2; cf. Exodus 12:35–38). “ ------------------------------------------------------- Feel free to take all the time you need to respond. Good luck on your Finals.
Hyde1 says2017-09-26T23:07:34.0313088Z
Why is this in the science category?
subdeo says2017-09-26T23:29:25.8831765Z
Why shouldn't it be?

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.