oh, I wouldn't worry about me not being able to see from your side of things; I've been there and done it. I've just moved on from it and find it hard to believe I thought that way in the first place anymore. Don't get me wrong, I'm not belittling it or saying it's an inferior way of thinking; it's just one I've had and given up because I find it flawed for me personally =3
For me it's not a case of an outside force nor something that has a reason as such. It's basically our rather less than perfect reproduction creating mutations (basically imperfections in the original genetic code) that lead to a difference. These differences are usually quite small though some can be larger than others. In the end though they either confer an advantage in which case the creature lives on possibly spreads the gene, they have little effect at all which means that once again the gene is possibly passed on where it can change and deviate further or it confers a disadvantage which if severe enough results in the creatures death and/or the inability to find a willing mate; removing it from the gene pool entirely ^^ It's nature demonstrating the good old addage of 'what doesnt kill you, makes you stronger' <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
The big problem of the old 'creator' arguement is that if everything needs to be created or have purpose by that defining logic the thing responsible for the creation must too have a purpose and have been created. If your deity 'has always been there' that kinda flummoxes the whole arguement up... after all if the deity can use that getout clause why can't reality? Reality could've always been there, the Earth could've always been there, Life could've always been there. If you try to create a beginning with the ideal that it is needed then the beginning itself must have a beginning to avoid hypocrisy bringing the whole thing crashing down =/
<b>edit:</b> I managed to spell 'reproduction', 'redproduction' =s
<!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> Haha good points, man we really got too abstract with our final arguments i think lol <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> anyways there's no worth debating something that we can't truely prove, all i know is there is not much to hold onto in this world but I'm glad there is hope from here, this hope for me is God because if there wasn't I probably would just cease to live there would be no point for me....i guess it comes down to I need a purpose and God gives me that purpose in life that i coudlnt survive without...I understand your view and i'm glad we had this discussioin <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> but how can you be happy and go on without a since of purpose in your life, like there's something more then just this reality that we live in now? do things not just look so bleak and pointless if things just happened with no purpose? I just couldnt live like that <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> btw ahah after all this sentimental stuff....*sob*.....we should get together and play this weekend on a server, my AIM: jenson16 jsut an offer <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> thx for the feedback <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Geminosity+Oct 17 2003, 08:15 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Geminosity @ Oct 17 2003, 08:15 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> because a forgiving, merciful, loving god couldn't have just driven the people out with plagues of locusts or magically just relocated them. Nope, "Hey folks! Grab your pitchforks!" <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Look folks, here we have Geminosity claiming omnipresense, right above this sentance. Gemin, in his/her complete knowledge of all things, had taken a look at the actions of God and found that there was an avenue that he didnt explore...
A being is not morally culpable in allowing preventable evil if it has a MORALLY SUFFICIENT REASON. Anyone who attempts to debate that morally sufficient reason is claiming omnipresence. And if you are claiming that, then I know a nice place with nice people and white coats you can stay.
<!--QuoteBegin--TOOL+Oct 17 2003, 11:43 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (TOOL @ Oct 17 2003, 11:43 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> ack no flames marine <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> It is all meant in a friendly manner - that is not meant to be scathing sarcasm. We all love gemin <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
I cant help but notice that this questions have been asked and answered before. i distinctly remember the omnipresence thing before in the argument from evil thread. I now know why these disucssions never get anywhere. Because we argue round in circles. you say A, we say B, you say C, we say D, you say A....
well guys, for me life is about living... not it's end nor reason, but whatever floats peoples boats huh? For me another warm picturesque sunrise to wake to, for others another day of devotion and purpose ^~
Okies, getting back to the argey bargey and cutting out the flowery language here as best I can... <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->God isn't responsible for letting evil take place because he had his reasons<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Tell me if I've oversimplified because that's the jist I got ~pinches marine's cheeks and giggles~
Ah... The never created creator moves in mysterious ways and never bothers telling its children. Convienent =D
<b>Word of God:</b> "Don't kill people! Be nice, be generous and be a crutch for the sick and weak" <b>Disciple:</b> "yes deity" <b>Word of God:</b> "Well... actually... That land I promised you. I let some other people live on it for an undisclosed reason so could you go kill them please so I don't break my promise?" <b>Disciple:</b> "but god! isn't that against one of the very core parts of our fai-" <b>Word of God:</b> "Shush little one and don't ask akward questions, just do as I say or you'll get a hot bottom in hell" <b>Disciple:</b> "but great maker, why did you let this happen and why must I commit an act of hypocrisy against the very words you commanded?" <b>Word of God:</b> "well... uh... I move in mysterious ways, now be a darling and go slaughter those people why don't you? I could've stopped this happening in the first place with my limitless powers or solved them now but I'll make you do this odd and ponderous thing instead so that I once again manage to do my bidding on earth without any proof except, in this case, the word of people with bloodied hands and death at their feet ^^"
Fun piece of somewhat unrelated pedantisism; true omnipotence is actually impossible =D If you were ominipotent you would be able to do anything... so you would be able to make a wall you would never be able to break. But in doing that you prove you aren't omnipotent <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
I'm wondering if you'll try and tackle the endless creator loop problem or leave it be like most other devout followers of christianity I've ever thrown it at Marine <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
Oh and sorry boggle but there's so many religion threads in here it'd take days to go through them with a search, toothpick and comb and find out if every arguement had been done and dealth with before. If I'm repeating the past then have a cookie of apology +5 ^^;
<!--QuoteBegin--Rat+Oct 14 2003, 11:55 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Rat @ Oct 14 2003, 11:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 1) If man is said to have been evolving for well over 2.5 million years (taking it from the emergence of <i>homo habilis</i> and his distinction from the australopithecines), how is it that so little has been adapted, applied or built until only the last few thousand years? Do you have that little faith in human potential and adaptation? How is it that in the last four to five centuries we have gone from an age of steel stabbing tools to advanced electronically guided weapons and machines yet in the first 2.4 <i>million</i> years we had advanced barely beyond the primitive hand axe, flint shaper, hammer stone and other crude impliments?
2) Why is it that archaeologists, anthropologists and paleontologists believe that in the last 200 to 300 thousand years that the brain capacity of <i>homo sapiens sapiens</i> has not changed a significant amount (roughly 1350 cc) despite a <i>steady</i> progression of brain size increasing from <i>h. habilis</i> (600-800cc) to <i>h. sapiens sapiens</i> for over two <i>million</i> years? What has caused this stall in evolutionary progress of the homo genus and namely the sapiens species that it has not grown in brain capacity or size in roughly 300 thousand years after two million years of steady progression?
3) Discounting australopithecines, are there any other links, hopefully clearer than the <i>A. africanus</i> to <i>h. habilis</i> link? Where's the "missing link"? Without scientific proof of the "missing link" why is my faith more misguided and unrealistic than yours? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> As far as those of you who are discussing evolution and your belief in it as a theory of creation, please, answer me the questions I posed earlier. you can find them above
unfortunately I'm more readily versed in the ideologies and theories behind religions and science than the actual practicalities but I'll blind you with amazement using my awesome powers of random pointless and highly inaccurate waffling XD
1) exponential learning curve? ~shrug~ =s
2) ooh! ooh!!! I know this one!!! I saw it on a TV documentary thingy. They're still debating the finer points of it but the current strong theory for this (there's 2 but I don't remember the other one) is our diet. It's got something to do with the nutrients and oils gained from eating seacreatures, especially things like fish, helping promote the health of the big squishy grey matter bobbing about in our skulls. It still works in practise today because a healthy diet including fish is good for your brain <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> Anyways, the finer details are so lost on me I might as well have just made this up so I'll stop dancing about trying to remember stuff now ^^;
3) because yours is based around you having an all-important reason and while you only have scriptures written by the hands of humans and words of mouth to bring you to your decision, even the tenous thread of logic utilized by evolution to join the species mentioned without a 'missing link' has basis on both sides of it's bridge on something physical not created by our own hands? =D
Waii! My ignorance and lack of knowledge astounds even me <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Well considering people were nomadic untill about 10 thousand years ago I don't really see anything amazing about your claims Rat, any real scientific progress has to be made through a strong culture, and moving thousands of miles every season prevented that. Real scientific progress comes through strong societies, just look at the Greeks 3000 years ago, and look at thirld world countries today.
Mathametics and engineering came about almost instantly after the agroculturial revolution that let people make farms and settle into areas year-round. Now if you want to talk about amazing and strange happenings you can bring up why 12 different cultures scattered across the world without anyway to communicate all discovered farming at the same time.
There is nothing that could make me believe in a god by many definitions. No superman created the universe, and if it did, what created it? Even if some powerful being was shown to exist, I don't have any reason to call it "god" as that term is one full of unneeded connotations.
Also, I would certainly not worship, or even necessarily respect such a being. I don't care for any favors it would pass out to its people; eternal life and happiness seem illogical and meaningless to me. Life sucks sometimes, but that just makes the scale for defining good moments all the more concrete.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--FilthyLarry+Oct 17 2003, 07:01 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FilthyLarry @ Oct 17 2003, 07:01 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Boggle and co: Why is having love for your family and friends not enough of a reason to live in and of itself ? Humanity isn't perfect...but geez, it's not all bad you know. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> My family is the reason i live, God is the reason i am not afraid of death. It is possible to care about more that one thing <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Good to hear that. Seriously.
You guys were starting to worry me with the whole "without God me might as well murder/steal/be bad guys" routine.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> P.S.: I'm still waiting for my explanation as to why Yaweh allowed a hymn to Baal to be modified and put in his book <!--emo&::nerdy::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/nerd.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='nerd.gif'><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah, im still waiting for your explanation as well... <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> What hymn? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hmmm.... You missed my origins of the bible thread. Interesting finds at Ugarit... take a look for yourself <a href='http://www.theology.edu/ugarbib.htm' target='_blank'>Ugarit</a>
As for how the hymn came to be in there...well, I have several theories and none of those will you like.
I coulda sworn I took a poke at that Ugarit thing before.....
Basically, the Hebrew language seems to have been very much influenced by those people, and I dont find it strange that they would have stolen other peoples songs and made them to their deity. "Hey, nice tune, I like I like - but if we just cut out the Baal reference, we could be well on our way to no. 1"
That is a statement on the Hebrew language, not on the actual origins of the Bible.
Geminosity - omnipresence is being everywhere - I actually meant omniscence, which is all knowing. But I think you got the message. To be omnipotent, or all powerful, means that if anything is possible, you can do it. And if something is possible, God can make it happen. However, God has set himself boundaries - he cannot lie or contradict himself.
So no, he cant make that wall - but that doesnt make him any less omnipotent.
uh-huh, i know the differences, but god is meant to be all of them anyways. The point is that omnipotent means all-powerful as in capable of literally anything. Like I said though if you were capable of literally anything you'd be able to make a wall you couldn't break. Of course if you can't break that wall then it means you're not omnipotent, but if you could break the wall that means you can't make a wall you can't break which once again means you're not omnipotent. By it's very definition it's actually an impossible thing to even be because it contrasts itself ^^;
It's not really all that important in the case of people's religions and stuff to me but it's always something I found kinda funny all the same =3
EpidemicDark Force GorgeJoin Date: 2003-06-29Member: 17781Members
He said that omnipotent means that one is capable of anything that can happen. Which is also dictated by the laws of psychics. An unbreakable wall cant happen <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Maybe but the textbook definition of omnipotent is "limitless power; power without limitations" It's just a pedantisism and it's not really important but like I said I just think it's a rather odd word. Besides if God existed and set itself limits then by definition it wouldn't omnipotent because it's powers are being limited, it doesn't matter that those limits are voluntary; the fact it's held back at all means it breaks the super-geeky-concise meaning that's all <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Geminosity+Oct 17 2003, 07:09 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Geminosity @ Oct 17 2003, 07:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Maybe but the textbook definition of omnipotent is "limitless power; power without limitations" It's just a pedantisism and it's not really important but like I said I just think it's a rather odd word. Besides if God existed and set itself limits then by definition it wouldn't omnipotent because it's powers are being limited, it doesn't matter that those limits are voluntary; the fact it's held back at all means it breaks the super-geeky-concise meaning that's all <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Well if that is the textbook definition, then God has in no way claimed that. He has merely called himself the most powerful mofo in town, if it can be done, then if he feels inclined to make it happen, he will.
<!--QuoteBegin--Marine01+Oct 17 2003, 06:23 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Oct 17 2003, 06:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I coulda sworn I took a poke at that Ugarit thing before.....
Basically, the Hebrew language seems to have been very much influenced by those people, and I dont find it strange that they would have stolen other peoples songs and made them to their deity. "Hey, nice tune, I like I like - but if we just cut out the Baal reference, we could be well on our way to no. 1"
That is a statement on the Hebrew language, not on the actual origins of the Bible. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> At the end of my last thread the question I posed was <b>why would Yahweh allow a hymn to Baal to be modified and put in his book ?</b>
No-one answered that sufficiently. Some of the ideas thrown around were..."it's just poetry so what"...or it's "just a song".
<b>Now consider though that the Bible is supposed to be the word of God/Yahweh and not the word of Baal. So which is more likely:</b>
i) Yahweh decides that the hymn to Baal is actually kinda cool. So, lets include it. Even at the risk of sounding like nothing more than a Baal-ish wannabe. ----- or ii) <b>Man</b> decides "gee that hymn to Baal is great and Yahweh must be as great so let's include this".
Either way this is very, very damaging to the <i>credibility of Yahweh</i>. I can understand why you guys are reluctant to discuss the OT because it presents quite a thorn in your side.
It pertains directly to the origins of the Bible because it asks the question "was all of the Bible divinely inspired, or were parts of it simply copied from other neighbouring religions ?".
I do not wish to put words in your mouth Marine but you yourself said in a related thread something to the effect of "the Bible is all Christians have, so if you prove some of it bogus then all of it falls apart". Not so ?
yes, if you prove the bible is wrong, the whole christain faith will fall apart. Fortunately, no one has done that yet, so we are still here.
I do not see how the hymn is damaging the credibility of yahweh. It is a song praising him, created by man for God. They borrowed it in the same way you borrow the english language instead of making one of your own up. It doesnt damage your credibility using english
[edit]<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->At the end of my last thread the question I posed was why would Yahweh allow a hymn to Baal to be modified and put in his book ?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is no longer a hymn to Baal. All references to Baal have been removed. It is now a hymn to Yahweh [/edit]
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> yes, if you prove the bible is wrong, the whole christain faith will fall apart. Fortunately, no one has done that yet, so we are still here. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
IMO I have done just that. I realized a while back though that even if I could prove it be wrong it would change absolutely nothing. You guys need it to be right and that is that.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I do not see how the hymn is damaging the credibility of yahweh. It is a song praising him, created by man for God. They borrowed it in the same way you borrow the english language instead of making one of your own up. It doesnt damage your credibility using english <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Created by man for God eh ? In other words <b>made up stuff that is not divinely inspired</b>. That opens up a huge can of bible-eating worms. So what else is made up...the flood story that appears ? Honestly, the only thing left is some possible non-divine historic facts like the many wars they fought in.
Credibility for using english is one thing - when you use your own words. When you borrow someone else's you open yourself up for trouble.
We're talking about a hymn to Yahweh people.... something supposedly sacred here. Not just a mere poem... how can you just brush aside this so matter-of-factly ? IMO the inescapable truth is that Yahweh is no better than Baal, and no more real.
Adam and Eve... seems to be adapted from yet older stuff... <a href='http://www.uoregon.edu/~dfalk/courses/bible/creation%20myths.htm' target='_blank'>Creation</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> [edit]<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->At the end of my last thread the question I posed was why would Yahweh allow a hymn to Baal to be modified and put in his book ?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is no longer a hymn to Baal. All references to Baal have been removed. It is now a hymn to Yahweh [/edit] <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So Yahweh was satisfied with taking on the hymn of a 'false' god ? Seems his standards are pretty low wouldn't you say ?
<!--QuoteBegin--dr.d+Oct 17 2003, 12:58 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (dr.d @ Oct 17 2003, 12:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Well considering people were nomadic untill about 10 thousand years ago I don't really see anything amazing about your claims Rat, any real scientific progress has to be made through a strong culture, and moving thousands of miles every season prevented that. Real scientific progress comes through strong societies, just look at the Greeks 3000 years ago, and look at thirld world countries today.
Mathametics and engineering came about almost instantly after the agroculturial revolution that let people make farms and settle into areas year-round. Now if you want to talk about amazing and strange happenings you can bring up why 12 different cultures scattered across the world without anyway to communicate all discovered farming at the same time. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I didn't make a single claim. I asked 3 questions that concern specific, applied principles of evolution. It is an attempt to get people to actually examine the "i believe we evolved statement" and address whether they actually have a legitimate amount of knowledge about the subject. Any "claims" in there are based on <i>scientific</i> studies done by <i>supporters</i> of evolutionary theory (namely regarding brain size and timelines involved if you want to call those "claims" rather than researched data from anthropologists and other scientists of ancient man) and I'm wondering if supporters of evolution could actually answer some of the questions I posed. I still have yet to get an actual answer.
Regarding nomadism--you're saying that for roughly 290 thousand years <i>Homo sapiens sapiens</i> was nomadic and thus was incapable of advancement? What prevented them up until then from non-intensive agriculture or horticulture (slash-and-burn farming)? Was it their lack of technology (which you claim one must be in a static location to develop)? Their lack of ability to subsist off the land they were on? Please provide some analysis behind your points...
As far as the development of mathematics and what you consider engineering, feel free to cite specific historical examples with accurate timelines to demonstrate your point...
<!--QuoteBegin--FilthyLarry+Oct 18 2003, 01:38 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FilthyLarry @ Oct 18 2003, 01:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> IMO I have done just that. I realized a while back though that even if I could prove it be wrong it would change absolutely nothing. You guys need it to be right and that is that. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, you in all your deepseated and far-reaching analysis have disproven a book that began development thousands of years ago; has more written verification of the acts of Moses, David, Christ, the Apostles and others than there is written proof George Washington, Henry VIII or Napoleon ever walked this earth; has been examined by tens of thousands of scholars worldwide who were unable to absolutely proof the lack of veracity in the events depicted or the teachings given; and did it all in one forum post.
I bow to the size of your intarweb ****. Yuo R teh my n3w s4v|o|2
<!--QuoteBegin--Rat+Oct 18 2003, 03:11 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Rat @ Oct 18 2003, 03:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--FilthyLarry+Oct 18 2003, 01:38 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FilthyLarry @ Oct 18 2003, 01:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> IMO I have done just that. I realized a while back though that even if I could prove it be wrong it would change absolutely nothing. You guys need it to be right and that is that. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, you in all your deepseated and far-reaching analysis have disproven a book that began development thousands of years ago; has more written verification of the acts of Moses, David, Christ, the Apostles and others than there is written proof George Washington, Henry VIII or Napoleon ever walked this earth; has been examined by tens of thousands of scholars worldwide who were unable to absolutely proof the lack of veracity in the events depicted or the teachings given; and did it all in one forum post.
I bow to the size of your intarweb ****. Yuo R teh my n3w s4v|o|2 <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> And if I was some academic that had studied the Bible and related texts for 40 years and still come up with the same opinions you'd be more inclined to believe them eh ? I think not.
You know why there never will be absolute proof ? Simple. <b>Far too many people have a vested interest in Christianity</b>. It will take a long time to die out (if ever) because people keep perpetuating it from generation to generation. "You want the truth... you can't handle the truth !".
Now then, do you have an actual answer to my argument besides the "lots of really smart people disagree" approach ?
When was the last time - golden light shone forth and heavenly angels sang - when you read the Bible ? You said it yourself, it is a book. Written by Man. You believe Yahweh more than Baal ? Why ? Because of ancient text ? Lots of gods have wonderful texts that contain many great fantastic tales also. Oddly enough some of those are rather close to the ones in the Bible...hmmmm....
Larry, I have no problem with my God permitting a heathen him to be modified to praise him instead. Everything in the Bible has divine inspiration, and I dont see why the author could not have been inspired to modify that hymn and make it to God. If, however, the author had started that hymn with "An this is a little ol' hymn God wrote for me last night, pure 100% original and all his with no other outside influence", then it would be incompatible with the idea that the Bible is 100% correct.
Songs can be modified and adapted, as can poetry - specific events and people cannot.
And then add to that that if the creation story/other associated events in the Bible are actually true, then it in no way surprises me that other cultures will have a Great Flood story/ Longer day story/very similar creation story. It doesnt speak of plagurism to me, it speaks of authenticity and accuracy.
<!--QuoteBegin--TOOL+Oct 17 2003, 10:24 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (TOOL @ Oct 17 2003, 10:24 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> One question to the atheists, if evolution created everything then is evolution your god? and if not who created evolution? or does most everyone accept there is a creator but they just don't know which spiritual walk is the true road to God? or do most of you not believe in evolution at all?
P.S.-this is not a flame so don't get angry...its curiousity and btw i'm assuming the atheists in here believe in evolution, once again not a stereotype but an assumption. no flaming intended as my comment could be taken in offense. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I will one up you. Where did god come from? And you can't say "Magically appeared".
God has always been. When the Jews asked him to explain who he was - he said "I AM". In other words, its me guys. He didnt say "Third God on the right created 4000BC, he just said "I AM", because a better explaination is lacking.
God created a universe in which everything comes from SOMETHING else. Thus it is impossible for us to understand how something could just have eternally pre-existed. So we take it on faith. God has always been, he was never created.
Another important point - God created time itself, and exists outside of it, so its really hard to try and specify WHEN he came to be.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The big problem of the old 'creator' arguement is that if everything needs to be created or have purpose by that defining logic the thing responsible for the creation must too have a purpose and have been created. If your deity 'has always been there' that kinda flummoxes the whole arguement up... after all if the deity can use that getout clause why can't reality? Reality could've always been there, the Earth could've always been there, Life could've always been there. If you try to create a beginning with the ideal that it is needed then the beginning itself must have a beginning to avoid hypocrisy bringing the whole thing crashing down =/<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just to re-iterate in light of your post: If god can use the 'always been there' then there's nothing to stop people who aren't christian from saying the universe has always been here and therefore didn't need a god to create it. It's a self-defeating arguement ^^;
Well you can claim that the Universe has always been if you like, I dont feel that that has made my arguement any more or less valid. Its entirely possible the Universe HAS always been.
<!--QuoteBegin--Marine01+Oct 18 2003, 06:21 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Oct 18 2003, 06:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Larry, I have no problem with my God permitting a heathen him to be modified to praise him instead. Everything in the Bible has divine inspiration, and I dont see why the author could not have been inspired to modify that hymn and make it to God. If, however, the author had started that hymn with "An this is a little ol' hymn God wrote for me last night, pure 100% original and all his with no other outside influence", then it would be incompatible with the idea that the Bible is 100% correct.
Songs can be modified and adapted, as can poetry - specific events and people cannot.
And then add to that that if the creation story/other associated events in the Bible are actually true, then it in no way surprises me that other cultures will have a Great Flood story/ Longer day story/very similar creation story. It doesnt speak of plagurism to me, it speaks of authenticity and accuracy. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Marine, fair enough I suppose. Although it seems a contradiction for Yahweh to want to separate himself from Baal by not having images made of himself, and yet be content to be described in a similar fashion.
You see the similar stories in other cultures as something of a 'verification'. The problem with this though is while they are similar they have alot of differences. So which version is right ? And what makes your version more correct when everyone has one ? Especially a more likely older version of yours.
As I posted before, Yahweh gets angry/demands sacrifices just like the other gods. If you want to believe he is the 'one', then that is your right of course. However I fail to see how can you say for certain that Yahweh exists and Baal doesn't when all evidence - in ancient texts - really points to it being equally likely that they exist in reality.
Comments
For me it's not a case of an outside force nor something that has a reason as such. It's basically our rather less than perfect reproduction creating mutations (basically imperfections in the original genetic code) that lead to a difference. These differences are usually quite small though some can be larger than others.
In the end though they either confer an advantage in which case the creature lives on possibly spreads the gene, they have little effect at all which means that once again the gene is possibly passed on where it can change and deviate further or it confers a disadvantage which if severe enough results in the creatures death and/or the inability to find a willing mate; removing it from the gene pool entirely ^^
It's nature demonstrating the good old addage of 'what doesnt kill you, makes you stronger' <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
The big problem of the old 'creator' arguement is that if everything needs to be created or have purpose by that defining logic the thing responsible for the creation must too have a purpose and have been created. If your deity 'has always been there' that kinda flummoxes the whole arguement up... after all if the deity can use that getout clause why can't reality? Reality could've always been there, the Earth could've always been there, Life could've always been there. If you try to create a beginning with the ideal that it is needed then the beginning itself must have a beginning to avoid hypocrisy bringing the whole thing crashing down =/
<b>edit:</b> I managed to spell 'reproduction', 'redproduction' =s
Look folks, here we have Geminosity claiming omnipresense, right above this sentance. Gemin, in his/her complete knowledge of all things, had taken a look at the actions of God and found that there was an avenue that he didnt explore...
A being is not morally culpable in allowing preventable evil if it has a MORALLY SUFFICIENT REASON. Anyone who attempts to debate that morally sufficient reason is claiming omnipresence. And if you are claiming that, then I know a nice place with nice people and white coats you can stay.
It is all meant in a friendly manner - that is not meant to be scathing sarcasm. We all love gemin <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
nah, im only joking
I cant help but notice that this questions have been asked and answered before. i distinctly remember the omnipresence thing before in the argument from evil thread. I now know why these disucssions never get anywhere. Because we argue round in circles. you say A, we say B, you say C, we say D, you say A....
well guys, for me life is about living... not it's end nor reason, but whatever floats peoples boats huh? For me another warm picturesque sunrise to wake to, for others another day of devotion and purpose ^~
Okies, getting back to the argey bargey and cutting out the flowery language here as best I can...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->God isn't responsible for letting evil take place because he had his reasons<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Tell me if I've oversimplified because that's the jist I got ~pinches marine's cheeks and giggles~
Ah... The never created creator moves in mysterious ways and never bothers telling its children. Convienent =D
<b>Word of God:</b> "Don't kill people! Be nice, be generous and be a crutch for the sick and weak"
<b>Disciple:</b> "yes deity"
<b>Word of God:</b> "Well... actually... That land I promised you. I let some other people live on it for an undisclosed reason so could you go kill them please so I don't break my promise?"
<b>Disciple:</b> "but god! isn't that against one of the very core parts of our fai-"
<b>Word of God:</b> "Shush little one and don't ask akward questions, just do as I say or you'll get a hot bottom in hell"
<b>Disciple:</b> "but great maker, why did you let this happen and why must I commit an act of hypocrisy against the very words you commanded?"
<b>Word of God:</b> "well... uh... I move in mysterious ways, now be a darling and go slaughter those people why don't you? I could've stopped this happening in the first place with my limitless powers or solved them now but I'll make you do this odd and ponderous thing instead so that I once again manage to do my bidding on earth without any proof except, in this case, the word of people with bloodied hands and death at their feet ^^"
Fun piece of somewhat unrelated pedantisism; true omnipotence is actually impossible =D
If you were ominipotent you would be able to do anything... so you would be able to make a wall you would never be able to break. But in doing that you prove you aren't omnipotent <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
I'm wondering if you'll try and tackle the endless creator loop problem or leave it be like most other devout followers of christianity I've ever thrown it at Marine <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
Oh and sorry boggle but there's so many religion threads in here it'd take days to go through them with a search, toothpick and comb and find out if every arguement had been done and dealth with before. If I'm repeating the past then have a cookie of apology +5 ^^;
2) Why is it that archaeologists, anthropologists and paleontologists believe that in the last 200 to 300 thousand years that the brain capacity of <i>homo sapiens sapiens</i> has not changed a significant amount (roughly 1350 cc) despite a <i>steady</i> progression of brain size increasing from <i>h. habilis</i> (600-800cc) to <i>h. sapiens sapiens</i> for over two <i>million</i> years? What has caused this stall in evolutionary progress of the homo genus and namely the sapiens species that it has not grown in brain capacity or size in roughly 300 thousand years after two million years of steady progression?
3) Discounting australopithecines, are there any other links, hopefully clearer than the <i>A. africanus</i> to <i>h. habilis</i> link? Where's the "missing link"? Without scientific proof of the "missing link" why is my faith more misguided and unrealistic than yours? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As far as those of you who are discussing evolution and your belief in it as a theory of creation, please, answer me the questions I posed earlier. you can find them above
1) exponential learning curve? ~shrug~ =s
2) ooh! ooh!!! I know this one!!! I saw it on a TV documentary thingy. They're still debating the finer points of it but the current strong theory for this (there's 2 but I don't remember the other one) is our diet. It's got something to do with the nutrients and oils gained from eating seacreatures, especially things like fish, helping promote the health of the big squishy grey matter bobbing about in our skulls. It still works in practise today because a healthy diet including fish is good for your brain <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Anyways, the finer details are so lost on me I might as well have just made this up so I'll stop dancing about trying to remember stuff now ^^;
3) because yours is based around you having an all-important reason and while you only have scriptures written by the hands of humans and words of mouth to bring you to your decision, even the tenous thread of logic utilized by evolution to join the species mentioned without a 'missing link' has basis on both sides of it's bridge on something physical not created by our own hands? =D
Waii! My ignorance and lack of knowledge astounds even me <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Mathametics and engineering came about almost instantly after the agroculturial revolution that let people make farms and settle into areas year-round. Now if you want to talk about amazing and strange happenings you can bring up why 12 different cultures scattered across the world without anyway to communicate all discovered farming at the same time.
Also, I would certainly not worship, or even necessarily respect such a being. I don't care for any favors it would pass out to its people; eternal life and happiness seem illogical and meaningless to me. Life sucks sometimes, but that just makes the scale for defining good moments all the more concrete.
How about you keep an open mind here?
<!--QuoteBegin--FilthyLarry+Oct 17 2003, 07:01 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FilthyLarry @ Oct 17 2003, 07:01 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Boggle and co: Why is having love for your family and friends not enough of a reason to live in and of itself ? Humanity isn't perfect...but geez, it's not all bad you know.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My family is the reason i live, God is the reason i am not afraid of death. It is possible to care about more that one thing
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good to hear that. Seriously.
You guys were starting to worry me with the whole "without God me might as well murder/steal/be bad guys" routine.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
P.S.: I'm still waiting for my explanation as to why Yaweh allowed a hymn to Baal to be modified and put in his book <!--emo&::nerdy::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/nerd.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='nerd.gif'><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, im still waiting for your explanation as well... <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
What hymn?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hmmm.... You missed my origins of the bible thread. Interesting finds at Ugarit... take a look for yourself
<a href='http://www.theology.edu/ugarbib.htm' target='_blank'>Ugarit</a>
As for how the hymn came to be in there...well, I have several theories and none of those will you like.
Basically, the Hebrew language seems to have been very much influenced by those people, and I dont find it strange that they would have stolen other peoples songs and made them to their deity. "Hey, nice tune, I like I like - but if we just cut out the Baal reference, we could be well on our way to no. 1"
That is a statement on the Hebrew language, not on the actual origins of the Bible.
Geminosity - omnipresence is being everywhere - I actually meant omniscence, which is all knowing. But I think you got the message. To be omnipotent, or all powerful, means that if anything is possible, you can do it. And if something is possible, God can make it happen. However, God has set himself boundaries - he cannot lie or contradict himself.
So no, he cant make that wall - but that doesnt make him any less omnipotent.
It's not really all that important in the case of people's religions and stuff to me but it's always something I found kinda funny all the same =3
Well if that is the textbook definition, then God has in no way claimed that. He has merely called himself the most powerful mofo in town, if it can be done, then if he feels inclined to make it happen, he will.
Basically, the Hebrew language seems to have been very much influenced by those people, and I dont find it strange that they would have stolen other peoples songs and made them to their deity. "Hey, nice tune, I like I like - but if we just cut out the Baal reference, we could be well on our way to no. 1"
That is a statement on the Hebrew language, not on the actual origins of the Bible. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
At the end of my last thread the question I posed was <b>why would Yahweh allow a hymn to Baal to be modified and put in his book ?</b>
No-one answered that sufficiently. Some of the ideas thrown around were..."it's just poetry so what"...or it's "just a song".
<b>Now consider though that the Bible is supposed to be the word of God/Yahweh and not the word of Baal. So which is more likely:</b>
i) Yahweh decides that the hymn to Baal is actually kinda cool. So, lets include it. Even at the risk of sounding like nothing more than a Baal-ish wannabe.
----- or
ii) <b>Man</b> decides "gee that hymn to Baal is great and Yahweh must be as great so let's include this".
Either way this is very, very damaging to the <i>credibility of Yahweh</i>. I can understand why you guys are reluctant to discuss the OT because it presents quite a thorn in your side.
It pertains directly to the origins of the Bible because it asks the question "was all of the Bible divinely inspired, or were parts of it simply copied from other neighbouring religions ?".
I do not wish to put words in your mouth Marine but you yourself said in a related thread something to the effect of "the Bible is all Christians have, so if you prove some of it bogus then all of it falls apart". Not so ?
I do not see how the hymn is damaging the credibility of yahweh. It is a song praising him, created by man for God. They borrowed it in the same way you borrow the english language instead of making one of your own up. It doesnt damage your credibility using english
[edit]<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->At the end of my last thread the question I posed was why would Yahweh allow a hymn to Baal to be modified and put in his book ?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is no longer a hymn to Baal. All references to Baal have been removed. It is now a hymn to Yahweh [/edit]
yes, if you prove the bible is wrong, the whole christain faith will fall apart. Fortunately, no one has done that yet, so we are still here.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
IMO I have done just that. I realized a while back though that even if I could prove it be wrong it would change absolutely nothing. You guys need it to be right and that is that.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
I do not see how the hymn is damaging the credibility of yahweh. It is a song praising him, created by man for God. They borrowed it in the same way you borrow the english language instead of making one of your own up. It doesnt damage your credibility using english
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Created by man for God eh ? In other words <b>made up stuff that is not divinely inspired</b>. That opens up a huge can of bible-eating worms. So what else is made up...the flood story that appears ? Honestly, the only thing left is some possible non-divine historic facts like the many wars they fought in.
Credibility for using english is one thing - when you use your own words. When you borrow someone else's you open yourself up for trouble.
We're talking about a hymn to Yahweh people.... something supposedly sacred here. Not just a mere poem... how can you just brush aside this so matter-of-factly ? IMO the inescapable truth is that Yahweh is no better than Baal, and no more real.
Adam and Eve... seems to be adapted from yet older stuff... <a href='http://www.uoregon.edu/~dfalk/courses/bible/creation%20myths.htm' target='_blank'>Creation</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
[edit]<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->At the end of my last thread the question I posed was why would Yahweh allow a hymn to Baal to be modified and put in his book ?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is no longer a hymn to Baal. All references to Baal have been removed. It is now a hymn to Yahweh [/edit]
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So Yahweh was satisfied with taking on the hymn of a 'false' god ? Seems his standards are pretty low wouldn't you say ?
Mathametics and engineering came about almost instantly after the agroculturial revolution that let people make farms and settle into areas year-round. Now if you want to talk about amazing and strange happenings you can bring up why 12 different cultures scattered across the world without anyway to communicate all discovered farming at the same time. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't make a single claim. I asked 3 questions that concern specific, applied principles of evolution. It is an attempt to get people to actually examine the "i believe we evolved statement" and address whether they actually have a legitimate amount of knowledge about the subject. Any "claims" in there are based on <i>scientific</i> studies done by <i>supporters</i> of evolutionary theory (namely regarding brain size and timelines involved if you want to call those "claims" rather than researched data from anthropologists and other scientists of ancient man) and I'm wondering if supporters of evolution could actually answer some of the questions I posed. I still have yet to get an actual answer.
Regarding nomadism--you're saying that for roughly 290 thousand years <i>Homo sapiens sapiens</i> was nomadic and thus was incapable of advancement? What prevented them up until then from non-intensive agriculture or horticulture (slash-and-burn farming)? Was it their lack of technology (which you claim one must be in a static location to develop)? Their lack of ability to subsist off the land they were on? Please provide some analysis behind your points...
As far as the development of mathematics and what you consider engineering, feel free to cite specific historical examples with accurate timelines to demonstrate your point...
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, you in all your deepseated and far-reaching analysis have disproven a book that began development thousands of years ago; has more written verification of the acts of Moses, David, Christ, the Apostles and others than there is written proof George Washington, Henry VIII or Napoleon ever walked this earth; has been examined by tens of thousands of scholars worldwide who were unable to absolutely proof the lack of veracity in the events depicted or the teachings given; and did it all in one forum post.
I bow to the size of your intarweb ****. Yuo R teh my n3w s4v|o|2
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, you in all your deepseated and far-reaching analysis have disproven a book that began development thousands of years ago; has more written verification of the acts of Moses, David, Christ, the Apostles and others than there is written proof George Washington, Henry VIII or Napoleon ever walked this earth; has been examined by tens of thousands of scholars worldwide who were unable to absolutely proof the lack of veracity in the events depicted or the teachings given; and did it all in one forum post.
I bow to the size of your intarweb ****. Yuo R teh my n3w s4v|o|2 <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And if I was some academic that had studied the Bible and related texts for 40 years and still come up with the same opinions you'd be more inclined to believe them eh ? I think not.
You know why there never will be absolute proof ? Simple. <b>Far too many people have a vested interest in Christianity</b>. It will take a long time to die out (if ever) because people keep perpetuating it from generation to generation. "You want the truth... you can't handle the truth !".
Now then, do you have an actual answer to my argument besides the "lots of really smart people disagree" approach ?
When was the last time - golden light shone forth and heavenly angels sang - when you read the Bible ? You said it yourself, it is a book. Written by Man. You believe Yahweh more than Baal ? Why ? Because of ancient text ? Lots of gods have wonderful texts that contain many great fantastic tales also. Oddly enough some of those are rather close to the ones in the Bible...hmmmm....
Songs can be modified and adapted, as can poetry - specific events and people cannot.
And then add to that that if the creation story/other associated events in the Bible are actually true, then it in no way surprises me that other cultures will have a Great Flood story/ Longer day story/very similar creation story. It doesnt speak of plagurism to me, it speaks of authenticity and accuracy.
P.S.-this is not a flame so don't get angry...its curiousity and btw i'm assuming the atheists in here believe in evolution, once again not a stereotype but an assumption. no flaming intended as my comment could be taken in offense. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I will one up you. Where did god come from? And you can't say "Magically appeared".
God created a universe in which everything comes from SOMETHING else. Thus it is impossible for us to understand how something could just have eternally pre-existed. So we take it on faith. God has always been, he was never created.
Another important point - God created time itself, and exists outside of it, so its really hard to try and specify WHEN he came to be.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The big problem of the old 'creator' arguement is that if everything needs to be created or have purpose by that defining logic the thing responsible for the creation must too have a purpose and have been created. If your deity 'has always been there' that kinda flummoxes the whole arguement up... after all if the deity can use that getout clause why can't reality? Reality could've always been there, the Earth could've always been there, Life could've always been there. If you try to create a beginning with the ideal that it is needed then the beginning itself must have a beginning to avoid hypocrisy bringing the whole thing crashing down =/<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just to re-iterate in light of your post: If god can use the 'always been there' then there's nothing to stop people who aren't christian from saying the universe has always been here and therefore didn't need a god to create it. It's a self-defeating arguement ^^;
Songs can be modified and adapted, as can poetry - specific events and people cannot.
And then add to that that if the creation story/other associated events in the Bible are actually true, then it in no way surprises me that other cultures will have a Great Flood story/ Longer day story/very similar creation story. It doesnt speak of plagurism to me, it speaks of authenticity and accuracy. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Marine, fair enough I suppose. Although it seems a contradiction for Yahweh to want to separate himself from Baal by not having images made of himself, and yet be content to be described in a similar fashion.
You see the similar stories in other cultures as something of a 'verification'. The problem with this though is while they are similar they have alot of differences. So which version is right ? And what makes your version more correct when everyone has one ? Especially a more likely older version of yours.
As I posted before, Yahweh gets angry/demands sacrifices just like the other gods. If you want to believe he is the 'one', then that is your right of course. However I fail to see how can you say for certain that Yahweh exists and Baal doesn't when all evidence - in ancient texts - really points to it being equally likely that they exist in reality.