Questions for Evolutionists

[jonesthecurl]

No thanks I'm trying to give it up.

[PLAYER57832]

Science is not a bad thing. But lies are. Lets not confuse the theory of evolution with science.

You are mistaken.
There is much more to science than evolution, but any mode of inquiry that uses the scientific method is science.

Unfortunately, despite what you have been duped into believing. Dr Morris and his young earth institute don't practice much good science. They tend to illustrate quite well why all students need to learn what science actually is and to think critically about evidence.

There are no observable fact that can be replicated to support the theory of evolution. That science has observed germs and viruses mutate in a laboratory setting is not evolution, as I alluded to that in this recent article

Things change over time. That even your l auded institute admits, now... though they did not in the past.

That is all that is necessary to show evidence allowing that evolution might be true.
Beyond that, why is it that you are so intent on insisting that EVERY SINGLE example we show is either not evolution or false, even while we clearly explain how mistaken you are?

Again, what you call "microevolution" IS what brought about the theory of evolution. Since then scientists have observed more and more evidence, learned more about mutations, about past layers of the Earth, about cataclysmic responses, etc, etc.

To get people to think as you means not simply saying "eh... bleh, don;t like your evidence, never mind how often its replicated or studied" It requires you to actually prove evolution is wrong AND show proof, not ideas and supposed "logic" (which, in your case, is only pretended logic.. sorry) that your ideas even could be true.

Oh, yeah.. and stop pretending that simply saying "there must be God" means "no evolution" because, despite what you have been told, most evolutionists ARE Christian (in this country -- in other countries the religion varies).

The fact is that if what is being done in Evolutionary Science was done in any other science such as Medicine or even Cosmology; then those Doctor's and scientist would be disrobed, slapped in the face and put to shame. How dare a doctor practice medicine on me base on a foundationless theory with no evidence to support it what so ever except that Mutations are a fact so Evolution must also be a fact. That's nonsense.

Ignoring evidence and telling kids it doesn't exist doesn't mean it just disappears. We have shown you where to find many realms of evidence. You have yet to investigate even one.. and yet chastize us for not reading, in full, articles you present (even if some of us have read them and most of us have read very similar stuff many times previously... see you are hardly the first to claim to know more than all of science).

Like you said a theory attempts to explain a thing. Well then why is Creationism then flat out rejected when there are more facts to support Creationism then Evolution?

Don't confuse yourself there.

Creationism.. the idea that God made all. I fully support, most people support and believe. Voila, problem solved!

The issue is not with this idea that God created everything. The problem comes when you try to claim that he did it all in 6 rotations of our Earth or 6000, 200,000 or even a million years ago, AND that science demonstrates this. Science does no such thing unless you ignore and twist date phenomenally.

Problem also comes in when, as you keep doing, folks assert that there is no evidence to support evolution, only "microevolution" and other nonsense. To have your criticisms taken seriously means first understanding what you criticize. Most of your criticism has little or nothibng to do with evolution. Its a fictitious set of precepts, largely set up by the IRC, designed to convince parents that this group actually understands science and has a real argument.. even though they are not.

This is not science but closed minded ignorance. Why should Science reject any sound theory especially when there are facts behind it?

Sound theories are not rejected. Young Earth Creationism particularly such "arguments" claiming to dispute evolution are. In particular, most of your arguments don't even deal with evolution and those that do deal with evolution are just "eh.. you folks have been lied to and if you believe these lies, then you are idiots". Your arguments are about about as far from science as you can get.

The Theory of Evolution does not and that is what I am demonstrating in my post, for all to see.

Except all you have really shown is that you don't understand evolution, think ignoring data means it did not happend have no interest in educating yourself, even whilst you deride others for not thinking as you do.

See, the irony is that most of us here could have reciting basically every argument you wrote before you wrote it, because we have debated this many times before. BUT.. you don't even know one tenth of what we say and cannot be bothered to see if we might be speaking truth. Nope, you are just convinced that you know the truth and never mind what anyone else says.

A flat out lie like the theory of evolution should never be taught in a Classroom. It is not science. It is purely and wholly, speculation and belongs solely in the entertainment industry. Not with true Science.

Well, we are still waiting for real evidence on this.

So far, all you have done is call essentially the entire scientific establishment a bunch of liars and profiteers, then whined about how what has happened just could not have happened.. oh yeah, and capped it with irrelevant arguments on "there must be a God!" (yes, there is, one, I believe.. and he created life on earth through evolution, exactly as stated in Genesis).

[tzor]

What about Adam's pubic hair?

What about "The Man's" pubic hair? (Adam is Hebrew for "The Man.") Did "The Man" have pubic hair? I mean the whole belly button thing is silly as well; there is nothing in the Bible that says anything about The Man's anatomical features. Moreover, until you get to after they get thrown out of the garden; there's no indication of sex between the two. They might have been kids in the garden for all we know.

[Viceroy63]

Unlike evolution, the Bible accounts are true and provable and so are the creation accounts.

Great. Just saying they're provable isn't really a proof though.

They all have the same author, God!

Umm, no. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon Notice the big table towards the end.

The Bible claims that a great war took place in heaven. Could this be the explanation for the havoc that we see in outer space?

What havoc exactly?

At any rate there is archeological evidence for the Bible stories which were taught to have been fables as well for many centuries simply because there was no proof but now there is. Here is just a sample of that.

So the evidence for creationism is that the Bible contains some true historical facts ? Is this really your argument?

If I add a history of the 17th century somewhere in the middle of L. Ron Hubbard's works does that suddenly make Scientology true?
Also, I repeat your standard of evidence as: observable, replicable facts

Still waiting for objective, replicable facts supporting creationism.

Btw. If you also claim the infalibility of the bible, by all means I extend the challenge I presented to premio to you as well.
Explain these failed prophecies: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Failed_biblical_prophecies
Explain these contradictions: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

Also, please explain the divine nature of the following passages:

22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

22:28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
22:29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

22:13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,
22:14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:
22:15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:
22:16 And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;
22:17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.
22:18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;
22:19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.
22:20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
22:21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

If evolution is a proven fact then why so much debate among scientist over this issue?

There is no debate among scientists. None whatsoever. (note: people with PhD's from the Jesus College of Mississippi who haven't ever published a peer reviewed biological paper are not scientists)

Haggis; there are no failed prophecies of the Bible only your failure to understand.

I took a look at the links you provided and saw the failed prophecies mentioned there I picked one at random. It was the only one I picked. It was not the first one on the list because I think that someone else already tackled that one.

This Prophecy was about the River of Egypt drying up...

¶ "Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will also destroy the idols, and I will cause [their] images to cease out of Noph; and there shall be no more a prince of the land of Egypt: and I will put a fear in the land of Egypt."
-Ezekiel 30:13

That website took this prophecy out of context and then states see that has not happened yet so the Bible has unfulfilled prophecies and can not be taken literally.

But a closer examination of the scriptures reveal a time for this event to take place as well. As most prophecies do include a time frame as well. The time set here is, "The Day of The Lord!"

"For the day [is] near, even the day of the LORD [is] near, a cloudy day; it shall be the time of the heathen."
-Ezekiel 30:3

So clearly there is a day coming, A day of the Lord in which everything changes and a new world will come to exist on this planet. But first a lot of really bad things will happen. Humanity will come close to the point of self annihilation and extinction and all flesh would die if the Lord does not come in time.

And when is this "Day of the Lord?" I'll let you figure that one out on your own. I don't want to spoil the surprise for ya.

[crispybits]

Really, lets take the whole thing in context then:

30 The word of the Lord came to me: 2 “Son of man, prophesy and say: ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says:

“‘Wail and say,
“Alas for that day!”
3 For the day is near,
the day of the Lord is near—
a day of clouds,
a time of doom for the nations.
4 A sword will come against Egypt,
and anguish will come upon Cush.[a]
When the slain fall in Egypt,
her wealth will be carried away
and her foundations torn down.

5 Cush and Libya, Lydia and all Arabia, Kub and the people of the covenant land will fall by the sword along with Egypt.

6 “‘This is what the Lord says:

“‘The allies of Egypt will fall
and her proud strength will fail.
From Migdol to Aswan
they will fall by the sword within her,
declares the Sovereign Lord.
7 “‘They will be desolate
among desolate lands,
and their cities will lie
among ruined cities.
8 Then they will know that I am the Lord,
when I set fire to Egypt
and all her helpers are crushed.

9 “‘On that day messengers will go out from me in ships to frighten Cush out of her complacency. Anguish will take hold of them on the day of Egypt’s doom, for it is sure to come.

10 “‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says:

“‘I will put an end to the hordes of Egypt
by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon.
11 He and his army—the most ruthless of nations—
will be brought in to destroy the land.
They will draw their swords against Egypt
and fill the land with the slain.
12 I will dry up the waters of the Nile
and sell the land to an evil nation;
by the hand of foreigners
I will lay waste the land and everything in it.

I the Lord have spoken.

13 “‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says:

“‘I will destroy the idols
and put an end to the images in Memphis.
No longer will there be a prince in Egypt,
and I will spread fear throughout the land.
14 I will lay waste Upper Egypt,
set fire to Zoan
and inflict punishment on Thebes.
15 I will pour out my wrath on Pelusium,
the stronghold of Egypt,
and wipe out the hordes of Thebes.
16 I will set fire to Egypt;
Pelusium will writhe in agony.
Thebes will be taken by storm;
Memphis will be in constant distress.
17 The young men of Heliopolis and Bubastis
will fall by the sword,
and the cities themselves will go into captivity.
18 Dark will be the day at Tahpanhes
when I break the yoke of Egypt;
there her proud strength will come to an end.
She will be covered with clouds,
and her villages will go into captivity.
19 So I will inflict punishment on Egypt,
and they will know that I am the Lord.’”
Pharaoh’s Arms Are Broken

20 In the eleventh year, in the first month on the seventh day, the word of the Lord came to me: 21 “Son of man, I have broken the arm of Pharaoh king of Egypt. It has not been bound up to be healed or put in a splint so that it may become strong enough to hold a sword. 22 Therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord says: I am against Pharaoh king of Egypt. I will break both his arms, the good arm as well as the broken one, and make the sword fall from his hand. 23 I will disperse the Egyptians among the nations and scatter them through the countries. 24 I will strengthen the arms of the king of Babylon and put my sword in his hand, but I will break the arms of Pharaoh, and he will groan before him like a mortally wounded man. 25 I will strengthen the arms of the king of Babylon, but the arms of Pharaoh will fall limp. Then they will know that I am the Lord, when I put my sword into the hand of the king of Babylon and he brandishes it against Egypt. 26 I will disperse the Egyptians among the nations and scatter them through the countries. Then they will know that I am the Lord.”

After the day of the lord comes, Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon will "be brought to destroy the land". Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, died around 3100 years ago.

The young men of Bubastis will fall to the sword, but Bubastis was dismantled by the Persians a very long time ago.

The LORD will break the arm of the Pharoah of Egypt. "I will break both his arms and make his sword fall to the ground". But the last Pharoah of Egypt, as well as dying around 2000 years ago, was a woman.

Note that these are 3 basic errors which I found in less than 2 minutes using external sources only to confirm exact date ranges and to confirm that Bubastis no longer exists, there's probably even more in there if I could be bothered....

Yep, definitely needs the context there....

[Maugena]

Probability and time

There are 10 sextillion (this is the lower end of most estimates) stars in the universe. If the chance of having life is 1/100 quadrillion for each star then there should be 1 million places throughout the universe with life.

Probability

Compare that to random dice. Only supersititious people believe life comes from dead matter.

Burst out laughing.

Science is not a bad thing. But lies are. Lets not confuse the theory of evolution with science. There are no observable fact that can be replicated to support the theory of evolution. That science has observed germs and viruses mutate in a laboratory setting is not evolution, as I alluded to that in this recent article, ("Evolution Has Never Occurred!")

The fact is that if what is being done in Evolutionary Science was done in any other science such as Medicine or even Cosmology; then those Doctor's and scientist would be disrobed, slapped in the face and put to shame. How dare a doctor practice medicine on me base on a foundationless theory with no evidence to support it what so ever except that Mutations are a fact so Evolution must also be a fact. That's nonsense.

Like you said a theory attempts to explain a thing. Well then why is Creationism then flat out rejected when there are more facts to support Creationism then Evolution? This is not science but closed minded ignorance. Why should Science reject any sound theory especially when there are facts behind it? The Theory of Evolution does not and that is what I am demonstrating in my post, ("An Unproven Hypothesis: The Rise of Ignorance!") for all to see.

A flat out lie like the theory of evolution should never be taught in a Classroom. It is not science. It is purely and wholly, speculation and belongs solely in the entertainment industry. Not with true Science.

To use your own standard of evidence, what are the observable replicable facts supporting creationism ?

The many reproductions of the Bible?

XD

[Maugena]

Could it be that it is a money making industry and people would rather lie than to lose their paycheck?

What does Catholicism and other Christian branches have to lose if Evolution is proven?
My guess: A FUCKING LOT.
With evolution being proven, we lose our "god-given divinity".
We think ourselves above animals, while, in fact, we ARE animinimals.
There's a lot more that can be speculated... but it's entirely obvious that the idea that we are animals doesn't sit well with bible-thumpers and that's why they're spreading their bullshit. Mostly trying to get young minds, mind you. You're most impressionable when you're a child, when you don't know any better than to believe there's a giant man in the sky.

[_sabotage_]

A few thoughts, first off the Bible is more or less a pack of agreed upon lies. Of the thirty plus original gospels, the five that closest fit the intent of Rome were given the go ahead. So we are given a short glimpse of Jesus in mainly second hand accounts. Rome was trying to stabilize political unrest, which was being brought about by the voice of a strong woman's movement and trying to regain the moral high ground. Most of what was chosen for the the new testament was written by paul/saul the roman/jew persecutor asshole. He was a real dick. But he hated gays and he hated women and it was useful to the politics of the day.

If we try to ignore all of that, the church's hypocrisy, the fables that have been promulgated, etc. and just focus on the central message, ie what jesus was said to have said then we have what i take from it. Jesus was asked, are you the son of god? he said yes, and he said a hundred other times you are all my brothers and sisters. Meaning, we are all the children of god just as much as he was. he was asked about a central message and he said, do onto others as you would have them do onto you.

Thats more or less it. He had a few other messages which i consider somewhat pertinent, such as dont be hypocrites, life aint short, but these are mainly just part of the two comments above, if we are all siblings, then stop being dicks to each other, bc both you and the victim have to bear that for a damn long time.

[BigBallinStalin]

Sometimes, it's necessary to tell people that they don't understand what they're talking about; otherwise, they'll continue spreading misinformation--unintentionally.

Would it be dickish if we allowed someone to accidentally walk off a cliff? All we had to say was, "Hey! There's something you should know..."

[AndyDufresne]

Would it be dickish if we allowed someone to accidentally walk off a cliff? All we had to say was, "Hey! There's something you should know..."

What's the harm??! Iz UR "theory" of gravelity gunna do sumethin?


--Andy

[_sabotage_]

Andy, the fact that you have the title of ex community manager is like someone wearing a purple heart all the time bc they got a papercut signing the enlistment form.

[PLAYER57832]

Could it be that it is a money making industry and people would rather lie than to lose their paycheck?

What does Catholicism and other Christian branches have to lose if Evolution is proven?
My guess: A FUCKING LOT.

THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH AND MOST PROTESTANT DEMONINATIONS HAVE LONG SINCE ACCEPTED EVOLUTION!

Those who disagree mostly belong to either very conservative outliers like some of the Southern Baptists (who also, up until recently did not agree that races were equal, either, you might note), and newer Evangelical branches.

Recently, the Roman Catholic church has begun to review the whole issue again, thanks to pressure from these same evangelicals who up until very recently considered Roman Catholicism to be their liturgical and theological adversaries. (more recently, they decided they benefitted from working with Roman Catholics on issues like abortion and same sex marriage... and this was one of the other issues being considered more than it was in the past). HOWEVER, even then, what is really in question is not the entire theory of evolution, but the specific part that deals with human evolution. AND, one of the major questions is whether humanity and all we are was a purely biological phenomena or something more... when did we gain souls or spirits essentially. That question is a theological one more than a biological one. However, plenty of people are more than willing to distort this by claiming it is about Christianity versus science. I warn you, though.. when you try that, science loses.

With evolution being proven, we lose our "god-given divinity".
We think ourselves above animals, while, in fact, we ARE animinimals.
There's a lot more that can be speculated... but it's entirely obvious that the idea that we are animals doesn't sit well with bible-thumpers and that's why they're spreading their bullshit. Mostly trying to get young minds, mind you. You're most impressionable when you're a child, when you don't know any better than to believe there's a giant man in the sky.

Oh, BULL. This is no more true than the idea that Earth revolving around the sun is anti-Christian because humans are the center of the universe. And, the only ones trying to claim this is about Christianity versus science are the small (but sadly growing) group of evangelicals and some other splinter groups, like the Amish and some Mennonites (but it might interest you that not even all Mennonites subscribe to the young Earth ideas).

[PLAYER57832]

Probability and time

There are 10 sextillion (this is the lower end of most estimates) stars in the universe. If the chance of having life is 1/100 quadrillion for each star then there should be 1 million places throughout the universe with life.

Probability

Compare that to random dice. Only supersititious people believe life comes from dead matter

Yet another person who talks probability without the least understanding of what it entails...


Here is how it REALLY works premio --- Truly random, events in a normal population follow a bell curve (there are other types of population, but I am trying not to confuse you). What does that mean? It means that most of the results will fall in the top and middle. BUT... pay attentio to those tails. Note that the tails go on to infinity. Not to 1/100000000000 or even 1/10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000, but infinity. What does that mean?

One of the classic examples is a coin flip. Most of the time, a coin will fall either heads up or heads down, in roughly equal percentages over a very long period of time. Now.. 2 points. First, this only happens when there is a LONG period of time, lots of rolls. Second... there is a third option, landing on the edge and resting there. That happens far more rarely than either heads up or heads down, but it does happen.

Next, look at dice. Again, we all know they are not truly random, but we are going to pretend we have a system where they are random, just for illustration purposes. Over a long period of time, you will find that getting 2 sixes, 2 fives, etc, etc. happens in roughly the same frequency. The combinations 1-5 and 1-4, etc. happen more often, roughly twice as often, becuase there are twice the opportunities for that combination, as long as the exact order doesn' t matter (that is, 1-5 is the same as 5-1). All that is pretty easy to understand.

Let's say we go to 10 dice... The probability for 10 sixes is significantly less than it was for 2 sixes..... the probabilities for some of the combinations, like 3-3-3-4-4-4-1-1-1-2 and such is much, much less. However, are any of these cases impossible? Of course not! What about 10 dice landing on their corner? Is that probable?

The thing is when you are talking about infinite time, then almost anything could be possible.

In the case of DNA, the possible combinations is so very, very high, due to its structure that the possible combinations is well beyond anything any human being can easily grasp or even write down. Let's put it this way. A company just recently began using DNA as a storage device. In one of their trials they used a single strand of DNA to store the entire combined works of Shakespeare!

Anyway, to get to the "believe" bit, scientists may, very much do START with ideas and beliefs, but then they go out and look for evidence and proof. Often, what they find is surprising, but denying it is found is a game for superstitious children, not scientists.

That is why we now have such things as chaos math, quantum physics, the genone project and (no, I don't like this one, but it is there) genetic manipulation for various causes, and cures for many diseases.

So, from the outset, the problem is not so much in the belief.. beliefs can be wrong or right. The problem comes in the evidence. In this case, you deny evidence that doesn't suit you and try to hide that fact with garbage about statistics and probability.. not even recognizing that folks like Neoteny are actually very well versed in statistics.

In short, you are trying to teach a math professor how to add... and saying that "calculus cannot work" because it doesn't follow the rules of addition and subtraction.

[tzor]

What does Catholicism and other Christian branches have to lose if Evolution is proven?

Nothing.

With evolution being proven, we lose our "god-given divinity".

We loose our ... what?

We think ourselves above animals, while, in fact, we ARE animals.

We like to think ourselves a lot of things, but being a part of a thing doesn't mean that we are equal with all members of a thing.

Yet there are significant differences between us and animals; for one thing, few animals would even give a crap about the importance of proving themselves right on the internet.

(I'm not sure who gets to claim a superiority here.)

[Maugena]

With evolution being proven, we lose our "god-given divinity".

We lose our ... what?

How you and player do not understand this what-so-ever is beyond me.

I don't understand why I'm being argued against when I'm not incorrect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_C ... _evolution
Catholic Church accepted my ass.
Evolution and creationism (what the Bible LITERALLY says) are in direct conflict. It is one or the other.
Furthermore, once the Bible is proven wrong, "God" is dis-proven because the Bible was "made" by "God", therefore it must be infallible. Since it isn't because of Evolution (and a long list of other things), CHRISTIANS have everything to lose because EVOLUTION DEMOLISHES THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
Therefore, having proven Evolution, the Bible is revealed to be false - the very thing Christianity is entirely founded on.

With evolution being proven, we lose our "god-given divinity".
We think ourselves above animals, while, in fact, we ARE animinimals.
There's a lot more that can be speculated... but it's entirely obvious that the idea that we are animals doesn't sit well with bible-thumpers and that's why they're spreading their bullshit. Mostly trying to get young minds, mind you. You're most impressionable when you're a child, when you don't know any better than to believe there's a giant man in the sky.

Oh, BULL. This is no more true than the idea that Earth revolving around the sun is anti-Christian because humans are the center of the universe. And, the only ones trying to claim this is about Christianity versus science are the small (but sadly growing) group of evangelicals and some other splinter groups, like the Amish and some Mennonites (but it might interest you that not even all Mennonites subscribe to the young Earth ideas).

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... rsion=ESV;
#27 & #28
Yes, f*ck you and f*ck your bullshit, Player. Please argue something valid, plox.

How the f*ck is this not crystal clear, people?
Do your deductive skills need a tune-up? f*ck.
Lay off.

Sorry about the curse words directed at you Player. But please. You can't call BS when there is none.

[BigBallinStalin]

Sorry about the curse words directed at you Player. But please. You can't call BS when there is none.

Sure, she can. She does it all the time, and then fortifies her position with the empty sandbags of irrelevant arguments and long, winding trenches of tangents.

[AAFitz]

"God" is dis-proven because the Bible was "made" by "God", therefore it must be infallible.

Says who?

This is a complete circular reference, and as such the definition of illogical.

[tzor]

Evolution and creationism (what the Bible LITERALLY says) are in direct conflict. It is one or the other.

It is important to understand that the Catholic Church does not teach that the Bible is "Literally" true. The Bible is a collection of books that contain truth, but it is not word for word literally true.

This is especially true with the two creation stories of the Book of Genesis and especially true with the first chapter.

This is the commentary in the Roman Catholic New American Bible, Revised Edition on the first creation story in Genesis

* [1:1–2:3] This section, from the Priestly source, functions as an introduction, as ancient stories of the origin of the world (cosmogonies) often did. It introduces the primordial story (2:4–11:26), the stories of the ancestors (11:27–50:26), and indeed the whole Pentateuch. The chapter highlights the goodness of creation and the divine desire that human beings share in that goodness. God brings an orderly universe out of primordial chaos merely by uttering a word. In the literary structure of six days, the creation events in the first three days are related to those in the second three.
1. light (day)/darkness (night) = 4. sun/moon
2. arrangement of water = 5. fish + birds from waters
3. a) dry land = 6. a) animals
b) vegetation b) human beings: male/female
The seventh day, on which God rests, the climax of the account, falls outside the six-day structure.
Until modern times the first line was always translated, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Several comparable ancient cosmogonies, discovered in recent times, have a “when…then” construction, confirming the translation “when…then” here as well. “When” introduces the pre-creation state and “then” introduces the creative act affecting that state. The traditional translation, “In the beginning,” does not reflect the Hebrew syntax of the clause.

So what do we see here? Well we see a hierarchical order in the story, unlike the sequential order a literalist would insist on. This is why we have dry land before the sun and the moon. Forget "evolution" only the extreme literalist is going to insist that the dry land on the earth was formed before the sun. More over the entire story is linked with the notion that there is a metal dome between the waters below and above and that is where the stars, sun and moon are fixed.

As the old saying goes, the Bible tells us how to get to heaven, not how the heavens go.

Furthermore, once the Bible is proven wrong, "God" is dis-proven because the Bible was "made" by "God", therefore it must be infallible.

First of all the only "words" made by God are somewhere in a lost ark probably in Ethiopia. (And there are probably only ten words at most.) The Bible is "inspired" by God and contains the truth; but that truth is dependent on the writing styles of the authors in question. The Bible was never meant to be a physics book, or a chemistry book, or a biology book. It was meant to be a book on a covenant between God and His people.

EVOLUTION DEMOLISHES THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.

The foundation of the Torah is the law. Evolution does not demolish any foundation of the Torah.

How the f*ck is this not crystal clear, people?

It's clear you don't have a clue what mainstream Christianity and the Catholic Church actually teaches and believes.

[Maugena]

It's clear you don't have a clue what mainstream Christianity and the Catholic Church actually teaches and believes.

I'll concede to you on this one.
They can apparently believe in whatever the f*ck they want to believe whether or not they're being hypocritical or having contradicting views/interpretations.
It really puts into question the validity of the thing, entirely.
Making shit up as they go, really. Reformat your puzzle piece to fit in with an evolving society.
Adam and Eve is tru-errrr... A STORY!
Jesus is your savi-errrr.... FRIENDLY PROPHET!
One cannot simply pick and choose shit.
You're either in or out. There is no gray area. All gray area is as much as a falsehood as being out.

Anywho. I'm going to stop arguing because one cannot beat a brick wall with words and wisdom.

"God" is dis-proven because the Bible was "made" by "God", therefore it must be infallible.

Says who?

This is a complete circular reference, and as such the definition of illogical.

Sorry... you're right. I was making a logic leap there that wasn't backed up by anything. I was just seething with a rage so profound that mine eyes couldn't see the vision.

[_sabotage_]

You're either in or out.

Exactly, just like you can't be on a game site and not play games.

[Maugena]

You're either in or out.

Exactly, just like you can't be on a game site and not play games.

Hue. Touché.
Actually...

Therrad Derailment!

[tzor]

Adam and Eve is tru-errrr... A STORY!

Let's just stick with Adam and Eve because this is an evolution thread. Adam, Eve, and Evolution

Pope Pius XII warned us, "What is the literal sense of a passage is not always as obvious in the speeches and writings of the ancient authors of the East, as it is in the works of our own time. For what they wished to express is not to be determined by the rules of grammar and philology alone, nor solely by the context; the interpreter must, as it were, go back wholly in spirit to those remote centuries of the East and with the aid of history, archaeology, ethnology, and other sciences, accurately determine what modes of writing, so to speak, the authors of that ancient period would be likely to use, and in fact did use. For the ancient peoples of the East, in order to express their ideas, did not always employ those forms or kinds of speech which we use today; but rather those used by the men of their times and countries. What those exactly were the commentator cannot determine as it were in advance, but only after a careful examination of the ancient literature of the East" (Divino Afflante Spiritu 35–36).

The Catechism explains that "Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day" (CCC 337), but "nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history is rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun" (CCC 338).

In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: "When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own" (Humani Generis 37).

As the Catechism puts it, "Methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things the of the faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are" (CCC 159). The Catholic Church has no fear of science or scientific discovery.

[PLAYER57832]

With evolution being proven, we lose our "god-given divinity".

We lose our ... what?

How you and player do not understand this what-so-ever is beyond me.

I don't understand why I'm being argued against when I'm not incorrect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_C ... _evolution
Catholic Church accepted my ass.

From the wikki article linked above... the first part of that article, in fact

In the 1950 encyclical Humani generis, Pope Pius XII confirmed that there is no intrinsic conflict between Christianity and the theory of evolution, provided that Christians believe that the individual soul is a direct creation by God and not the product of purely material forces.[1] Today[update], the Church's unofficial position is an example of theistic evolution, also known as evolutionary creation,[2] stating that faith and scientific findings regarding human evolution are not in conflict

So, it seems that the Popes very much have and do disagree with your belief. Not that I follow the Pope, but you made reference to his church.

Evolution and creationism (what the Bible LITERALLY says) are in direct conflict. It is one or the other.

Explain how.

Furthermore, once the Bible is proven wrong, "God" is dis-proven because the Bible was "made" by "God", therefore it must be infallible. Since it isn't because of Evolution (and a long list of other things), CHRISTIANS have everything to lose because EVOLUTION DEMOLISHES THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
Therefore, having proven Evolution, the Bible is revealed to be false - the very thing Christianity is entirely founded on.

See, the thing about logic is that when you start with a false assumption, then everything else that follows is pure garbage.

You wish to think that the Bible refutes evolution. You are welcome to that belief, but don't confuse it with what Christians (or Jews or Muslims, for that matter) really believe.

With evolution being proven, we lose our "god-given divinity".
We think ourselves above animals, while, in fact, we ARE animinimals.
There's a lot more that can be speculated... but it's entirely obvious that the idea that we are animals doesn't sit well with bible-thumpers and that's why they're spreading their bullshit. Mostly trying to get young minds, mind you. You're most impressionable when you're a child, when you don't know any better than to believe there's a giant man in the sky.

Oh, BULL. This is no more true than the idea that Earth revolving around the sun is anti-Christian because humans are the center of the universe. And, the only ones trying to claim this is about Christianity versus science are the small (but sadly growing) group of evangelicals and some other splinter groups, like the Amish and some Mennonites (but it might interest you that not even all Mennonites subscribe to the young Earth ideas).

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... rsion=ESV;
#27 & #28
Yes, f*ck you and f*ck your bullshit, Player. Please argue something valid, plox.

How the f*ck is this not crystal clear, people?

Funny how you claim we are idiots but all you can do is throw out vulgarities.

You can believe whatever you want, but when you mistake your personal beliefs for that of others... you show yourself to be an idiot, not a thinker.

Sorry about the curse words directed at you Player. But please. You can't call BS when there is none.

Apology accepted, but you really should try reading a bit more. The Roman Catholic Church has never disputed Evolution and has, since about 1950 officially stated that it is not in conflict with Christianity. Other Christian denominations have gone even further in support of evolution.

The Bible says "God did it" it does not say exactly how God did it. Evolution is the most likely option for how.

Calling that BS puts you in the same category as the OP, as someone who believes they konw the facts without bothering to truly challenge their information and see if they are correct. Sorry, but it does

[PLAYER57832]

It's clear you don't have a clue what mainstream Christianity and the Catholic Church actually teaches and believes.

I'll concede to you on this one.
They can apparently believe in whatever the f*ck they want to believe whether or not they're being hypocritical or having contradicting views/interpretations.

Uh, to consider Genesis disputing evolution requires demanding that the Biblical reference to days refers to rotations of the Earth, but those words, in English and in the ancient languages in the Bible can be used in various ways. If I say "in my day and age" or "in the days of old".. etc, etc, its not a specific time reference, but a general one.

I am not going to bother correcting your understanding further, but you made the statement above as if you thought that the Roman Catholic Church and most other Christian Churches disputed evolution when they do not. Whether you agree with the church or not is another issue entirely. Tzor and I are simply saying that when you start arguing... argue a position people actually hold. Some of the newer evanglical churches might (do) argue such as you have, but not the Roman Catholic Church and not the mainline Protestant churches

[Viceroy63]

"And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."
-Genesis 1:5

While I would agree with the fact that the Bible uses the word "Day" in reference to an indefinite period of time as "in the day when they were created," (the TIME when they were created... Genesis 2:4) the above verse and those of the first six days of creation can not and are not used in any other way except to describe a 24hour period of day and night. There is simply no other way to use the phrase "Evening and Morning."

I would also add that just because the seventh day had no "Evening and Morning" does not take away from the text. The Creation of the Sabbath "Day" was a separate creation. And while it too was also a day as well, one of the seven days of the week, the fact that no "Evening and Mornings" are mention for that day only notes that this rest has higher meanings and functions than simply just a day.