U.S. Lags World in Grasp of Genetics and Acceptance of Evolution

[chri'stina 190]

well.. so why don't we chop the bible and just use the new testament.. since the old one is obsolete?

and again.. noone has answered that.. what if the big bang is true? would you still believe a scientifically false theory as creationism?

But it is not obsolete. Without the old testament we wouldn't know why the new testament events had to happen, why things were the way they were when Jesus came, and we wouldn't know the prophecies of the Messiah which were fulfilled by Jesus. Besides that, think of it as a movie and it's sequel. It's important to know about the 1st movie in order to understand the sequel.

How can the big bang be proven 100%? No one was there to see it, as no one was there to see creation. But anyway, my beliefs as of now have not changed on that issue.

[Fuzzness 2]

Fuzzness....since she's only listening to you asking questions.....ask her about the city of Tyre, it's destruction, how it was cursed so that nothing would ever again be built there, and the modern city that's in the same location.

Oh brother. I didn't say that ALL people, places, and events can be proven to have existed, I'm saying that many things in the Bible CAN be proved. I often forget that I have to spell things out for some of you.

Go back and read my question; I asked if he thought NONE of those things could be proven.

you told me you wanted to prove that ANY of the people or events in the bible were true. I'll give you a break here. Pick one and prove to me that this person or event was true.

EDIT: Not all christians are intolerant. The majority of christians that I know are actually very tolerant.

Edited August 14, 2006 by Fuzzness

[chri'stina 190]

Fuzzness....since she's only listening to you asking questions.....ask her about the city of Tyre, it's destruction, how it was cursed so that nothing would ever again be built there, and the modern city that's in the same location.

Oh brother. I didn't say that ALL people, places, and events can be proven to have existed, I'm saying that many things in the Bible CAN be proved. I often forget that I have to spell things out for some of you.

Go back and read my question; I asked if he thought NONE of those things could be proven.

you told me you wanted to prove that ANY of the people or events in the bible were true. I'll give you a break here. Pick one and prove to me that this person or event was true.

EDIT: Not all christians are intolerant. The majority of christians that I know are actually very tolerant.

I know this is just a small small answer to what you are asking, but some examples would be in the new testament, the leaders of Israel and Rome at that time are accurate, and the Roman rule of that area, which aligns with history. Many people named in the leadership really existed in history books during the same time period listed in the bible. Maybe that is not what you were asking for (I know it wasn't directed towards me but just trying to answer a little). Sorry if it's not what you are asking about.

I also took a biblical archaeology class in college (Univ of South Florida) and many cities listed in the old testament have been discovered buried in the Isreali/Mideast area by archaeologists. The bible has actually helped some archaeologists find buried cities by the location descriptions mentioned in the bible.

Of course I could never prove the spiritual aspects of the bible to make anyone suddenly believe it's all true if they don't believe it. But in archaeological digs they have found relics and evidence to support the type of temple/synagogue history in Judaism, in locations mentioned in the bible. There is evidence of towns and then there are leaders mentioned in the bible who really did rule. So there definitely are real people named in the bible and real locations, that agree with history.

[Fuzzness 2]

Fuzzness....since she's only listening to you asking questions.....ask her about the city of Tyre, it's destruction, how it was cursed so that nothing would ever again be built there, and the modern city that's in the same location.

Oh brother. I didn't say that ALL people, places, and events can be proven to have existed, I'm saying that many things in the Bible CAN be proved. I often forget that I have to spell things out for some of you.

Go back and read my question; I asked if he thought NONE of those things could be proven.

you told me you wanted to prove that ANY of the people or events in the bible were true. I'll give you a break here. Pick one and prove to me that this person or event was true.

EDIT: Not all christians are intolerant. The majority of christians that I know are actually very tolerant.

I know this is just a small small answer to what you are asking, but some examples would be in the new testament, the leaders of Israel and Rome at that time are accurate, and the Roman rule of that area, which aligns with history. Many people named in the leadership really existed in history books during the same time period listed in the bible. Maybe that is not what you were asking for (I know it wasn't directed towards me but just trying to answer a little). Sorry if it's not what you are asking about.

I also took a biblical archaeology class in college (Univ of South Florida) and many cities listed in the old testament have been discovered buried in the Isreali/Mideast area by archaeologists. The bible has actually helped some archaeologists find buried cities by the location descriptions mentioned in the bible.

Of course I could never prove the spiritual aspects of the bible to make anyone suddenly believe it's all true if they don't believe it. But in archaeological digs they have found relics and evidence to support the type of temple/synagogue history in Judaism, in locations mentioned in the bible. There is evidence of towns and then there are leaders mentioned in the bible who really did rule. So there definitely are real people named in the bible and real locations, that agree with history.

I never thought of that. Yes, I was looking for more of the spiritual aspects (the story of Noah perhaps?) but I do agree with you about all you said. Thanks

[pedroh 21]

well.. so why don't we chop the bible and just use the new testament.. since the old one is obsolete?

and again.. noone has answered that.. what if the big bang is true? would you still believe a scientifically false theory as creationism?

But it is not obsolete. Without the old testament we wouldn't know why the new testament events had to happen, why things were the way they were when Jesus came, and we wouldn't know the prophecies of the Messiah which were fulfilled by Jesus. Besides that, think of it as a movie and it's sequel. It's important to know about the 1st movie in order to understand the sequel.

How can the big bang be proven 100%? No one was there to see it, as no one was there to see creation. But anyway, my beliefs as of now have not changed on that issue.

yes it can be proven.. the initial particles from the big bang are still expanding through the universe.. so, actually with the right equipment, it is/will be possible to prove the big bang was the origin of the universe..

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

well.. so why don't we chop the bible and just use the new testament.. since the old one is obsolete?

and again.. noone has answered that.. what if the big bang is true? would you still believe a scientifically false theory as creationism?

But it is not obsolete. Without the old testament we wouldn't know why the new testament events had to happen, why things were the way they were when Jesus came, and we wouldn't know the prophecies of the Messiah which were fulfilled by Jesus. Besides that, think of it as a movie and it's sequel. It's important to know about the 1st movie in order to understand the sequel.

How can the big bang be proven 100%? No one was there to see it, as no one was there to see creation. But anyway, my beliefs as of now have not changed on that issue.

yes it can be proven.. the initial particles from the big bang are still expanding through the universe.. so, actually with the right equipment, it is/will be possible to prove the big bang was the origin of the universe..

It's not 100% fact though - a significant part of the science that it is based on is almost entirely theoretical. String theory and quantum physics are flawed and I don't think it could be said (at all) that scientists understand in any significant degree how the universe works.

Black holes have been calculated to be mathematically possible, but noone has ever seen one.

[pedroh 21]

well.. so why don't we chop the bible and just use the new testament.. since the old one is obsolete?

and again.. noone has answered that.. what if the big bang is true? would you still believe a scientifically false theory as creationism?

But it is not obsolete. Without the old testament we wouldn't know why the new testament events had to happen, why things were the way they were when Jesus came, and we wouldn't know the prophecies of the Messiah which were fulfilled by Jesus. Besides that, think of it as a movie and it's sequel. It's important to know about the 1st movie in order to understand the sequel.

How can the big bang be proven 100%? No one was there to see it, as no one was there to see creation. But anyway, my beliefs as of now have not changed on that issue.

yes it can be proven.. the initial particles from the big bang are still expanding through the universe.. so, actually with the right equipment, it is/will be possible to prove the big bang was the origin of the universe..

It's not 100% fact though - a significant part of the science that it is based on is almost entirely theoretical. String theory and quantum physics are flawed and I don't think it could be said (at all) that scientists understand in any significant degree how the universe works.

Black holes have been calculated to be mathematically possible, but noone has ever seen one.

well.. I don't think M-theory is as flawed as it was before.. just read parallel words by Michio Kaku.. and either M-Theory and Heterotic Strings theory are way far more advanced of what Hawking first thought in 'a brief history of time'... now they are just trying to make sure this theory (one of those) can explain the whole thing lol with just an equation..

but still, it's interesting.. and.. again.. quantum phycisists don't discard God as an option for the creation of the universe, they are more flexible than the creationists indeed

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The big bang theory and evolution are both theories that are consistent with the preponderance of observed facts. That makes them more plausible than theories that are not, but it does not assign to them the status of 'fact'.

That said, Biblical creation is not consistent with observed facts.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The big bang theory and evolution are both theories that are consistent with the preponderance of observed facts. That makes them more plausible than theories that are not, but it does not assign to them the status of 'fact'.

That said, Biblical creation is not consistent with observed facts.

Exactly. The implication then becomes whether or not the 'observed facts' are actually real. Not to mention that the Christian Bible only deals specifically with THIS planet, being the centre of God's creation. The concept of creation and evolution will have to be re-evaluated if we ever meet an alien life form.

Edited August 14, 2006 by erekose

[PlatyPius 5]

The big bang theory and evolution are both theories that are consistent with the preponderance of observed facts. That makes them more plausible than theories that are not, but it does not assign to them the status of 'fact'.

That said, Biblical creation is not consistent with observed facts.

Exactly. The implication then becomes whether or not the 'observed facts' are actually real. Not to mention that the Christian Bible only deals specifically with THIS planet, being the centre of God's creation. The concept of creation and evolution will have to be re-evaluated if we ever meet an alien life form.

Unless you're someone like incanada1234, who will then just deny that the alien life form exists, or will claim that it was created spontaneously by G-d to "test" the faithful.....

Edited August 14, 2006 by Cian

[chri'stina 190]

Fuzzness....since she's only listening to you asking questions.....ask her about the city of Tyre, it's destruction, how it was cursed so that nothing would ever again be built there, and the modern city that's in the same location.

Oh brother. I didn't say that ALL people, places, and events can be proven to have existed, I'm saying that many things in the Bible CAN be proved. I often forget that I have to spell things out for some of you.

Go back and read my question; I asked if he thought NONE of those things could be proven.

you told me you wanted to prove that ANY of the people or events in the bible were true. I'll give you a break here. Pick one and prove to me that this person or event was true.

EDIT: Not all christians are intolerant. The majority of christians that I know are actually very tolerant.

I know this is just a small small answer to what you are asking, but some examples would be in the new testament, the leaders of Israel and Rome at that time are accurate, and the Roman rule of that area, which aligns with history. Many people named in the leadership really existed in history books during the same time period listed in the bible. Maybe that is not what you were asking for (I know it wasn't directed towards me but just trying to answer a little). Sorry if it's not what you are asking about.

I also took a biblical archaeology class in college (Univ of South Florida) and many cities listed in the old testament have been discovered buried in the Isreali/Mideast area by archaeologists. The bible has actually helped some archaeologists find buried cities by the location descriptions mentioned in the bible.

Of course I could never prove the spiritual aspects of the bible to make anyone suddenly believe it's all true if they don't believe it. But in archaeological digs they have found relics and evidence to support the type of temple/synagogue history in Judaism, in locations mentioned in the bible. There is evidence of towns and then there are leaders mentioned in the bible who really did rule. So there definitely are real people named in the bible and real locations, that agree with history.

I never thought of that. Yes, I was looking for more of the spiritual aspects (the story of Noah perhaps?) but I do agree with you about all you said. Thanks

np

[Ban Hammer 13,335]

Unless you're someone like incanada1234, who will then just deny that the alien life form exists, or will claim that it was created spontaneously by G-d to "test" the faithful.....

i believe in aliens, especially after visiting my then wife's family reunion

[Scott & Lai 12]

and still noone has answered this.. what if by just mere probability.. the big bang is a true theory.. and humans and the universe come from it? would creationists still believe the Good Book? why believing something that is wrong? ( in case the Big Bang were proved right, creationism would be false)...

and.. about leviticus and stuff.. does it mean the Bible is written correctly in some parts, and wrong in others? so we have to take some parts of it as they are and the others 'no no, they don't mean that.. it means etc etc'.. I thought the Bible was all written right.. so.. I guess having slaves again is right for a creationist..

I don't know if you read my earlier post, but I said that I see no conflict between the Biblical account of Creation and the Big Bang. In fact, I will consider the Big Bang as the best interpretation of the data unless a better theory comes along. As I said, I think the Big Bang fits nicely in Genesis 1:1.

The big bang theory and evolution are both theories that are consistent with the preponderance of observed facts. That makes them more plausible than theories that are not, but it does not assign to them the status of 'fact'.

That said, Biblical creation is not consistent with observed facts.

Which observed facts?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The big bang theory and evolution are both theories that are consistent with the preponderance of observed facts. That makes them more plausible than theories that are not, but it does not assign to them the status of 'fact'.

That said, Biblical creation is not consistent with observed facts.

Which observed facts?

Please consult a peer reviewed science journal in a library near you. My post was meant to clarify the standing of evolution vis a vis the scientific method. If you wish to engage in the actual science of the matter, there is no substitute to some good ol' fashioned reading

[Scott & Lai 12]

The big bang theory and evolution are both theories that are consistent with the preponderance of observed facts. That makes them more plausible than theories that are not, but it does not assign to them the status of 'fact'.

That said, Biblical creation is not consistent with observed facts.

Which observed facts?

Please consult a peer reviewed science journal in a library near you. My post was meant to clarify the standing of evolution vis a vis the scientific method. If you wish to engage in the actual science of the matter, there is no substitute to some good ol' fashioned reading

You've made the claim that Biblical creation is not consistent with observed facts, but you have no facts you can give as examples? How do you define Biblical Creation? I've stated already that I find nothing inconstant between the Big Bang and Genesis 1:1, so what else in the Biblical account do you find inconsistent with observed facts?