The Bible

[Oleg Bach]

I don't have to be an ape if I don't want to - that is free will. Some take great satisfaction in dragging the human race down to the level of apes - I guess that allows them to do ape like thinks like wack you on the head with a rock and steal your bannna .

[ToadBrother]

I don't have to be an ape if I don't want to - that is free will. Some take great satisfaction in dragging the human race down to the level of apes - I guess that allows them to do ape like thinks like wack you on the head with a rock and steal your bannna .

That's not an exercise of free will, that's an exercise of wilful delusion. It's about as sensible as saying "I have freewill to declare I'm not a chordate." You're a great ape, whether you think you have a choice or not.

Edited June 23, 2011 by ToadBrother

[Oleg Bach]

That's not an exercise of free will, that's an exercise of wilful delusion. It's about as sensible as saying "I have freewill to declare I'm not a chordate." You're a great ape, whether you think you have a choice or not.

It`s not about choice. It`s about intellect. God made the apes and he made man a little lower than the angels...as the saying goes. Having given it a life time of thought, I conclude that I maybe ape like but am not fully an ape. The cave man that looks similar to an ape was not an ape either. I have met some people from some lower eastern European nations that look exactly like a cave man...It`s just a human family trait - some human beings are the product of genetics and come from real ugly families.

All living creatures have an eye on each side of the head - that is just the way universal law designed them. We live in a universe that has positive and negative forces at play constantly. Just because I have two eyes designed to function in the third dimension and an ape has two eyes does not mean we are the same creation. Furthermore what seperates me from the ape is my ability to have `wilful delusion` an ape is not capable of such fanceful things...we as I mentioned are creators similar to God - a little less than the angels....apes are base...we are not.

[ToadBrother]

It`s not about choice. It`s about intellect. God made the apes and he made man a little lower than the angels...as the saying goes. Having given it a life time of thought, I conclude that I maybe ape like but am not fully an ape. The cave man that looks similar to an ape was not an ape either. I have met some people from some lower eastern European nations that look exactly like a cave man...It`s just a human family trait - some human beings are the product of genetics and come from real ugly families.

I thought we were debating a scientific notion, not rehashing a BC comic strip. Morphologically, behaviourally and genetically we are apes. Yes, we're smarter than the other apes, but then again, gorillas and chimps are stronger than us. Does that make them less ape-like? It's like saying red-heads are less human because they have a generally atypical hair color. For any group, not all members have to homogeneous in every detail, merely similar enough in larger part to show affinity.

All living creatures have an eye on each side of the head - that is just the way universal law designed them.

Eye configurations vary considerably. The configuration you speak of comes from a common line of animals. You start going to neighboring branches of the animal kingdom, particularly non-bilateral lineages, your rule fails pretty fast.

We live in a universe that has positive and negative forces at play constantly. Just because I have two eyes designed to function in the third dimension and an ape has two eyes does not mean we are the same creation. Furthermore what seperates me from the ape is my ability to have `wilful delusion` an ape is not capable of such fanceful things...we as I mentioned are creators similar to God - a little less than the angels....apes are base...we are not.

How do you know an ape isn't capable of this? They've been shown to be able to deceive, have pretty much the same emotional landscape, even at least some affinity towards proto-language, and tool-using capabilities are far higher than previously assumed. A lot of what makes humans human isn't necessarily differences so much as degree of possession of certain attributes. You're attempting to maintain an artificial divide where none may actually exist.

I'll repeat. Our ancestors were ape-like enough that I see no reason not to call them apes. We share a common ancestor with all the other great apes at a point somewhere around six to eight million years ago. If it helps you to sleep at night to deny the affinity, so be it. I find that kind of self-delusion and compartmentalization is a sign of weakness, not of strength.

[cybercoma]

Redheads are less human because they have no soul.

Just sayin.

[DogOnPorch]

Redheads are less human because they have no soul.

Just sayin.

http://www.noob.us/humor/south-park-ginger-kids/

We've all seen 'em on the streets.

[bush_cheney2004]

[DogOnPorch]

[betsy]

Ah, so at least you've read our words, finally. (Do you have some vision issues that require fonts to be huge?)

I do support my claim, dear. Archaeology has uncovered no evidence of human civilization and life around the planet being wiped out all at once. Had the Biblcal flood actually taken place, there would be evidence from China to Mexico, in Egypt, India, and France, of towns and cities having been demolished and the people in them killed, all at around the same date. And that's just looking at it from an archaeological standpoint: Physically, there is a finite amount of water on the planet, which is not even close enough to cover all the landmass. Genetically, our DNA tells us we don't all descend from a Hebrew man who fathered our ancestors at the age of 600.

The scientific process determines what is true by collecting evidence in support of a theory; once enough evidence is found, the theory can be considered a fact. A global flood would leave behind it many, many marks - smaller floods do. Yet, there's no evidence - not one shred - that the world was flooded the way the Bible tells it. With a total vacuume of proof, it can be concluded that the Bible's story is a myth.

Even some sane Christians accept this:

[c/e]

Did you read this part??

Fleming intensified his assault in 1826 when he wrote "The Geological Deluge, as Interpreted by Baron Cuvier and Professor Buckland, Inconsistent with the Testimony of Moses and the Phenomena of Nature." [58] Fleming was concerned that Buckland in particular, with his high view of Scripture, had allowed his imagination to become overactive in his desire to find evidence for the flood. Fleming reminded Buckland that he had attributed the extinction of many species of quadrupeds to the deluge, whereas Scripture spoke of the preservation of at least a pair of every kind. Buckland contended that the flood was sudden, transient, virtually universal, and simultaneous, rushing about with overwhelming impetuosity, but Moses mentioned only the universality of the flood, and if anything the biblical evidence suggested that the flood was slow and gradual, inasmuch as it took forty days for the waters to rise. If the flood had been as violent as Buckland suggested, it is hard to imagine how the ark could have survived, much less landed relatively close to the point from which it first lifted off the ground as the Bible reports. Buckland said that the flood excavated deep valleys by tearing up solid rock, which would imply that prediluvian geography must have been radically different from what it is now, and yet Moses implied that the countries had the same appearance before and after the flood. If one took the biblical reference to the olive leaf seriously, one would have to conclude that the Mosaic flood was not violent enough to have disturbed the soil or trees; and the fact that Noah was able to plant a vineyard shortly after the flood further indicated that the soil had not been washed away.

By 1830, many geologists were having second thoughts about a single universal deluge and were taking another look at the physical evidence

Although Lyell recognized that the majority of older commentators held to the geographical universality of the flood and that both Deluc and Buckland had eloquently and zealously supported the notion of a great flood that "worked a considerable alteration in the external configuration of our continents," he expressed agreement with Fleming that the biblical narrative did not "indicate the impetuous rushing of the waters, either as they rose or when they retreated." For Lyell as for Fleming, the survival of the olive branch seemed a clear indication that vegetation had not been destroyed in the deluge.

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p82.htm

There is no contradiction!

Flemming was simply criticising Cuvier's and Buckland's interpretation of the flood. And if you read Flemming's view about the olive branch - implying that somehow some plants (and therfore some other living things) were still around - it only supports my assertion that Moses was not given a blow-by-blow account of everything that's been written in Genesis!

From what we can see, Genesis was only a summary since graphic details of origin are scattered throughout the Bible by different authors from different time. An example I can think of is the way it was described how God stretches the heavens (at least 11 times), and we found only recently that indeed, the word "stretch" is how the universe's "expanding" should be described!

Furthermore, this statement also support that:

By 1830, many geologists were having second thoughts about a single universal deluge and were taking another look at the physical evidence

Edited June 24, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

Ah, so at least you've read our words, finally. (Do you have some vision issues that require fonts to be huge?)

I do support my claim, dear. Archaeology has uncovered no evidence of human civilization and life around the planet being wiped out all at once. Had the Biblcal flood actually taken place, there would be evidence from China to Mexico, in Egypt, India, and France, of towns and cities having been demolished and the people in them killed, all at around the same date. And that's just looking at it from an archaeological standpoint: Physically, there is a finite amount of water on the planet, which is not even close enough to cover all the landmass. Genetically, our DNA tells us we don't all descend from a Hebrew man who fathered our ancestors at the age of 600.

The scientific process determines what is true by collecting evidence in support of a theory; once enough evidence is found, the theory can be considered a fact. A global flood would leave behind it many, many marks - smaller floods do. Yet, there's no evidence - not one shred - that the world was flooded the way the Bible tells it. With a total vacuume of proof, it can be concluded that the Bible's story is a myth.

Even some sane Christians accept this:

[c/e]

It seems you only quote-mined and posted snippets of statements you want! In other words, you're taking the article out of context!

Did you even go down to read the conclusion of your source?

What marvelous insights into Scripture might await the church if from now on the theologians and exegetes would work side by side with biologists, archeologists, anthropologists, geologists, linguists, astronomers, sociologists, and paleontologists! In a world of burgeoning knowledge about ancient literature, languages, civilizations, culture, and customs as well as about the workings of God's creation, biblical scholars must engage in dialogue with other representatives of the intellectual world they profess to want to influence with the good news --

"the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord" (Rom 1:2-4).

Makes sense. After all, how many Christian scientists founded the disciplines of science - another FACT that I've posted!

Did you even read who wrote that article?

Davis A. Young,

evangelical Christian geologist from Calvin College

Edited June 24, 2011 by betsy

[g_bambino]

Did you even go down to read the conclusion of your source?

Yes. That's from where I drew the quote. How did you not know that?

Did you even read who wrote that article?

Yes. That's why I said "Even some sane Christians accept this."

Davis A. Young,

evangelical Christian geologist from Calvin College

Are you six years old? Perhaps it's your nap time.

[+]

Edited June 24, 2011 by g_bambino

[Oleg Bach]

I thought we were debating a scientific notion, not rehashing a BC comic strip. Morphologically, behaviourally and genetically we are apes. Yes, we're smarter than the other apes, but then again, gorillas and chimps are stronger than us. Does that make them less ape-like? It's like saying red-heads are less human because they have a generally atypical hair color. For any group, not all members have to homogeneous in every detail, merely similar enough in larger part to show affinity.

Eye configurations vary considerably. The configuration you speak of comes from a common line of animals. You start going to neighboring branches of the animal kingdom, particularly non-bilateral lineages, your rule fails pretty fast.

How do you know an ape isn't capable of this? They've been shown to be able to deceive, have pretty much the same emotional landscape, even at least some affinity towards proto-language, and tool-using capabilities are far higher than previously assumed. A lot of what makes humans human isn't necessarily differences so much as degree of possession of certain attributes. You're attempting to maintain an artificial divide where none may actually exist.

I'll repeat. Our ancestors were ape-like enough that I see no reason not to call them apes. We share a common ancestor with all the other great apes at a point somewhere around six to eight million years ago. If it helps you to sleep at night to deny the affinity, so be it. I find that kind of self-delusion and compartmentalization is a sign of weakness, not of strength.

Nope - I disagree. YOU don't know that for sure...most of evolutionary thought is still and always will be theoretical....so you can call your ape ancestors dad and I will not. IF enough time passes even fossils turn to dust and that record is lost for enternity! We only theorize on what we can touch and see..some things can not be touched or seen...because time has removed them and the atoms are disappated and scattered never to be united into a living form or a dead one ever again. Darwin never once said that there is no intelligent design within nature - nor did he rant that there was no God.

Evolution and creation are the same thing - we, because we are temporal beings are caught up in the time factor - at the high end of this little potential debate is the possiblity - that time does not exist ....In order for it to exist there would have to be a begining and an end....creation or the beginings of evolutionary theory are NOT the begining of it all - You mention the use of TOOLS ...big deal - birds will use a straw to draw out a bug to eat. Who are you to say that I practice self delusion and that I am weak - YOU don't know anything for certain anymore than I - that would make BOTH of us weak - or strong....and what is this buisness about weakness in comparison to power?

Your premise is that you are strong because you do not recognize a God - or something more powerful than yourself...good luck. You might just need it! As for myself - I will not gamble with enternity for the sake of beefing up my ego and THINKING that I am god--- cos' I am not nor are YOU!

[ToadBrother]

Nope - I disagree. YOU don't know that for sure...most of evolutionary thought is still and always will be theoretical....so you can call your ape ancestors dad and I will not. IF enough time passes even fossils turn to dust and that record is lost for enternity! We only theorize on what we can touch and see..some things can not be touched or seen...because time has removed them and the atoms are disappated and scattered never to be united into a living form or a dead one ever again. Darwin never once said that there is no intelligent design within nature - nor did he rant that there was no God.

Could you try that again, this time critiquing with facts rather than just handwaving? You do realize, I trust, that a considerable amount of evidence comes from molecular analysis, and shockers, the molecular and fossil evidence line up very nicely. When you have multiple lines of evidence that correlate strongly towards the same answer, I posit that you are indeed in possession of a strong theory.

Evolution and creation are the same thing - we, because we are temporal beings are caught up in the time factor - at the high end of this little potential debate is the possiblity - that time does not exist ....In order for it to exist there would have to be a begining and an end....creation or the beginings of evolutionary theory are NOT the begining of it all - You mention the use of TOOLS ...big deal - birds will use a straw to draw out a bug to eat. Who are you to say that I practice self delusion and that I am weak - YOU don't know anything for certain anymore than I - that would make BOTH of us weak - or strong....and what is this buisness about weakness in comparison to power?

Your premise is that you are strong because you do not recognize a God - or something more powerful than yourself...good luck. You might just need it! As for myself - I will not gamble with enternity for the sake of beefing up my ego and THINKING that I am god--- cos' I am not nor are YOU!

What does God have to do with this? Where did I bring up God? Where did I claim I was stronger because I don't believe in God? How about you actually debate what I say, rather than inventing scripts for me that you can topple.

[ToadBrother]

Did you even read who wrote that article?

Since when did being Christian require you to deny evolution?

[Oleg Bach]

Could you try that again, this time critiquing with facts rather than just handwaving? You do realize, I trust, that a considerable amount of evidence comes from molecular analysis, and shockers, the molecular and fossil evidence line up very nicely. When you have multiple lines of evidence that correlate strongly towards the same answer, I posit that you are indeed in possession of a strong theory.

What does God have to do with this? Where did I bring up God? Where did I claim I was stronger because I don't believe in God? How about you actually debate what I say, rather than inventing scripts for me that you can topple.

You infered that I was weak because I was a believer...and logic dictates if you infere I am weak - then you are stating you are stronger for NOT being a believer. It appears that your perspective view of creation or evolution is overly religious. It seems that you suggest that I submit. If you look upon the meaning of the term Islam ...it means submission. Okay - I submit...evolution took place....BUT why am I not that impressed with the evolution of mankind? Frankly I adore science believe it or not..but I do also adore that idea that we can evolve higher and better than what contemporary science has to offer...I guess that is my point - total dependence on the idea of evolution hampers are developement into the beings we are capable of being..it is a restriction...I don't like being restricted.

[Oleg Bach]

It seems you only quote-mined and posted snippets of statements you want! In other words, you're taking the article out of context!

Did you even go down to read the conclusion of your source?

Makes sense. After all, how many Christian scientists founded the disciplines of science - another FACT that I've posted!

Did you even read who wrote that article?

Davis A. Young,

evangelical Christian geologist from Calvin College

No wonder orgainzed movements like the Muslims are overwhelming what is left of the so-called Christians. "Christian College?" Sound so cheezy to me...a bunch of soft spoken fresh faced nerds gathering together to create ANOTHER form of Christianity - that would make about 2045 sects in total - will their evolution ever stop? This constant re-invention of western religion is irritating...I personally believe that Christianity perished as soon as Paul or Saul started to clutter up the New Testiment with his version - seeing he never even met Jesus Christ leaves a lot in question.

[DogOnPorch]

No wonder orgainzed movements like the Muslims are overwhelming what is left of the so-called Christians. "Christian College?" Sound so cheezy to me...a bunch of soft spoken fresh faced nerds gathering together to create ANOTHER form of Christianity - that would make about 2045 sects in total - will their evolution ever stop? This constant re-invention of western religion is irritating...I personally believe that Christianity perished as soon as Paul or Saul started to clutter up the New Testiment with his version - seeing he never even met Jesus Christ leaves a lot in question.

Calvin is a great institute, Oleg.

[M.Dancer]

Since when did being Christian require you to deny evolution?

Only fundies

Every other mainstream sect has embraced reality

[g_bambino]

Since when did being Christian require you to deny evolution?

Actually, in this particular case, betsy seems compelled by relgious dogma to deny not only evolution, but archaeology, geology, hydrology, physics, and biology, as well.

[Oleg Bach]

Only fundies

Every other mainstream sect has embraced reality

Exactly - Truth - that Christ asked all to embrace is commonly called reality...God does not need smoke and mirrors or silly miracles to impress humaity. Only an idiot would look at a fossil and say it could only be 4000 years old - I am certain that God must expect his children or creations .....not to be fools...or attempt to fool others.

[ToadBrother]

You infered that I was weak because I was a believer...and logic dictates if you infere I am weak - then you are stating you are stronger for NOT being a believer. It appears that your perspective view of creation or evolution is overly religious. It seems that you suggest that I submit. If you look upon the meaning of the term Islam ...it means submission. Okay - I submit...evolution took place....BUT why am I not that impressed with the evolution of mankind? Frankly I adore science believe it or not..but I do also adore that idea that we can evolve higher and better than what contemporary science has to offer...I guess that is my point - total dependence on the idea of evolution hampers are developement into the beings we are capable of being..it is a restriction...I don't like being restricted.

I didn't infer you were weak, I openly stated it. Your beliefs are clearly part of it, but self-delusion is not a sign of strength. We are apes, Oleg, get over it and get on with things.

[betsy]

FACT: THE REGENERATING RIBS

Although all bones can repair themselves, ribs can regenerate themselves.2 Ribs are commonly removed during surgeries that require bone grafts in other parts of the body. The rib is removed from the periosteum (a tissue surrounding the bone) much like a banana would be removed from its peel while keeping most of the peel intact. The periosteum must remain, as it contains osteoblasts which build the new rib bone.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/amazing-regenerating-rib

Genesis 2:20b22

But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him. And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.

God surely knows the human body so well!

Edited June 25, 2011 by betsy

[DogOnPorch]

Do women have more ribs than men?

[betsy]

FACT: CIRCUMCISION IS BEST DONE ON THE 8th DAY!

In 1935, professor H. Dam proposed the name vitamin K for the factor in foods that helped prevent hemorrhaging in baby chicks. We now know vitamin K is responsible for the production (by the liver) of the element known as prothrombin. If vitamin K is deficient, there will be a prothrombin deficiency and hemorrhaging may occur.

Oddly, it is only on the fifth through the seventh days of the newborn males life that vitamin K (produced by bacteria in the intestinal tract) is present in adequate quantities. Vitamin K, coupled with prothrombin, causes blood coagulation, which is important in any surgical procedure. Holt and McIntosh, in their classic work, Holt Pediatrics, observed that a newborn infant has peculiar susceptibility to bleeding between the second and fifth days of life.... Hemorrhages at this time, though often inconsequential, are sometimes extensive; they may produce serious damage to internal organs, especially to the brain, and cause death from shock and exsanguination (1953, pp. 125-126). Obviously, then, if vitamin K is not produced in sufficient quantities until days five through seven, it would be wise to postpone any surgery until some time after that. But why did God specify day eight?

On the eighth day, the amount of prothrombin present actually is elevated above one-hundred percent of normaland is the only day in the males life in which this will be the case under normal conditions. If surgery is to be performed, day eight is the perfect day to do it. Vitamin K and prothrombin levels are at their peak.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=1118

Genesis 17:12

12And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

Philippians 3:5

Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, [of] the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;

Luke 1:59

And it came to pass, that on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child; and they called him Zacharias, after the name of his father.

Edited June 25, 2011 by betsy

[Sir Bandelot]

You infered that I was weak because I was a believer...and logic dictates if you infere I am weak - then you are stating you are stronger for NOT being a believer. It appears that your perspective view of creation or evolution is overly religious. It seems that you suggest that I submit. If you look upon the meaning of the term Islam ...it means submission. Okay - I submit...evolution took place....BUT why am I not that impressed with the evolution of mankind? Frankly I adore science believe it or not..but I do also adore that idea that we can evolve higher and better than what contemporary science has to offer...I guess that is my point - total dependence on the idea of evolution hampers are developement into the beings we are capable of being..it is a restriction...I don't like being restricted.

Many heroes, champions, great men and women draw their strength from their belief. Muhammad Ali is one obvious name that comes to mind. Being a believer does NOT make one weak. In fact quite the opposite.