xkape:

KAG
anytime someone says something that opposes u and u don't have an aswer to u say the person doesnt know what he is saying. thats cool.

Nope. You clearly had no idea what you were talking about, as it was widely acknowledged in Galileo's time, that the Earth was spherical.

about galileo, maybe i meant before that, columbus.

Maybe you did, but you would still have been wrong see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth.

besides at the time the earth was supposed to be the center of the universe(an equally erroneous suppositon) so because 99% of biologists support evolution now doesnt really mean anything if it is untrue. human beigns have an infinite capacity for mass deception. why do u think religion is such a big issue

The main difference being, those who thought the Earth was geocentric held that belief without any scientific evidence, and based their belief strictly on Biblical premises, while Galileo, like biologists, based his findings on scientific evidence. So, because biologists, and the vast majority of the scientific community accept evolution based on evidence, I think it's safe to say evolution occurs. Alternatively, it could simply be an elaborate world wide conspiracy engineered by th EAC, but who can tell this things *shrugs*

fossillation is rare right yet it so conveniently documents a long direct line from the fruit to the root of a big tree without any sign of the many boughs and branches and shoots that exists on that tree. so u can conveniently brush away this argument by "u don't know what you're talkin about" and "fossil evidence is rare"

I have no idea what you were trying to say with the tree thing, but fossilaisation is rare in the grand scheme of things, I don't think even creationists like Ham deny that.

Evolution 100yrs, Abiogenesis 40yrs!!! oh golly what a big non-hair-splitting difference. Give me a break

You asked, I supplied *shrugs*

So now u admit the origin of life must have been brought to earth by something

and for your information i am not a creationist (in the sense that u are thinking)

No.

*** lioness shakes her head and walks out the thread ****

Fluffy:

Hey dakmanzero no need to get nasty, please if you must argue do it in a nicer way

Fluffy, xkape has gotten nasty a long time ago. I merely responded in kind.

If you wish to calm things down, begin at the roots.

Hi KAG,

I refer to your quote earlier today;1

KAG:

I know you haven't said anything of the sort, but I feel I should point out agai, that evolution =\= atheism, and far more christiians than atheists accept the ToE. That is all.

And yesterday.

KAG:

I doubt that. Some of the christians who accept evolution believe that their interpretaion of the Genesis account actually shows that YHVH used evolution, the big bang, etc to create everything, some believe that the Genesis account is allegorical/mythical, some believe it was wrongly translated, and I'm sure there are many other christian evolutionists school of thought. However, what is clear is that the vast majority of christians accept the occurence of evolution, and probably most christians believe that although God used evolution to create humans it doesn't contradict their understag of Genesis.

I am by no means a scientist, and although I am familiar with the arguments of both sides, I am happy to let those who have actually studied the subjects lead the discourse on this, hence my silence.

However, the Bible and Christianity, I do study.

The lame attempts by some to reconcile (or even align) both positions, is (to my mind at least) pure evidence of unbelief (or perhaps shame at being thought backwards for having "blind faith", unlike evolutionists right?).

Yes, there are various ways to interprete the Bible. allegorical, prophetic and revalational. But a literal interpretation is always the first basis (and in some case the only one).  But two things;

1. The different meanings will always harmonise.
2. There is no such thing as a "mythical" interpretation. That in other words is calling it a fairytale. Unbelief!

You see, there have always been those who claim to be God's people, whilst disbelieving his word. In the Lords day there where the Sadducee's, who denied certain doctrine. And during the early church, there were others most notably the "gnostic".

Today we have those who deny the literal creation narrative, the virgin birth, the sinless life, death and resurrection of our Lord. They claim the Torah has multiple authors, and in various other ways claim the Bible is not true to itself or even the Word of God.

And no, I haven't said that "evolution = atheism",
what I am saying is that     "evolution =\= Christianity"

People are free to claim belief in both the ToE and the bible and to call themselves Christians. But a true understanding of, and belief in the Bible precludes you believing both. It guess it means you are neither "fish nor fowl", but again, we are still awaiting evolutionists to provide the fossil evidence for such a creature right?   .

God "The God of all flesh & the Father of Spirits" bless you

Hi All,

One other thing, regardless of what "Christians", or scientists say, the Word of God holds true

Isaiah 40:22 - It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

The God of the Bible never said the earth He created was flat!

May that same God lift up His countenance upon you!

TV01,

What you mean to say is that Catholics are no Christians beause Catholics do believe in evolution, am I correct?

Hi Nferyn,

nferyn:

TV01,

What you mean to say is that Catholics are no Christians beause Catholics do believe in evolution, am I correct?

I stand by what I said. And I meant it exactly as stated. Please feel free to draw any logical inference.

Regards

TV01:

Hi KAG,

I refer to your quote earlier today;1

And yesterday.

I am by no means a scientist, and although I am familiar with the arguments of both sides, I am happy to let those who have actually studied the subjects lead the discourse on this, hence my silence.

However, the Bible and Christianity, I do study.

The lame attempts by some to reconcile (or even align) both positions, is (to my mind at least) pure evidence of unbelief (or perhaps shame at being thought backwards for having "blind faith", unlike evolutionists right?).

I wouldn't call them lame attempts, nor would I call it unbelief. It is infact what has gone on for centuries, when christians realise that the world operates in a way that contradicts their biblical interpretation, they either conclude the Bible was wrong, or their interpretation was wrong.

Yes, there are various ways to interprete the Bible. allegorical, prophetic and revalational. But a literal interpretation is always the first basis (and in some case the only one). But two things;

Are you perchance a geocentrist?

1. The different meanings will always harmonise.
2. There is no such thing as a "mythical" interpretation. That in other words is calling it a fairytale. Unbelief!

Mythical doesn't necessarily mean fairytale, think of it as allegorical, a story passed through time to convey a deep meaning, that is all things were created by God.

You see, there have always been those who claim to be God's people, whilst disbelieving his word. In the Lords day there where the Sadducee's, who denied certain doctrine. And during the early church, there were others most notably the "gnostic".

And there are those who claim to be God's people, yet are not, even though they believe every word of the Bible. By the way, I've yet to meet any christian who in some ways does not disregard some doctrines in the Bible.

Today we have those who deny the literal creation narrative, the virgin birth, the sinless life, death and resurrection of our Lord. They claim the Torah has multiple authors, and in various other ways claim the Bible is not true to itself or even the Word of God.

The Torah does have multiple authors, and realising that the creation narrative in Genesis isn't literal, doesn't mean denial of the virgin birth etc.

And no, I haven't said that "evolution = atheism",
what I am saying is that "evolution =\= Christianity"

People are free to claim belief in both the ToE and the bible and to call themselves Christians. But a true understanding of, and belief in the Bible precludes you believing both.

[/quote]

There I was thinking that the gift of salvation, and christianity was reliant on accepting Jesus' redemptive sacrifice, I guess now i know it depends on if you take the Genesis account as a literal, historical account. It's even worse if you have to accept the world is about 6000 years old, to be a christian.

By the way, some of the strongest and most fervent christians I have met accept evolution.

[quote] It guess it means you are neither "fish nor fowl", but again, we are still awaiting evolutionists to provide the fossil evidence for such a creature right? [q .

God "The God of all flesh & the Father of Spirits" bless you

Why?

TV01:

Hi All,

One other thing, regardless of what "Christians", or scientists say, the Word of God holds true

Isaiah 40:22 - It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

The God of the Bible never said the earth He created was flat!

May that same God lift up His countenance upon you!

Circle = 2d = flat, Spherical = 3d = Earth.

I find it bemusing that people treat the Bible like some kind of a science book, but when scientists try using science to rebutt things in the Bible there's often an outcry of, "signs it's the end of days", and "stop persecuting me" (referring to some other christains I've encountered, not you personally)

invectives again darkman tut tut tut

let me pull some more stuff out of my arse

KAG and nefyryn
so complexity is one of the many products of evolution right? it is only neccessary in a strawman?

so if these variations in traits were truly random they would all apear equaly. for instance if we could trace a line from a rodent to a monkey to a hominid we should also trace a similar line backward from more complex to less complex ( i know u said complexity is not neccesary but we have observed "evolutionary" changes in complexity so let us use that for now) . i know u will also counter by saying that there is no selective pressure to force such a backward change just like u asked why a virus would want to become something else.  

now the dilemma is if we map evolutionary change to time the major observation that sticks out is changes in complexity. lateral changes that do not necessarily imply increased complexity are more or less insignificant compared to the time frame. example trobolytes (unchanged for eons) amber-fossilised mosquitoes (and i am not refering to juraisic park), crocodiles, the common dog and many others have remained basically unchanged through various evolutionary cycles. do we then assume that nature is indeed cognate and is in cahoots with animals to push them towards complexity and circumstances never arise for the revese or at least the diverse to happen?

even the variation in the beaks of the famous galapagos finches are not more significant a survival adaptation than the difference btw the nose of a european and an african (or is one more evolved than the other? )

so u cant eat ur cake and have it by saying
1. complexity is not necessary for evolution
2. variation is random but selective pressures ensure only the necessary changes occur
when what we observe is an increase in complexity over time (or would anyone argue that a progression from amoeba to fish to frog to rodent to ape to man has no underlying thread of increase in the complexity of the biological process of the species?) and this random pressure-controlled mechanism has not shown any significant move in other directions?

Also no-one has offered any explanation for the statified and discreete nature of the fossil evidence. Saying the evidence is small is a cop out becos even if it is small it should at least be representative. yet what we see are familly trees of direct lineages to what we see today the number of extinct varities we see do not make up statistically for the possibilities a truely random scheme would give us. even then the extinct species almost always have close re[b]latives around today (dinosaurs may be an exception though). so where are all the failed experiments that were deselected?

KAG[/b] ok, so i made a historical error, chew me out on that but dont ignore the argument

i would also want to know what selective pressure led to curly african hair and straith caucasian hair , cold? (this is a genuine question, not part of the argument)

xkape:

invectives again darkman tut tut tut

let me pull some more stuff out of my arse

KAG and nefyryn
so complexity is one of the many products of evolution right? it is only neccessary in a strawman?

Huh?

so if these variations in traits were truly random they would all apear equaly. for instance if we could trace a line from a rodent to a monkey to a hominid we should also trace a similar line backward from more complex to less complex ( i know u said complexity is not neccesary but we have observed "evolutionary" changes in complexity so let us use that for now) . i know u will also counter by saying that there is no selective pressure to force such a backward change just like u asked why a virus would want to become something else.

now the dilemma is if we map evolutionary change to time the major observation that sticks out is changes in complexity. lateral changes that do not necessarily imply increased complexity are more or less insignificant compared to the time frame. example trobolytes (unchanged for eons) amber-fossilised mosquitoes (and i am not refering to juraisic park), crocodiles, the common dog and many others have remained basically unchanged through various evolutionary cycles. do we then assume that nature is indeed cognate and is in cahoots with animals to push them towards complexity and circumstances never arise for the revese or at least the diverse to happen?

even the variation in the beaks of the famous galapagos finches are not more significant a survival adaptation than the difference between the nose of a european and an african (or is one more evolved than the other? )

I have no idea what you are trying to say/ask, but quick points, Evolution is not random; monkeys didn't evolve from rodents, and hominids did not evolve from monkeys (monkey in the colloquilal usage of the word, which is what I assume you meant); if there's no pressure or need for organisms who are "fit" for their environmental to niches to change, then they won't. common dogs haven't speciated, most likely due to the influence of man (I'm assuming you mean domesticated dogs).

so u can't eat your cake and have it by saying
1. complexity is not necessary for evolution
2. variation is random but selective pressures ensure only the necessary changes occur
when what we observe is an increase in complexity over time (or would anyone argue that a progression from amoeba to fish to frog to rodent to ape to man has no underlying thread of increase in the complexity of the biological process of the species?) and this random pressure-controlled mechanism has not shown any significant move in other directions?

That should be, evolution doesn't necessarily lead to complexity, variation isn't random, and selection helps to weed out the bad mutations in the population, while promoting benficial/neutral ones.

Also no-one has offered any explanation for the statified and discreete nature of the fossil evidence. Saying the evidence is small is a cop out because even if it is small it should at least be representative. yet what we see are familly trees of direct lineages to what we see today the number of extinct varities we see do not make up statistically for the possibilities a truely random scheme would give us. even then the extinct species almost always have close re[b]latives around today (dinosaurs may be an exception though). so where are all the failed experiments that were deselected?

Evolution isn't random, there are a very good amount of fossils, the fossil records does give us a very good idea of the evolution of several species in existence (mind though that there are several evidences independent of the fossil record, which show common descent), and dinosaurs relatives are birds. Infact some would argue that birds are dinosaurs.

KAG[/b] ok, so i made a historical error, chew me out on that but don't ignore the argument

What was the argument? That the fact 99% of biologists accept evolution based on evidence and facts, shows evolution could be untrue, or something like that?

i would also want to know what selective pressure led to curly african hair and straith caucasian hair , cold? (this is a genuine question, not part of the argument)

This could help: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A732791.

Reverend:

Charles Darwin was the man.

100% EVOLUTION !

Aha the kinky REVEREND also believes he came to earth as a monkey and changed into a human being,
Oh well I'm not surprised.

Can any of the monkey descendants do the monkey dance for moi

xkape:


KAG and nefyryn
so complexity is one of the many products of evolution right? it is only neccessary in a strawman?

Indeed. I don't know if you intentionally put up a strawman of evolution or if you just don't have enough knowledge of the mechanisms of evolution.

xkape:

so if these variations in traits were truly random they would all apear equaly.

No, selective pressure would weed out those traits that are not beneficial

xkape:

for instance if we could trace a line from a rodent to a monkey to a hominid we should also trace a similar line backward from more complex to less complex ( i know u said complexity is not neccesary but we have observed "evolutionary" changes in complexity so let us use that for now) .

Complexity is one possible outcome of evolutionary pressure because increased complexity allows those organisms to enter different niches in the ecosystems they live in. Don't forget that the largest biomass on earth is made up by bacteria, so as far as evolutionary success is concerned, bacteria are at least as successful as all other living organisms.

xkape:

i know u will also counter by saying that there is no selective pressure to force such a backward change just like u asked why a virus would want to become something else.

There is no intention or direction in evolution.

xkape:

now the dilemma is if we map evolutionary change to time the major observation that sticks out is changes in complexity. lateral changes that do not necessarily imply increased complexity are more or less insignificant compared to the time frame. example trobolytes (unchanged for eons) amber-fossilised mosquitoes (and i am not refering to juraisic park), crocodiles, the common dog and many others have remained basically unchanged through various evolutionary cycles. do we then assume that nature is indeed cognate and is in cahoots with animals to push them towards complexity and circumstances never arise for the revese or at least the diverse to happen?

I don't understand what you're trying to imply here. Increased complexity is one of the cumulative adaptations that surfaced.

xkape:

even the variation in the beaks of the famous galapagos finches are not more significant a survival adaptation than the difference between the nose of a european and an african (or is one more evolved than the other? )

I really don't knowwhat you're getting at.

xkape:

so u can't eat your cake and have it by saying
1. complexity is not necessary for evolution
2. variation is random but selective pressures ensure only the necessary changes occur

There is no necessity in evolution it is a function of mainly random genetic variation and selective pressure by a changing environment.

xkape:

when what we observe is an increase in complexity over time (or would anyone argue that a progression from amoeba to fish to frog to rodent to ape to man has no underlying thread of increase in the complexity of the biological process of the species?) and this random pressure-controlled mechanism has not shown any significant move in other directions?

The increase in complexity only occured for a relatively small part of the living organisms

xkape:

Also no-one has offered any explanation for the statified and discreete nature of the fossil evidence. Saying the evidence is small is a cop out because even if it is small it should at least be representative.

Why? The circumstances in which fosilisation take place are far from random. There are almost no fossil remains from hot, humid climates for very understandable reasons. Those conditions do not allow fossilisation.

xkape:

yet what we see are familly trees of direct lineages to what we see today the number of extinct varities we see do not make up statistically for the possibilities a truely random scheme would give us.

Random in what regard?

xkape:

even then the extinct species almost always have close re[b]latives around today (dinosaurs may be an exception though). so where are all the failed experiments that were deselected?

Almost all are 'failed experiments' and not directly on the evolutionary tree leading to current species. If you would truly comprehend evolutionary processes and fossilisation, it would be evident that this must be the case.

It is apparent now that we all know far too much for our own good.

I hereby prescribe the ultimate medication: Brain Drain

What do I mean by that? simple. Quit arguing and go drool at some women. Afterall, that IS what we, the almighty males, do best!

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-11411.0.html

Well, I have made my vote, but drooling is something I no longer do (and I'm not going to start again, I'm not in my mid-life crisis yet ). Besides, a married man should not stay too long in these quarters.

There are two creationist myths in the opening book of genesis of the OT.Which one is valid?Creationism apologetics do need to answer this first.
The first version did not mention any date or exact place on earth the first humans were located.
The second version,which is the 'Eden' version,mentioned the place(garden of Eden) and time(if the years are calculated starting from Adam till,maybe Jesus,about 4000 BC)
Please,bear in mind that even the bible itself disproves the second version's validity by giving hints that there were already human beings living on the earth apart from, and even before, Adam & eve.

jagunlabi don come again with half-reads.

Please tell me about this theory of yours that there were already human beings dwelling on earth before Adam and Eve.

@ Jabunlabi

There is only one fact of [b]creatio[/b]n not two "creationist myths" as you call it.

The bible clearly says Adam and Eve were the first two humans on earth created in the garden of eden.
So which two "creationist myths" are you talking about, are you

Fluffy,

There are actually hundreds of creation myths, many of whom are writen down in sacred books. If you happen to choose one over the other, I guess you must have a good reason to believe that one is factual and the others aren't.

These two posts have proved beyond any reasonable doubt that a lot of people read the bible blindly.They read,but at the same time they do not read anything!
Fluffy and 4get,go and pick up your bible and read the book of genesis,but this time,open your inner eyes wide open while reading.I am not going to show you anything by posting those passages that gave those hints here .You will do that for yourselves.As a matter of fact,let that be ya homework,so go to work!

Fluffy:

@ Jabunlabi

There is only one fact of creatio[/b]n not two "creationist myths" as you call it.

The bible clearly says Adam and Eve were the first two humans on earth created in the garden of eden.
So which two "creationist myths" are you talking about, are you

4get_me:

[b]jagunlabi don come again with half-reads.

Please tell me about this theory of yours that there were already human beings dwelling on earth before Adam and Eve.

The reason why they chose the hebreic creation myth was that their colonial masters brought it to them and managed to brainwash them that there are no other ones,so they had no choice but to accept.They are living in a mythological oblivion!Lol!

nferyn:

Fluffy,

There are actually hundreds of creation myths, many of whom are writen down in sacred books. If you happen to choose one over the other, I guess you must have a good reason to believe that one is factual and the others aren't.

nferyn:

Fluffy,

There are actually hundreds of creation myths, many of whom are writen down in sacred books. If you happen to choose one over the other, I guess you must have a good reason to believe that one is factual and the others aren't.

I only know about one sacred book called the holy bible and there is only one truth of creation stating the whole process of creation step by step.

Fluffy:

I only know about one sacred book called the holy bible and there is only one truth of creation stating the whole process of creation step by step.

Why did you actually start this thread? I'm quite curious.

Morning KAG,

KAG:

I wouldn't call them lame attempts, nor would I call it unbelief. It is infact what has gone on for centuries, when christians realise that the world operates in a way that contradicts their biblical interpretation, they either conclude the Bible was wrong, or their interpretation was wrong.

I quite agree with "interpretations" possibly being wrong. But if the Bible itself is wrong, that effectively nullifies it and all it's claims. As a matter of integrity, if one come to the conclusion that the Bible is untrue, why not simply place your faith elsewhere?

KAG:

Are you perchance a geocentrist?

No, I am not, or perhaps I am but don't know it, or maybe I will be! I'm not a scientist or expert in any field and I don't feel the need to become one. Faith and the Bible are essentially simple things. That's not to say I despise or shun intellectual or scientific discussions, especially where the Bible is concerned, and whilst I try to keep abreast of things, I'm more about living my faith than proving it.

I'm a Christian. A  Bible believing Christian. A fundamentalist if you like. I believe in the divine inspiration, inerrancy, infallibility and immutability of the Bible as Gods word. Could there be errors in translation ? maybe, but I don't see that as affecting the essence of the Bible, or the Bible as being God's revelation.

Lets abandon the "mythical/allegorical" thing is a bit of a mute point.

KAG:

And there are those who claim to be God's people, yet are not, even though they believe every word of the Bible. By the way, I've yet to meet any christian who in some ways does not disregard some doctrines in the Bible.

I can't speak for others, but I live my faith by what I know from reading, researching or what has been revealed. Some of my positions are literally by default. So for example I used to tithe as I was taught. I now understand it is not a Christian notion, so I stopped. I hope this speaks to the "geocentrist" question as well.

KAG:

The Torah does have multiple authors, and realising that the creation narrative in Genesis isn't literal, doesn't mean denial of the virgin birth etc.

The Bible records Moses as the inspired author of the Torah. To deny that is to deny Biblical Christianity. To a Christian, "believing God" is righteousness. A half truth is a lie.

Quote:
By the way, some of the strongest and most fervent christians I have met accept evolution.

Creation & ToE are mutually exclusive.
Believe God or don't believe God.

Romans 3:4 - Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar. As it is written: "That You may be justified in Your words, And may overcome when You are judged."

God bless

@Jagunlabi

Seems to me you are the one who needs to do his homework. I've done mine and I know what I'm talking about.  

@ Nferyn

My purpose for starting this thread was to find out what the majority of people believe and to try and help the lost find their way to the truth

@jagunlabi, excuse me, but that was predictably a lazy come back - I suspected you would have nothing more to say.

I don't believe the Bible blindly as far as its truths and power have been proven in my life again and again. If nothing has happened in my life to prove what I read therein, then you'd have a point to accuse believers of believing blindly. What you cannot explain is very easily and conveniently called "myth"; and yet, with all the hoo-ha, the basic question of how we got here has not been answered.

4get_me,

If you think that science is intended to answer questions about ultimate purpose, you'll have to wait very long, as it's not going to happen. Science only answers what and how questions, not why questions.

If you're looking for mechanisms on how life started, we're reasonably close to finding that out, but purpose is non-exisent as far as science is concerned.
The creation stroy, as portrayed in Genesis, contradicts so many established scientific knowledge that anyone believing in it's literal truth either is ignorant or deliberately ignores 90% of our scientific knowledge.

Hi All,

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/malcolmbowden/indexx.htm

Hows about some Christian bias? .

God bless

TV01:

Hi All,

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/malcolmbowden/indexx.htm

Hows about some Christian bias? .

God bless

Creationist bias you mean.

see:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/bowden3733.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/bowdenoh9.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/sheets.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/hfmb.html

Ohh Crap!