Evolution vs Religion

[rileyj]

i don't know why it say "Evolution vs Religion" i can see how we evolved and there still being a god

[Freethinker]

Yes, that is one of the gods' of the gaps. As we learn more about reality, and we need god less to fill in the gaps, there are any number of interum stances one can invent.

 

SOme of us just don't bother with delaying the inevitable. We put in that little extra effort to stop settling for the invention of a gap filler.

 

Plus acceptance of ANY level of Evolution creates all kinds of philosophical problems for Creation.

 

If the concept is that humans are different from the other animals, we have souls, then there had to be a specific point, a specific 1st "souled human". A point at which this entity, god, had decided that the slowly evolved species which eventually became humans, evolved enough to deserve receiving a soul.

 

Any idea how many problems this multiplies to?

 

Obviously, god would not want souled humans to procreate with the still existing non-souled, prehumans. It says so in the bible, we are not to mate with animals. So there had to be a physically identifyable difference. Something that would allow a "human" to know if the other bipeddle humaniod creature was an acceptable mate or not.

 

Thus the soul would need to have enough of a physical component that it could be identified.

 

Show me it.

[rileyj]

specific 1st "souled human"- how about when an animal reaches self-actualization. knows of it's life and it end. maybe that is a sign of the soul. or you can go another way and say that all living things have souls. thats what Gandhi did. or maybe you can boil it down to this . there is a god or not. 50-50

both sides lack conclusive proof and have for all of our history. like you said there will always be people who can make an argument for an after life cause no one will know for sure until they are gone. so the real uestion iswhy is it so bad to believe in a god or after life?

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: rileyj

specific 1st "souled human"- how about when an animal reaches self-actualization. knows of it's life and it end. maybe that is a sign of the soul.

 

What you are describing is acheiving a level of self consciousness., Self awareness. So your saying a soul is nothing more than acheiving a critical mass of neurons and synapse in a purely natural environement? That a soul has no meta-physical reality?

 

OK.

 

or you can go another way and say that all living things have souls. thats what Gandhi did.

 

Again, this makes a soul a purely physical thing existing strictly with-in the bounds of physical reality. It would have to have a physical existence.

 

The question then becomes, where is it?

 

or maybe you can boil it down to this . there is a god or not. 50-50 both sides lack conclusive proof

 

AAARRRRGGGGGHHHHHHHH

 

Shifting the burden of proof!

 

Yo can't prove that George Bush was not eatten whole by the 3rd Realg from the Nebuslo quadrant and what we now see is just a replica formed from it's waste products.

 

But just because you are incapable of disproving my assertion, does not mean there is a 50/50 chance of it being true!

 

Why are you believers so enamerd with the Burden of Proof fallacy? Perhaps because you have nothing of substance to offer so will resort to whatever sophistry you are fooled by personally?

 

Not everyone lacks an education in basic thinking skills. Many people know about argument fallacies, such as Shifting the Burden of Proof.

 

I had hoped I would not have to do my teacher role here again on this.

 

like you said there will always be people who can make an argument for an after life

 

1) I NEVER said any such thing. Quit lying and saying I said something I didn't say.

2) some may make an ATTEMPT to construct an argument, but just as your previous attempt here, it will be based on fallacies. It will not be an acceptably constructed argument.

 

cause no one will know for sure until they are gone. so the real uestion iswhy is it so bad to believe in a god or after life?

 

And I went over this over and over again. No one is able to show I am wrong, but they ask the same question over and over.

 

And people wonder why my posts are so long. I have to repeat myself ad infinitum.

[Freethinker]

Guess Irish Eyes are no longer smiling. She had to actually prove something and found it easier to run away.

[rileyj]

"just because you are incapable of disproving my assertion, does not mean there is a 50/50 chance of it being true"

 

there is a god. this statement is either true or false. thats why i said 50/50. you think its false,others true. me i thought about it and i figured if there isn't, when i die i'll return to nothingness and scince i was nothing for billions of years i don't think i'll mind.but at the same time i don't know for 100% that there isn't a god. so i thought about religion and what i noticed is that the basic teaching is good. Don't kill,rape, steal. now people take different things from it. but i feel those things should be followed god or not. when it comes to science i take it to be true, evolution , big bang ,etc.. but i dont see these as proof of no god. at the same time if proof did show up i would be blind to it. so again whatdo you see that is so bad about believeing in a god. and please don't use the 9-11 again, they would have found a reason with or without a god to do that. just as i'm sure if there were no religion murder wouldn't dissappear.

[IrishEyes]

Posted by FREETHINKER: Mon Apr 12, 2004 8:04 AM Guess Irish Eyes are no longer smiling. She had to actually prove something and found it easier to run away

 

Not quite, but I DO have a life ;>) My in-laws were in town for RESURRECTION weekend and I had no time for silly computer arguments that go nowhere!!!

 

Freethinker, I am looking into a few of your 'proofs' of evolution. As I like to actually fully explore things, rather than do a quick search and cut and paste of other's facts, it may take a few days, but I will respond. However, I don't think it will matter. But I did wonder what others thought of your very vehement responses. I initially felt you must just be an intellectual, and had a hard time accepting God as a reality since evolution 'makes more sense'. After reading your recent responses though, I've changed my mind. I don't think it has anything to do with science being more believable. I think it's much more personal. If it were evolution you believed, that's where you would stop. But you seem intent on discrediting God in general, and Christianity in particluar. You are much too passionate in your hatred of God to be believable as an agnostic, or an atheist.

 

Tim, I don't believe the Bible has ANY contradictions. But then again, I am a fundamental, conservative Christian. For every supposed contradiction pointed to by skeptics, there is a very basic explanation, usually of a misunderstanding.

 

Freethinker, you continually misquote the Bible, or intentionally take passages or verses out of context. While I totally agree that most Christians don't read the Bible, I'm not one of those Christians. You can find verses that will say most anything, especially taken out of context. However, that doesn't mean that your explanations are correct. And as someone that screams about facts, you really should try to stick to them when quoting the Bible.

 

Finally, while this has been lots of fun for me, I know there isn't a single person that reads this that will change their mind about their beliefs. You will stay an 'atheist', Freethinker; rileyj will still believe in a gap god; Tim will believe in a combination of God and science; OP5 will still believe in the God of the Bible (don't let anyone make you feel dumb for that, OP5!); and I'll always believe in God, and Jesus, and everything that I believe now. I won't use Christianity as an excuse to kill you, Freethinker. I won't even ask my husband to zap your computer ;>P For all of the sites you can list that denounce creation, I can find just as many that disprove evolution. There is no winning, for either side. Can the atheist and the Christian peacefully co-exist on a science and technology forum? I guess we'll see. I'll post my replies to your proof when I get to it, but don't think I'm scared. I just have to check your facts, and my kids are more important than your 'proof' right now.

 

Happy Easter!!!!!

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: rileyj

"just because you are incapable of disproving my assertion, does not mean there is a 50/50 chance of it being true"

 

there is a god. this statement is either true or false. thats why i said 50/50.

 

Grass is red. "this statement is either true or false. thats why i said 50/50"

 

Shows how absurd it is to claim a 50/50% chance on anything just because it has not been evaluated for truth yet.

 

you think its false,others true.

 

Again, an absurd assertion. It lacks ANY substance. It is the fallacy of Argumentum ad numerum or Argumentum ad populum. As if having some qty of believers makes something truthful.

 

Something is either truth or not. When someone makes an assertion or proposition, it is up to them to provide enough supporting evidence as to make the assertion even wworth discussing, much less accepting. God claims lack ANY substance. Even here, the only "proof" that is ever offered is "well I can't provide ANY proof, but I KNOW it's true!".

 

Thus it is NOT a 50/50% possibility. It is not ANY possibility until someone here is able to provide ANY valid verifyable proof to even move the suggestion into the point of being a vlaid assertion or proposition.

 

me i thought about it and i figured if there isn't, when i die i'll return to nothingness and scince i was nothing for billions of years i don't think i'll mind.but at the same time i don't know for 100% that there isn't a god.

 

At this point, unless you are holding back from the rest of the world, you have NO PROOF WHATSOEVER! So if you are willing to base your life on a World View that lacks ANY validity whatsoever, then that is the value you have acknowledgew for your life. NOTHING!

 

But don't pull that ole Shift the Burden of Proof crap AGAIN! There is no "i don't know for 100% that there isn't a god.. If there is nothing to even suggest the concept is valid, then any RATIONAL person rejects it.

 

so i thought about religion and what i noticed is that the basic teaching is good. Don't kill,rape, steal.

 

This is a lie! Religion DOES NOT teach "Don't kill,rape, steal." Christianity's reference source, the buybull is loaded with admonitions to rape, steal, lie and kill. There is no arguing that religion's history is filled with it's followers lying, stealing and killing, and doing so while using their god' commands and revelation source to justify it.

 

When altruistic, socially benefitial tenets are promoted, it is because the SECULAR views of the authority are being exposed. CONTRARY to the texts they claim to follow.

 

so again whatdo you see that is so bad about believeing in a god. and please don't use the 9-11 again, they would have found a reason with or without a god to do that.

 

1)Show us all ANY reason an Atheist would have for 9/11. Show us VALID MOTIVATION for killing oneself and thousands of others that way, other than religious.

 

2) As I had posted before. It is NEVER correct to promote thought processes based on ignorance and superstition. It is NOT benefitial for a person to make important life decisions based on a LACK of valid evidence. When a person has decide to IGNORE REALITY and blindly accept authority from a non-existant source, they are open to any number of other wrong decisions.

 

People require a greater level of proof to decide what car to buy or even what cereal to eat than they do what god to beleive in. Imagine if people accepted random unsupportable assertions as to what medicine to take. Or what things to consume as food.

 

WRONG THINKING is WRONG THINKING. It is NEVER OK to intentionally promote, or USE WRONG THINKING.

 

just as i'm sure if there were no religion murder wouldn't dissappear.

 

I nev

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

Posted by FREETHINKER: Mon Apr 12, 2004 8:04 AM <i> Guess Irish Eyes are no longer smiling. She had to actually prove something and found it easier to run away </i>

 

Not quite, but I DO have a life ;>) My in-laws were in town for RESURRECTION weekend

 

OH? Did you have someone come back to life in your town? A FIRST for the entire history of the world!

 

Freethinker, I am looking into a few of your 'proofs' of evolution. As I like to actually fully explore things,

 

How funny! If this were TRUE, you would not have had to aks ME to supply the list of KNOWN examples of Speciation. The ONLY reason you are "looking into a few of your 'proofs' of evolution", is that I had researched this previously and KNEW the info.

 

rather than do a quick search and cut and paste of other's facts, it may take a few days, but I will respond. However, I don't think it will matter.

 

Hey, something we can agree on.

 

I also doubt that you have the internal ability to shed your addiction to belief needs no matter how mcu FACTUAL EVIDENCE is provided. You've already shown us that.

 

And for the "record". It was NOT a "quick search". Talk ORigins is a very well known and highly regarded SCIENTIFIC RESOURCE. I just happen to know it very well and was able to supply data from it very easily. It is a great resource for FACTS.

 

But I did wonder what others thought of your very vehement responses. I initially felt you must just be an intellectual, and had a hard time accepting God as a reality since evolution 'makes more sense'. After reading your recent responses though, I've changed my mind. I don't think it has anything to do with science being more believable. I think it's much more personal. If it were evolution you believed, that's where you would stop. But you seem intent on discrediting God in general, and Christianity in particluar. You are much too passionate in your hatred of God to be believable as an agnostic, or an atheist.

 

Oh, this is the cutest one I have seen so far!

 

Now I am too knowledgable to be believable!

 

That's the funniest excuse I have seen yet for rejecting FACTS that are presented. Still a basic ad hominem., at least it was a cute one!

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

Tim, I don't believe the Bible has ANY contradictions.

 

Let's start with those that are connected to Genesis. Then we can move on to the HUNDREDS of contradictions elsewhere:

 

GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.

GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.

 

GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.

GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.

 

GE 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created.

GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.

 

GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.

GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.

 

GE 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time.

GE 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later.

 

GE 1:31 God was pleased with his creation.

GE 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation.

(Note: That God should be displeased is inconsistent with the concept of omniscience.)

 

GE 2:4, 4:26, 12:8, 22:14-16, 26:25 God was already known as "the Lord" (Jahveh or Jehovah) much earlier than the time of Moses.

EX 6:2-3 God was first known as "the Lord" (Jahveh or Jehovah) at the time of the Egyptian Bondage, during the life of Moses.

 

GE 2:17 Adam was to die the very day that he ate the forbidden fruit.

GE 5:5 Adam lived 930 years.

 

GE 2:15-17, 3:4-6 It is wrong to want to be able to tell good from evil.

HE 5:13-14 It is immature to be unable to tell good from evil.

 

GE 4:4-5 God prefers Abel's offering and has no regard for Cain's.

2CH 19:7, AC 10:34, RO 2:11 God shows no partiality. He treats all alike.

 

GE 4:16 Cain went away (or out) from the presence of the Lord.

JE 23:23-24 A man cannot hide from God. God fills heaven and earth.

 

GE 6:6. EX 32:14, NU 14:20, 1SA 15:35, 2SA 24:16 God does change his mind.

NU 23:19-20, IS 15:29, JA 1:17 God does not change his mind.

 

GE 7:1 Noah was righteous.

JB 1:1,8, JB 2:3 Job was righteous.

LK 1:6 Zechariah and Elizabeth were righteous.

JA 5:16 Some men are righteous, (which makes their prayers effective).

1JN 3:6-9 Christians become righteous (or else they are not really Christians).

RO 3:10, 3:23, 1JN 1:8-10 No one was or is righteous.

 

GE 11:7-9 God sows discord.

PR 6:16-19 God hates anyone who sows discord.

 

GE 11:9 At Babel, the Lord confused the language of the whole world.

1CO 14:33 Paul says that God is not the author of confusion.

GE 11:26 Terah was 70 years old when his son Abram was born.

GE 11:32 Terah was 205 years old when he died (making Abram 135 at the time).

GE 12:4, AC 7:4 Abram was 75 when he left Haran. This was after Terah died. Thus, Terah could have been no more than 145 when he died; or Abram was only 75 years old after he had lived 135 years.

 

GE 10:5, 20, 31 There were many languages before the Tower of Babel.

GE 11:1 There was only one language before the Tower of Babel.

 

GE 16:15, 21:1-3, GA 4:22 Abraham had two sons, Ishmael and Isaac.

HE 11:17 Abraham had only one son.

 

GE 50:13 Jacob was buried in a cave at Machpelah bought from Ephron the Hittite.

AC 7:15-16 He was buried in the sepulchre at Shechem, bought from the sons of Hamor.

 

OK. I won't include ALL of the Genesis contradictions. The list is too long!

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

Freethinker, you continually misquote the Bible, or intentionally take passages or verses out of context. While I totally agree that most Christians don't read the Bible, I'm not one of those Christians. You can find verses that will say most anything, especially taken out of context. However, that doesn't mean that your explanations are correct. And as someone that screams about facts, you really should try to stick to them when quoting the Bible.

 

I always get a kick out of bible thumpers that want to claim it is all others that mis-quote/ take out of context/ ... biblical passages.

 

Yet we hear Christians scream about the 10 Commandments. while failing to KEEP THEM IN CONTEXT. The ACTUAL 1st Commandment states that the commandments ONLY apply to Jews.

 

"And God spake all these words, saying, I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage."

 

CHRISTIANS were NOT "brought ... out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage."

 

And this "out of context" nonsense is often used to try and resolve the bible having it's mythical Jesus say: Luke 19:27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me.

 

But it IS in PERFECT context.

 

Just because you don't LIKE what is ACTUALLY IN THE BIBLE, don't pretend it says something else.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

Finally, while this has been lots of fun for me, I know there isn't a single person that reads this that will change their mind about their beliefs.

 

You must get used to being wrong eventually. The REALITY is that I HAVE had impact on other's views.

 

In fact, in doing a search to find his site, I found his post at Amazon for a book I provided for someone (had the author, a friend of mine, get him a signed copy) after he and I were in a similar discussion years ago. He had been raised and was a fundy. He started to question and I kept providing more details and as here, problems with Christianity and the bible,

 

At

Amazon.com: The Final Superstition: A Critical Evaluation of the Judeo-Christian Legacy: Joseph L. Daleiden: Books http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0879758961/102-5231774-1152145?v=glance

 

you will find a review by giddyboy:

 

"Biting...and painful..., May 22, 2001

Reviewer: GiddyBoy (see more about me) from a State of Peace

Joseph's book was the first one I read when I was questioning Christianity. Needless to say, it provoked me to not only read other books, but started me on a road I never dreamed I would be on. A book of this proportion carries a lot of weight, and unfortunately, responsibility. I say responsibility not because I feel he has an obligation to you, I, or anyone else, but at the same time, his words are so provoking, that in a sense, there is responsibility on the reader's part to exam what we will learn from them. Joseph does a phenomenal job in presenting his case concerning many aspects of Christianity. He is astute, easy to read, and very well researched. The topics in the book hit hard and ruthless in some areas. At a few points I was afraid he came across as an angry, bitter, atheist. Atheism is anything but that, and I see now the areas in question were simply tougher issues we need to deal with."

 

And this is just one of a number of people that have contacted me after reading my posts to say I had presented things that have caused a shift in their world view.

 

You will stay an 'atheist', Freethinker;

 

and you are WRONG AGAIN!

 

The only reason I "stay an 'atheist'" is beacause believers, such as yourself, have never had been able to provide even the FIRST valid reason for me to think about changing.

 

Unlike you, I am willing to admit that I could be wrong. And I am always open to ANYTHING that may cause me to change ANY stance I hold.

and I'll always believe in God, and Jesus, and everything that I believe now.

While YOU ADMIT that you are closed monded and will never openly evaluate ANYTHING to the contrary.

 

Don't paint everyone with your closeminded brush!

 

For all of the sites you can list that denounce creation, I can find just as many that disprove evolution. There is no winning, for either side.

 

It is not a matter of WINNING. IT is a matter of PROOF

 

Not only will you find a Creationist site for every Evolution site, you will find MORE Creationist sites.

 

But you WILL NOT FIND FACTS supporting Creationism. You will find the same thing at those Creationist sites you will find here. Fallacies and mis-information.

 

The other thing you won't find as support at Creationist sites and that is VALID PEER REVIEWED SCIENTISTS.

 

So the fallacy of Argumentum ad numerum, that qty of something like web sites has something to do with PROOF, is just another example of your not being able to present a REASONED argument.

 

Can the atheist and the Christian peacefully co-exist on a science and technology forum? I guess we'll see.

 

It becomes a matter of FACTS. If a Christian can start understanding the concept of and start using FACTS, then they can find a peaceful coexistence on a "science and technology forum". Otherwise, all the Christian is doing is dragging the discussion down

[ScienceGuy]

I have never posted anything in my life, but I couldn't pass this up. I have read some of the material presented in this topic. Some of the material is not worth anything, but everyone has there own views. Now I present a radical view, Everyone (almost) is right in some way. Is there a way that science (evolution) and God could coexist on the same level? Yes!

The creation is scientifically explainable just the same as the plauges of Egypt. God may well have created the universe using the same parameters and time as we see and experience today. Some things are still debateable and by no means a perfect fit, but science evolves every day to fit new findings. The role of life on Earth is harder to explain, but a religious viewpoint of how it started combined with evolution can be traced in the fossil record for many animals.

 

New ideas change the world. I am not a Christian Scientist; I have never been associated with them; I do not wish to be one. I want to change the mentality of people on Earth to be a world with values and morals. If they take the scientific world and see that God did create everything in it, the choice is with them to believe.

 

To be saved you must believe!

 

The contradictions in the Bible relating to creation are a tool to give a possible explanation of how it just could work. This brings up the day-age theory and other assumptions. The Bible was written at a time when they did not understand most any science as we see it today. Interpreting the meaning of days and the viewpoint of the people a long time ago must be taken into consideration. The creation was written from the viewpoint of a hypothetical person around at the time of creation. The phrase "let there be" does not mean that it just appeared out of nowhere. Instead it is easy to see that it means the things described came to pass during this period.

 

In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth - A general statement identifying God as creator. This allows for the scientific Big Bang 13 to 16 billion years ago (bya). Galaxies, solar systems, stars, planets, and moons appear. Ours began about 5 bya. The sun is forming and the disc of gas and dust around the sun is forming planets and other large bodies by gravity. As the Earth is forming during this time a large Mars-sized object hits the protoEarth and forms a large dustcloud. The dust does not settle, but rather blocks out the light from any sun or stars that may reach Earth. And now we start the day sequences.

 

Day 1- Let there be light gives the realization that darkness is upon the Earth which is "void and without form." The cloud of dust and the thick atmosphere now allow the sunlight to show through. Note: Again this is from the viewpoint of a person on Earth.

 

Day 2- There is no oceans yet, but the thick water vapor and CO2 atmosphere condenses to form the oceans. The water vapor and CO2 came from outgassing of volcanoes.

 

Day 3- Dry land appears as a process of cooling continues. Plants appear on dry land. There has been found Archean plant fossils dating back 3.4 to 3.5 bya. This throws a big kink into evolutionary theory. Consider that life as a whole is something special and that God creates life in his own way. There is sunlight on Earth for plants to grow, but the sun is still not visible.

 

Day 4- The sky now clears. The dust and basaltic rock around Earth accretes to form the moon; with the dust gone the sun and stars are clearly visible.

 

Day 5- Birds and fish appear. Science agrees that most life did start in the ocean, hence the fish. The birds are harder to explain, but there is evidence to support. Most scientists agree that birds came from raptor-like dinosaurs or therapods. This is strange since many types of bird-like animals are found in the fossil records many millions of years before the first raptor fossil. Evolution of feathers is a huge leap, and evolution is suppose to benefit the animal in small, incremental changes. Feathers and the lungs of bi

[IrishEyes]

By Freethinker: How funny! If this were TRUE, you would not have had to aks ME to supply the list of KNOWN examples of Speciation. The ONLY reason you are "looking into a few of your 'proofs' of evolution", is that I had researched this previously and KNEW the info.

I have also researched this, and I knew some of your references. However, I will not even imply that I know everything, or that I could possibly know every single example that every single evolutionist would give at any given moment. I'm not omniscient!

 

Unlike you, I am willing to admit that I could be wrong. And I am always open to ANYTHING that may cause me to change ANY stance I hold.

Did anyone else laugh when they read this? I have admitted not knowing everything, and not always being right in my reasoning or beliefs, as well as making numerous 'mistakes' during my life. However, you throw out any argument you don't like as invalid, or without factual basis, regardless of the content of the statement. When provided with actual quotes from leading evolutionists stating that there is no actual fossil evidence of evolution, you disregarded everything as invalid, with no further explanation.

 

Yet we hear Christians scream about the 10 Commandments. while failing to KEEP THEM IN CONTEXT. The ACTUAL 1st Commandment states that the commandments ONLY apply to Jews...CHRISTIANS were NOT "brought ... out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage."

I agree 100% here. The 10 were given to the people of God, later called Israelites. Christians are not under Mosaic Law, we are saved by grace through Christ's blood. Only the Jews that do not accept Christ as Messiah remain under Mosaic law.

 

And this "out of context" nonsense is often used to try and resolve the bible having it's mythical Jesus say: Luke 19:27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me...But it IS in PERFECT context.

This was a PARABLE! The entire chapter details Jesus' conversation with Zaccheus, and his story of the ten pounds. The enemies are not, as you imply, those who do not believe in Christ as Messiah. The enemies are Satan and his emmissaries, who try to keep man from God through sin!

 

Just because you don't LIKE what is ACTUALLY IN THE BIBLE, don't pretend it says something else.

This is just crazy. WHERE did I EVER say that I didn't like what is actually in the Bible? I don't have to pretend it says or doesn't say anything! If I have a queston about a supposed contradiction, I study my Bible, and sometimes other texts, for answers. I don't take everything at face value. Some things are not easily understood by me, as I am not totally fluent in all of the languages of the original texts. And even an accepted translation is still a translation. But I NEVER said that I don't like what is actually in the Bible! Don't transfer your dislike of the Bible to me.

[IrishEyes]

Let's start with those that are connected to Genesis. : I will complete this later, but I'm getting tired right now. So here are a few of your supposed contradictions:

 

 

GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.

GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created./////

GE 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created.

GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created./////

GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.

GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created./////

GE 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time.

GE 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later.

Genesis 1 is an outline of the events of creation. Genesis 2 is a detailed description of the creation of man. There is no contradiction. Genesis 1 references trees, birds, and animals all being created before man. Genesis 2:8 says that after man was created, God planted a garden, and put man there, then brought the creatures to man to be named. I'm failing to see a contradiction. One chapter is an overview, the other is a more detailed account. This is also true for man and woman. Genesis 1 says that God formed them and told them to go forth and replenish the earth. Genesis 2 is an actual description of their creation. No contradiction exists.

 

GE 1:31 God was pleased with his creation.

GE 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation.

(Note: That God should be displeased is inconsistent with the concept of omniscience.)

Genesis 1:31 says that at the end of day 6, God saw everything He made, and it was good.

Genesis 6:5-6 refers to the time directly preceding the Flood. God saw the wickedness of man, and He was grieved in His heart. How is this a contradiction? Can you not say the same of your own children? I certainly can! I look at them (sleeping, lol!), and they are wonderful, up until the time when they do something that upsets me, then I am 'grieved in my heart'. It's not a contradiction.

 

GE 2:17 Adam was to die the very day that he ate the forbidden fruit.

GE 5:5 Adam lived 930 years.

The "death" is not a physical one, but a spiritual one. "Death" represents a separation from God, spiritually. After Adam sinned, he was made to leave the Garden of Eden, and the physical presence and fellowship of the LORD.

 

GE 2:15-17, 3:4-6 It is wrong to want to be able to tell good from evil.

HE 5:13-14 It is immature to be unable to tell good from evil.

Genesis 2 & 3 do not say that it is wrong to want to be able to tell good from evil. They illustrate that God gave a specific command "Do not eat of this tree", and man disobeyed. Hebrews 5:13-14 refers to not using ignorance as an excuse not to grow in the Lord (being fed with milk instead of meat).

 

GE 4:4-5 God prefers Abel's offering and has no regard for Cain's.

2CH 19:7, AC 10:34, RO 2:11 God shows no partiality. He treats all alike.

God shows no 'respect of persons'. God does not show a preference for a person in Genesis 4:4-5, but for the offerings brought by each. it has nothing to do with the person, but with what they brought.

 

 

I will try to finish in the morning, after some sleep. Thanks for keeping me on my Biblical toes!!

[IrishEyes]

And this one I just couldn't pass up...

 

Quote By Freethinker: Grass is red. "this statement is either true or false. thats why i said 50/50"

Shows how absurd it is to claim a 50/50% chance on anything just because it has not been evaluated for truth yet.

 

But is your statement (Grass is red) truly absurd???

 

Check this out...

http://www.izix.com/personal/photos/mnts/redgrasshills.php

 

The grass sure looks red to me... LOL

 

Of course, it only turns red and brittle in Botswana in winter on this page...

http://www.botswana.co.za/africa_red_grass.html

 

So I guess you are right, in some places, GRASS IS RED!!! Ok, now I have to admit that you're not absurd, right? Oh, no, you were actually trying to prove how absurd a statement is because it hasn't been checked for truth, using a statement that wasn't checked for truth!!

 

Sorry, I couldn't help myself ;>P

Hey, that was an attempt at humor, as I actually agree with most of your other assertions in that particular post.

[IrishEyes]

I only have a very few minutes right now, but I wanted to add a few things to my list from last night/this morning:

 

You must get used to being wrong eventually. The REALITY is that I HAVE had impact on other's views...In fact, in doing a search to find his site, I found his post at Amazon for a book I provided for someone (had the author, a friend of mine, get him a signed copy) after he and I were in a similar discussion years ago. He had been raised and was a fundy. He started to question and I kept providing more details and as here, problems with Christianity and the bible, ...

It took me a little bit to make sense of this thought pattern, but I think I understand what you are saying. You are asserting that you will prove me wrong, and your reality is that you have converted a 'fundy' to atheism, and you use a book review from amazon.com as your illustration. Is that the gist of this? So then, is that balanced by my reality of the people in my church that have been invited by me, and later made a profession of faith? I mean, if I list their websites so you can read their testimonies, does this mean that my earlier statement "I know there isn't a single person that reads this that will change their mind about their beliefs" is incorrect? Come on!! Beyond the realm of this forum, you have the opportunity to influence many lives against God, just as I have the opportunity to influence many lives for God. My intention in making that statement was that this forum will not sway people towards or away from God. I generalized, as obviously someone can read these words, then change their beliefs 10 years from now. My point was that noone will read the dialogue between "Freethinker" and "IrishEyes" and decide on the spot, "by Jove (lol!), how wrong I've always been, I must convert to that way of thinking right this second".

 

Ah yes, the PAGAN celebration of the goddess Ostara, or Ester. Where (snake) eggs celebrate fertility. Which Christians HIJACKED to celebrate the myth of Crusifiction and Resurrection along with almost a dozen other god myths that came BEFORE Christianity that also have some torture/ crucifiction/ death/ resurrection fairytale.

I TOTALLY agree with you here, except to say that most of these PAGAN celebrations were incorporated into Christianity by Roman Catholicism, not the early Christian church. Catholocism brought many pagan rituals and celebrations into "Christianity" to make it a more pleasing religion for the people it affected. Without going into a long discourse on the history of the church (which I am POSITIVE you are already famliar with), the celebration of Easter with colored eggs, the cross or "T" on communion wafers, yule logs, Mardi Gras and Lent, etc. are all examples of paganism that became accepted by the Catholic church. I am aware of more also, as I'm sure that you are. The "Happy Easter" was a tongue-in-cheek joke, which I suspected would garner a negative response, and I wasn't wrong about that!

 

GE 7:1 Noah was righteous.

JB 1:1,8, JB 2:3 Job was righteous.

LK 1:6 Zechariah and Elizabeth were righteous.

JA 5:16 Some men are righteous, (which makes their prayers effective).

1JN 3:6-9 Christians become righteous (or else they are not really Christians).

RO 3:10, 3:23, 1JN 1:8-10 No one was or is righteous.

Here you use both OT and NT examples as a way to confuse people. Your examples of Noah, Job, Zechariah and Elizabeth are all examples of people that came BEFORE Christ. At that time, 'righteous' was a way to identify someone that walked with God. James 5:16 specifically deals with a Christian person that prays; 1John 3:6-9 refers to the righteous life which is a result of salvation. In these NT examples, 'righteousness' isn't used as an attribute of God, or the changed character of a Christian, but as Christ Himself, who becomes a part of every believer, and therefore impunes him (the believer) with righteousness.

Romans 3:10, 23; 1John 1:8-10 again illustrate that no man is righteous on his own. These books w