is the Bible a history book?

[0rion]

That's a belief not science.

Yet it is taught in school while the bible is not... hmmm...

Evolution is a fact, just because you want to be willfully ignorant of it, that won't make all the evidence disappear.

Do we have noah's DNA?

No, but the implication of him being the father of all the males in the ark would make him the Y-chromosome bearer... every other male after him should have his Y-chromosome... we wouldn't need to search for his Y-chromosome, all males in the world would carry it... but the matter of fact is that they do not - they are all different.

I know these 'secular' scholars (singing the song that the media want to hear).
For the sake of argument , Let us consider it was written at 150 BC, Still it is impossible to be accurate without the help of archeology/science or God

Do you know what prophecy after the fact means? Anyone can be accurate on the outcome of an event if that event already happened.

 

[Proud Hindu]

That depends the people you are asking, I believe they are historical and nobody disproved their existance..

A man named Charles Darwin disproved their existence a long time ago...

 

[Karma2Grace]

Yet it is taught in school while the bible is not... hmmm...

That doesn't make it true...if so bible taught is schools

Evolution is a fact

Yes in colorful drawings of ape to man...

just because you want to be willfully ignorant of it, that won't make all the evidence disappear.

I don't think Mike behe's questions were answered or macro evolution has been proved.

No, but the implication of him being the father of all the males in the ark would make him the Y-chromosome bearer... every other male after him should have his Y-chromosome... we wouldn't need to search for his Y-chromosome, all males in the world would carry it... but the matter of fact is that they do not - they are all different.

Can you post the link about your fact, I havent read anything like this?

Do you know what prophecy after the fact means? Anyone can be accurate on the outcome of an event if that event already happened.

Nope ! In 200 BC settings, It is impossible to give the fine details about an incident happend 400 years back
The most important part is, the bible 'disprovers 'trying with their full heart and soul and found nothing

 

[Karma2Grace]

A man named Charles Darwin disproved their existence a long time ago...

Not that easy, do you know the elephants are not holding the earth? Rather it is hanging as described in bible

 

[Exonoesis]

Popular evolutionary theory is not a fact. It is a lie and it is used to support atheism.

See this and Kent Hovind's stuff: http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=2783773121996810582&q=creation+vs+evolution

 

[0rion]

That doesn't make it true...if so bible taught is schools

what?!
you shouldn't talk with your mouth full...

Yes in colorful drawings of ape to man...

geesh... is that all that comes into your mind when you hear about evolution? ape to man? seems that you have been learning evolution from your priests, not a scientist.

I don't think Mike behe's questions were answered or macro evolution has been proved.

macro evolution is the systematic theory that tries to explain the fact of evolution. you are mixing things because of your lack of understanding...

Can you post the link about your fact, I havent read anything like this?

I thought it was well known that a Male would have XY chromosomes while a Female would have XX...
The Y chromosome that the male receives is from his father at conception. That Y chromosome is an exact copy of the father, that would mean that father and son would have an identical Y chromosome. If that child has a son when he grows up, he will get that same Y chromosome....

Nope ! In 200 BC settings, It is impossible to give the fine details about an incident happend 400 years back
The most important part is, the bible 'disprovers 'trying with their full heart and soul and found nothing

It is impossible?! I wonder how we are able to know what happened 400 years before the year 200 BC... oh yeah... we are able to find out because of the records people back then kept. The author of Daniel would have known about the local history of where he lived, and wrote a prophecy after the fact. Your claim reminds me of typical muslim claim, "Mohammad was illiterate, therefore he couldn't have known, learnt, seen, done, etc.. anything"

 

[0rion]

Not that easy, do you know the elephants are not holding the earth? Rather it is hanging as described in bible

Proud Hindu did not say anything about elephants holding up the earth. You are attacking what you think his beliefs are... you are acting like a troll.

 

[0rion]

Popular evolutionary theory is not a fact. It is a lie and it is used to support atheism.

See this and Kent Hovind's stuff: http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=2783773121996810582&q=creation+vs+evolution

Evolution has nothing to do with atheism... this is just a dishonest connection made by religious fundamentalists. There are many christians who accept evolution because they know it is true because they have seen the facts.

Kent Hovind is an evangelist who is trying to pass out as a scientist. What he has to say is nothing but propaganda that supports his point of view. You should learn about him before you believe anything just because it supports your point of view as well : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Karma2Grace Not that easy, do you know the elephants are not holding the earth? Rather it is hanging as described in bible

Proud Hindu did not say anything about elephants holding up the earth. You are attacking what you think his beliefs are... you are acting like a troll.

Well elephants are also a symbol of strength and mightyness.
The LORD also likened Himself to "animals" as did the Lord Jesus [Lamb/Lion in book of Revelation].

Hsa 13:8 I will meet 06298 them as a bear 01677 [that is] bereaved 07909 [of her whelps], and will rend 07167 the caul 05458 of their heart 03820, and there will I devour 0398 them like a lion 03833: the wild 07704 beast 02416 shall tear 01234 them.

Reve 5:5 But one of the elders said to me, "Do not weep. Behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David,

 

[Exonoesis]

I know for a fact that evolution is used to support atheism. Don't tell me otherwise.

 

[0rion]

I know for a fact that evolution is used to support atheism. Don't tell me otherwise.

If there is such a thing as theistic evolution, which is the same exact theory of evolution, just to note that theists believe in it too... then why would it support only atheism? Do you know how ridiculous your statement sounds? There are theists that agree with evolution because it is true.

 

[peaceful soul]

I know for a fact that evolution is used to support atheism. Don't tell me otherwise.

Actually, that would make a lot of sense since an aethist would be looking for an alternative other than God doing the creating.

 

[0rion]

Actually, that would make a lot of sense since an aethist would be looking for an alternative other than God doing the creating.

Atheists are not atheists because they always look for an alternative other than God... that is just silly.

An atheist is an atheist most likely because there evidence for an alternative other than God - therefore disbelief. This alternative is apart from the bias of the atheist-to-be.

 

[peaceful soul]

Atheists are not atheists because they always look for an alternative other than God... that is just silly.

An atheist is an atheist most likely because there evidence for an alternative other than God - therefore disbelief. This alternative is apart from the bias of the atheist-to-be.

Your response has nothing to do with what I reasoned. I simply said that it made sense that an atheist would have an affinity for evolution. How did you read something else into it? I did make an effort to let you know that "it made sense". I would have hoped that would be a tipoff to you.

 

[0rion]

Your response has nothing to do with what I reasoned. I simply said that it made sense that an atheist would have an affinity for evolution. How did you read something else into it?

Geez, you said this:

Actually, that would make a lot of sense since an aethist would be looking for an alternative other than God doing the creating.

What you are trying to say here is that an atheist will be looking for an alternative other than God.

So, from what you said: an atheist will not accept evolution because of the evidence, but because it is an alternative other than god. (to this I said it was silly)

I did make an effort to let you know that "it made sense". I would have hoped that would be a tipoff to you.

So, what would be the tipoff for religious people who belive in evolution... what sense is there for their belief in evolution (the same evolution which atheists believe in)? Could it be the same evidence?

 

[peaceful soul]

Geez, you said this:



What you are trying to say here is that an atheist will be looking for an alternative other than God.

So, from what you said: an atheist will not accept evolution because of the evidence, but because it is an alternative other than god. (to this I said it was silly)



So, what would be the tipoff for religious people who belive in evolution... what sense is there for their belief in evolution (the same evolution which atheists believe in)? Could it be the same evidence?

What I said is that it reasons that an atheist would look to evolution. Please don't try to make something out of nothing. I was making a link with the other poster. I was not agreeing with that poster. I had not made any comment one way or another concerning that post. I just said that it made sense that they would adopt atheism form my reasoning alone. I hope things are clear now.

If you want to conclude that I an suggesting that atheist would look at evolution as a alternative to God, it may definitely be the case for some of them, but I will not try to pin them all in that category. But let's be honest, atheist are looking for something if it is not God. It would also reason that evolution or any other explanation than God would suffice until something more profound greets his or her attention.

 

[peaceful soul]

Orion, before you go any further with your misunderstanding, I should correct you now. This is what the original poster said when I responded.

I know for a fact that evolution is used to support atheism. Don't tell me otherwise.

Then I said that it reasons that atheists would adopt this view. I meant that since an atheist, by definition, does not believe in God for whatever the reason, they would naturally gravitate to something that could in some way explain creation other than by God. This is about as clear as I can get.

 

[0rion]

Then I said that it reasons that atheists would adopt this view. I meant that since an atheist, by definition, does not believe in God for whatever the reason, they would naturally gravitate to something that could in some way explain creation other than by God. This is about as clear as I can get.

peaceful soul, it is okay to admit that you are wrong...

you are still saying that an atheist will not believe in evolution because of the evidence, but because it is an explanation that does not necessitate a god. This is I said was silly.

They would naturally gravitate to something that could in some way explain creation other than by God.

Yet, theist evolutionists also graviate to that same something... and not because it is an alternative that explains creation without god, but because of the undeniable facts.

Atheists and Theists believe in evolution for the same reasons, the facts.

An example would be of a person, who becomes an atheist after learning(and by learning I mean actually understanding... ) about evolution. What you are suggesting is that there is a person, that for no pure reason, he is an atheist... and that he will look into evolution because he is an atheist. Atheists aren't atheists out of no reason by the way...

 

[peaceful soul]

originally posted by 0rion

peaceful soul, it is okay to admit that you are wrong...

I don't think so! It is your insistence of my saying something that I did not. You imply something that was not stated or even thought of in my mind.

you are still saying that an atheist will not believe in evolution because of the evidence,

That is what you are saying that I said, but I never said such. It is up to you to realize that I did not say what you claim.

but because it is an explanation that does not necessitate a god. This is I said was silly.

Whatever. There is nothing silly about coming to a logical conclusion that actually makes sense.

Yet, theist evolutionists also graviate to that same something... and not because it is an alternative that explains creation without god, but because of the undeniable facts.

Like I said earlier, what you are purporting is irrelevant to anything that I had imagined in my mind. I did not make such a statement or even thought of it. I told you exactly what I thought upon posting.

Atheists and Theists believe in evolution for the same reasons, the facts.

And when did I say they do not or did not have the capacity to choose in that way. I simply stated that it is reasonable that an atheist would gravitate towards evolution since its accpetance is void of God. Show me where I went on to imply that they could not choose some other rationale for believing as they do? I don't know what part of what I said that you do not understand.

BTW: Evolution is not a fact.

 

[Druweid]

If there is such a thing as theistic evolution, which is the same exact theory of evolution, just to note that theists believe in it too... then why would it support only atheism?

Is that what he said? Let's look again:

I know for a fact that evolution is used to support atheism. Don't tell me otherwise.

Where does it say ONLY? Or are you intentionally changing what he said to make your argument feasible? (See: Strawman Argument)

Do you know how ridiculous your statement sounds? There are theists that agree with evolution because it is true.

You contradict yourself. See where YOU said "theory of evolution" above? If evolution is a theory (and presently, that's all it is), then even the best scientific minds in the world have not yet proven it to be true.

-- Druweid