Number of atheists & agnostics grows

[This_person]

i'd say it has a lot to do with discussing religion. If your religion states that man was created 6000 years ago and two people throguh a process of insectual relations populated the entire world, but there is scienitfic evidence that man evolved from a lesser species over a longer period of time, i think it is a worth while discussion.

You're very good at repeating things I've disputed.

MY religion - indeed, the vast majority of Christians' beliefs - does not believe this 6000 year thing. Insects had nothing to do with populating the world with people, I have no idea what you're trying to say with that. There is no evidence mankind evolved from a lesser species, or there'd be a missing link to that lesser species - there's a theory. And, even if evolution were a fact for mankind, in what way does that dispute the basic premise that a God created life? As you've said, evolution supposes life exists, it speaks nothing to how it happened. So, where is the assertion in religion that mankind, as created, was EXACTLY mankind as it exists today? Seriously, how is evolution a challenge to religion?

 

[wxtornado]

I was disputing your assertion that science has a fact-based theory. Show me your facts, and I'll be corrected. Otherwise, we're back to what I've been saying ALL ALONG, and you can't seem to wrap your head around - the best anyone has is an unprovable, unproven, equally-acceptable-to-an-open-mind theory.

If you're talking about evolution, then there is absolutely no controversy within science about the reality of evolution. Whether it has occured or not is a non-issue. There is a well accepted, solidly established body of evidence showing that evolution is real and, although knowledge of some of the mechanisms by which evolution occurs is incomplete, much is known about how evolution works.

 

[wxtornado]

MY religion - indeed, the vast majority of Christians' beliefs - does not believe this 6000 year thing.

So you discount Genesis?

 

[tommyjones]

So you discount Genesis?

i might have misspelled, but you know where i was going with insest. All that begotten supposedly started with adam and eve. if you start with 2 people any child produced other than directly by those two people would be the product of insest. either father or mother and child or brothers and sisters.....

 

[wxtornado]

i might have misspelled, but you know where i was going with insest. All that begotten supposedly started with adam and eve. if you start with 2 people any child produced other than directly by those two people would be the product of insest. either father or mother and child or brothers and sisters.....

For the record, I knew what you meant. I have a feeling he did too

 

[This_person]

If you're talking about evolution, then there is absolutely no controversy within science about the reality of evolution. Whether it has occured or not is a non-issue. There is a well accepted, solidly established body of evidence showing that evolution is real and, although knowledge of some of the mechanisms by which evolution occurs is incomplete, much is known about how evolution works.

No, I believe that things change with all species. That we advance and change is clearly obvious. Whether that means I have a common ancestor as a toad, I don't think that's clearly established as "fact", but I understand the theory. It's the knowledge of the mechanisms by which it occurs that, in my opinion, could very well help establish creation/intelligent design as an answer, not dispute it.

Realize, Christianity could be called "well accepted, solidly established" also, so that's not really an argument for nor against something.

 

[This_person]

i might have misspelled, but you know where i was going with insest. All that begotten supposedly started with adam and eve. if you start with 2 people any child produced other than directly by those two people would be the product of insest. either father or mother and child or brothers and sisters.....

But, the story answers that. Without going into details or being unnecessarily redundant, it clearly explains that there were other humans created - it does not claim wives for Eve's boys were Eve, but completely other people. So, the concept of incest is out.

And, yes, I did realize it was just a simple mistype, I was trying to be funny and lighten the mood. Plus, we've already covered that one, so I thought you were just, again, dismissing answers previously given.

 

[wxtornado]

Whether that means I have a common ancestor as a toad........

You're doing it again...........! I need the name of your school; I'll be writing them a stern letter

 

[This_person]

You're doing it again...........! I need the name of your school; I'll be writing them a stern letter

Habit.

But, seriously, if taken back far enough, wouldn't I have a common ancestor, per the common understanding of evolution?

 

[PsyOps]

And therein lies the problem - you saw what you wanted to see, not what I actually wrote. No surprise there then.

You’re trying to make what you wrote more complicated than it really is without giving details about these complications. I saw your comment as pretty simple to understand… you said you don’t know how life began. What else is there to see? You believe we are here through a random process of molecular processes, yet admit this theory is devoid of an explanation as to how these processes led to life. My faith explains what the force behind life is. It doesn’t go into the science behind it because that isn’t what it’s all about for Christians (explained in the end of this post). I do believe science has a major role in this in that God wants us to seek these answers. If he told us everything what purpose would that serve in His creation; in growing and learning and working towards that end? I’m satisfied that there is a God that created everything. I am also satisfied with the reality that it wasn’t this magical “POOF! There it is” event. I think God made it a process as with everything that evolves in our universe; and he wants us to learn this process. There can be a relationship between science and belief in God that can answer some of the mysteries. I’m not dismissive about the different tools we have to explain these mysteries, as you are. I am open to all of them and believe they all fit into our knowledge of things.

For Christians this is really just a human desire to seek these truths. The real thrust of our faith revolves around salvation, not necessarily how we got here.

 

[wxtornado]

Habit.

But, seriously, if taken back far enough, wouldn't I have a common ancestor, per the common understanding of evolution?

No, and this is where tommy and I tell you that you don't quite have an understanding of the science - not a personal swipe, you just seem to be missing some of the elementary concepts. If you're really interested, you'd be better served googling for the info - there is mountains of it out there.

 

[This_person]

No, and this is where tommy and I tell you that you don't quite have an understanding of the science - not a personal swipe, you just seem to be missing some of the elementary concepts. If you're really interested, you'd be better served googling for the info - there is mountains of it out there.

"We have seen that the members of the same class [of organisms], independently of their habits of life, resemble each other in the general plan of their organization...What can be more curious than that the hand of a man, formed for grasping, that of a mole for digging, the leg of the horse, the paddle of the porpoise, and the wing of the bat, should all be constructed on the same pattern, and should include the same bones, in the same relative positions?
...
"Nothing can be more hopeless than to attempt to explain this similarity of pattern in members of the same class, by utility or by the doctrine of final causes...On the ordinary view of the independent creation of each being, we can only say that so it is;--that its has so pleased the Creator to construct each animal and plant.

The explanation is manifest on the theory of natural selection of successive slight modifications,--each modification bring profitable in some way to the modified form...In changes of this nature there will be little or no tendency to modify the original pattern or to transpose parts."

In other words, the similarity of the structure and pattern of the bones of human hands, horse legs, whale fins and bat wings doesn't make sense in terms of similarity of function, because these limbs are used for very different things. It seems rather sloppy of a Creator to use this same pattern for all these limb types if independent creation is believed. Independent creation would logically have each limb separately designed for its particular purpose and there is no reason for the identical pattern of bones, including cases where some bones are no longer useful but still remain as vestigial elements in the limb. However, evolution would say that they all have the same pattern because they all were formed from the limbs of a common ancestor by gradual changes over millions of years by natural selection.

I really think I understand the theory.....

 

[tommyjones]

But, the story answers that. Without going into details or being unnecessarily redundant, it clearly explains that there were other humans created - it does not claim wives for Eve's boys were Eve, but completely other people. So, the concept of incest is out.

And, yes, I did realize it was just a simple mistype, I was trying to be funny and lighten the mood. Plus, we've already covered that one, so I thought you were just, again, dismissing answers previously given.

but the rest is up for grabs?

i have never heard that anyone other than adam, eve, and possibly lilith were created as humans. care to point me to some verses?

 

[This_person]

but the rest is up for grabs?

i have never heard that anyone other than adam, eve, and possibly lilith were created as humans. care to point me to some verses?

Genesis 4
And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.

17And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.

18And unto Enoch was born Irad: and Irad begat Mehujael: and Mehujael begat Methusael: and Methusael begat Lamech.

19And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.


Note, Eve isn't mentioned anywhere. "His wife", not "his mother". A LOT of unneeded detail is not here. God kind of expects His followers, in my opinion, to have brain enough to fill in some of the gaps with common sense. Not change the story, but fill in the obvious. He doesn't define a snake or a wife or a farm each and every time it's mentioned, He figures we can get it through context clues.

Just my opinion.

 

[tommyjones]

Genesis 4
And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.

17And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.

18And unto Enoch was born Irad: and Irad begat Mehujael: and Mehujael begat Methusael: and Methusael begat Lamech.

19And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.


Note, Eve isn't mentioned anywhere. "His wife", not "his mother". A LOT of unneeded detail is not here. God kind of expects His followers, in my opinion, to have brain enough to fill in some of the gaps with common sense. Not change the story, but fill in the obvious. He doesn't define a snake or a wife or a farm each and every time it's mentioned, He figures we can get it through context clues.

Just my opinion.

but you haven't shown where it is said that god created these wives. the common sense you say god gave you to fill in the voids would indicate to me that if a man and a woman were created by god, and she is the mother of all, that either cain married one of eve's children, his sister.
unless you have something that says "and then god created Adah and zillah", logic dictates they were born of adam and eve, or at least of their lineage.

 

[This_person]

but you haven't shown where it is said that god created these wives. the common sense you say god gave you to fill in the voids would indicate to me that if a man and a woman were created by god, and she is the mother of all, that either cain married one of eve's children, his sister.
unless you have something that says "and then god created Adah and zillah", logic dictates they were born of adam and eve, or at least of their lineage.

Then, we have a different view of what sense is common

It's, I suppose, possible that the information left out was Adam and Eve having other kids for Cain to mate with. However, that would not be the sense I would find common among most people. Because, the Bible does identify brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, etc. as those things, and wives as wives. It seems clear to me that this is a whole different person than a sibling or parent.

 

[tommyjones]

Then, we have a different view of what sense is common

It's, I suppose, possible that the information left out was Adam and Eve having other kids for Cain to mate with. However, that would not be the sense I would find common among most people. Because, the Bible does identify brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, etc. as those things, and wives as wives. It seems clear to me that this is a whole different person than a sibling or parent.

but only two people are spelled out as being 'created' and a major theme in chrisitanity is the "we are all brothers and sisters" thing......


so your take doesn't really jive with your book.


:gotcha:

 

[This_person]

According to the Bible, who were Adam and Eve?

Genesis 2:
18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."

19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.
But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

23 The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman,'
for she was taken out of man."

24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

25 The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

The first two humans. Not the only two humans ever created, just the first two. Adam being the generic for "mankind", and the Hebrew for "woman" sounding much like the Hebrew for "man".

According to the Bible, were the people of Lod believers of your (Old Testament) God?

Never delved into it much, from what I can tell. Given that they were there at his creation, I'm guessing so, but I wouldn't swear to it.

its' a square peg round hole issue

If, by that, you mean people are trying to get out of it something different than what it is, I would agree with you - it seems people are trying to do just that!

 

[This_person]

but only two people are spelled out as being 'created' and a major theme in chrisitanity is the "we are all brothers and sisters" thing......


so your take doesn't really jive with your book.


:gotcha:

Not sure how that's a gotcha, but if it makes you feel better to think so......

Why can't we all be brothers and sisters just because more than two people were created? That's a theme, not a literal interpretation - I have no brother physically, so I know you're not my brother physically. Spiritually, though.....

 

[tommyjones]

The first two humans. Not the only two humans ever created, just the first two.

you still show absolutely no biblical reference for this assertion.