We came from where?

[Hopeful]

>>>>>with the problem that humans are very sensible and come back to primitive stages because we are 97% geneticaly like primates. <<<<

Is this the extent of the "scientific" rationale? Abe, How much like other animals are we? If I feel like eating a steak, is that because I am 96% like a tiger? If an ape attacks another ape and eats its brains, is that because it is 95% like a cannibal? The truth is that there is no proof of the scientific religion in terms of the evolutional theories. None of the theories are observed, except for that which is already built into the genotype (dna).

Spontaneous generation has never been observed.
Macro-evolution has never been observed.
"Primordial ooze" becoming a complex living form (even as simple as an ameoba, which is as complex as a fighter jet) has never been observed.

If one were to be as skeptical of these "scientific" theories as they are of the BIble and God's prophets, they would realize how preposterous these ideas are.

[abejaruco]

My steemed Hopeful, I don´t doubt we are divine criatures, and, humans are brothers. I don´t deny universal health care to the 4 millions of inmigrants that came to Spain the last 5 years.
But I was speaking about the most natural human side. Humans, like hens, or ants, or monkeys, can be racists, or classist, or like you prefer call it. I was thinking on Hutus and Tutsis, or ... the example you prefer. Education is one point...the rest is the 97% that we have in common with the primates. If you say that there are races cleverer than others...perhaps is real, (not sure -did the old egyptians lose the intelligence in the way to ours days), but I´m sure that not every body is ready to listen that "he" is superior.

preposterous

By the way, very rich vocabulary. Good latin. ;)

[Hopeful]

>>>>>By the way, very rich vocabulary. Good latin. <<<<


Actually, my studies are more in Koine Greek and Hebrew. But I'll  take any compliments where I can get them. ;) The latin influence, if any, must be a leftover from my Roman Catholic days. ;)

>>>>>not sure -did the old egyptians lose the intelligence in the way to ours days...<<<<


The ancient Egyptians were very intelligent people, as were the other races. I do not believe humans are one iota more intelligent than the day they were created. If anything, current events are proving that we are losing our humanity and are becoming more like animals , or worse, than at any time in history, with the possible exception of the antedeluvian people. But as God's spirit is denied by humanity, they will become more violent, more greedy, more sensual and less civilized. Then again, if a child is raised under the auspices of evolutionary fables, then why should they think themselves anything but animals? And this being the case, why not act like the animals they are taught that they are?

The behavior of those who truly submit to God (not to be confused with those who merely profess a religion) is much higher than the most intelligent animals. But the behavior of much of the world that rejects God has fallen below that of animals, and can sometimes make animals look downright altruistic.  :'(

Sad but true.....

[jimmyo]

Hopeful,
  Have you been to the Creation Museum in Northern Kentucky? 
Jim 

[Hopeful]

No, Jimmyo, I have not been to any creation museum, neither in Kentucky nor in Texas. For me, it is books, articles, essays and lectures. I compare the theories, evidences and conclusions of all sides and then come to my own conclusions based on actual facts and real, not trumped-up, evidence.

[Kathyp]

have you read Fingerprints of The Gods?  i just read it again.  it's pretty interesting.  my eyes cross a bit at the mathematical calculations.

[Understudy]

Belief in God(s) is by definition an act of faith. It requires no real proof or tangible evidence. Stating that the Judeo Christian bible is proof is on par with saying a comic book is proof of the easter bunny.

I am not ridiculing faith or belief. Even I believe in God. However saying because it is in the bible it must be true is short sighted.

The earth is not the center of the universe. We orbit the sun. Yet that made Gallieo a heretic.

The formula for pi is 3.14... not 3. Yet if the bible states it is 3 (I Kings 7:23). Maybe God was just a little off. 

Life was discovered on mars, not humonoid life but microscopic life. It shows that there may be life elsewhere in the universe.


The issue is when science contradicts something people hold with a great deal of passion and not always with sound reasoning.

The universe and earth were not created in seven days. Adam and Eve were not the first humans. So what?

Life evolved over millions of years. Does that negate the act of faith? Not in my opinion. However stating that humans haven't evolved and have always had the same level of intelligence is short sighted and close minded. Especially in  light of the scientific evidence.

Calling evolution a theory doesn't mean the whole item is up for grabs. It means that certain very specific details aren't agreed upon. Discussion on evolution isn't just on human changes through eons but also microbial life, plant life, amphibian life and countless other forms.

Evolution through natural selection can already be seen. Not all humans are the same. We have different races. And changes in countless life forms continue to occur. 

The evidence exists that humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor. Faith in God doesn't change that fact. As to the exact dates in time periods as to when and how certain changes took place you are open to discuss. Denying it's existence in total is a fool's errand. 

Evolution occurs that is a fact. Some of the mechanisms of evolution are still theory.

The Theory of Evolution isn't spelled out like some specific math formula. It involves thousands of different facts brought into a line evidence. As an electrician I always like that idea behind AC and DC theory. It doesn't mean electricity doesn't work, or that we have to guess about your electric bill. Ohms law is part of electrical theory but it only looks at certain aspects of electricity. Faraday's law of induction covers a different aspect of electrical theory. And then there is Faraday's laws of electrolysis.
Things like hertz, resistance, conductance can still be debated on very specific levels especially when it pertains to certain materials or combination of materials. It doesn't mean that that hertz, resistance and conductance don't exist. But trying to apply a simple set of math formulas to biology doesn't mesh. This where people get confused. They expect that simple items can be placed into the complexity of biology. It is also the failing of the scientific community to put into an understandable English the workings of evolution. The scientific community needs to dumb down certain complex issue so the non scientific community understand them better. That doesn't mean the scientific community's facts are wrong. It just means they need speak plain English outside the halls of higher learning. Darwin's The Origin of the Species is a good book to read but it is not required reading in schools. And only 459 pages.  Stephen Hawking's A brief History of Time was also designed to put the Big Bang Theory into simpler terms touting only one math formula in the book because he knew it would turn off common readers if the book was loaded with complicated math formulas. A shortcoming of the reader not the author. The author catered to the masses. And the book was a best seller but it is not required reading in school.

Jerrymac asked if we came from mars where did that life come from. What if there was life on Mars and it seeded life on Earth. So what? It doesn't really change anything. Your still here.

There is nothing wrong with questioning science or god. But people need to ask better questions and God needs to provide better answers.


And maybe someday all of you will all be touched by the noodley appendage of his holiness The Flying Spaghetti Monster.


Sincerely,
Brendhan

 

[Jerrymac]

Life was discovered on mars, not humonoid life but microscopic life. It shows that there may be life elsewhere in the universe.

When was life discovered on Mars?

[Kathyp]

one small point.  you can not in one sentence call evolution a theory, and then in the next call it a fact.  if it were a fact, it would cease to be a theory.

if Christians were to study the bible in the original languages, they would find that some of the ideas they hold dear are not actually written.  also, much of the Protestant teaching are still based on the teachings of the Catholic church.  you do not even need to do a careful study of Catholic dogma to see that some of it is in direct contradiction to the bible.  it is unpopular but true that the bible allows for multiple creations.  it actually syncs very nicely with much of the mythology of other cultures.  multiple creations, multiple destructions, each culture having their 'Adam and Eve'.

the bible is two stories.  it is the story of the Jews, and it is the story of salvation through Christ.  it is quite possible that it is one story among many.  however, it is also important to remember that a shared belief system is a corner stone of any society.  the Mayans were probably destroyed more by the failure of their gods, than whatever natural disasters occurred.  the need for faith seems to be engineered into our psyche.  to think we have evolved beyond the need, is to invite chaos.

[Scadsobees]

Gravity is a fact. We feel it every day.  The Theory of Gravity, why and how it works, is only a theory.  We don't know why it works, but have a good guess that hasn't been proven wrong.

We have lots of facts.  That monkeys and humans share the same ancestor is not a fact.  It is a theory.  There are lots of guesses how that happened.  The facts are that there have been skulls and bones found.  What they were is theory and only ever will be theory.  And theories on theories on theories are only as stable as the foundational theory.

Unless you have that time machine that you haven't told anybody about.  Beleive what you want, but as a human it is easier to have faith in something that you think you can see.

BTW, I did an index search on the Bible and it doesn't mention PI.  Or pie.  It does have pomegranites and olives, but I don't think that would make good pie.  Just the dimensions of a really big impressive bowl (now that would be a big pie!! :) mmmmm...), described in a measurement that is typically approximate, since it is usually measured using an average body part(arm, elbow to finger).  But the Bible is really close, considering the approximations....

rick

[Scadsobees]

Life was discovered on mars, not humonoid life but microscopic life. It shows that there may be life elsewhere in the universe.

When was life discovered on Mars?

No I think that this is the closest that they got.  They *think* based on different *scenarios* that it may be a *possibility* .  :-P  Too many science journals read that way.

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/marslife.html

[Jerrymac]

But that wasn't found on Mars, it was found here on earth. Wonder how they figure it is a piece of Mars? Where would one have gotten another piece of Mars to compare it to?

[Understudy]

Life was discovered on mars, not humonoid life but microscopic life. It shows that there may be life elsewhere in the universe.

When was life discovered on Mars?

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/marslife.html

Sincerely,
Brendhan

[Understudy]

one small point.  you can not in one sentence call evolution a theory, and then in the next call it a fact.  if it were a fact, it would cease to be a theory.

No that is not true. That is the problem. People think that facts and theories are incompatible.  In fact it takes fats to make theories.

if Christians were to study the bible in the original languages, they would find that some of the ideas they hold dear are not actually written.  also, much of the Protestant teaching are still based on the teachings of the Catholic church.  you do not even need to do a careful study of Catholic dogma to see that some of it is in direct contradiction to the bible.  it is unpopular but true that the bible allows for multiple creations.  it actually syncs very nicely with much of the mythology of other cultures.  multiple creations, multiple destructions, each culture having their 'Adam and Eve'.

Or Adam and Lilith(Adam's First wife)Book of Isaiah 34:14

the bible is two stories.  it is the story of the Jews, and it is the story of salvation through Christ.  it is quite possible that it is one story among many.  however, it is also important to remember that a shared belief system is a corner stone of any society.  the Mayans were probably destroyed more by the failure of their gods, than whatever natural disasters occurred.  the need for faith seems to be engineered into our psyche.  to think we have evolved beyond the need, is to invite chaos.

I am not disregarding humans need for faith and their search for answers. The problem is when they are so passionate about their faith they use it to preclude reason. Faith is fine. Fanatic is obscene.

Sincerely,
Brendhan

[Understudy]

Gravity is a fact. We feel it every day.  The Theory of Gravity, why and how it works, is only a theory.  We don't know why it works, but have a good guess that hasn't been proven wrong.

I had this discussion with someone else. There are different aspects of Gravity.
Newtons Law of Universal Gravitation. Which is what many people refer to. The problem was it didn't account well for the orbit of the planet Mercury.
Einstein solved that later with General Relativity the E=mc^2 that people are familiar with. Newton's law requires that gravity be a constant. Einstein only requires relative relationship. There are other theories of gravity that deal with Dark Matter and a few that try to deal with the breakdown at a quantum level.

We have lots of facts.  That monkeys and humans share the same ancestor is not a fact.  It is a theory. 

Sorry it is a fact.The exact year of the split can be debated.
http://www.theallineed.com/biology/06012903.htm
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/88/20/9051.pdf
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

There are lots of guesses how that happened.  The facts are that there have been skulls and bones found.  What they were is theory and only ever will be theory.  And theories on theories on theories are only as stable as the foundational theory.

Not quite. It is a lot more than skull and bones.

Unless you have that time machine that you haven't told anybody about.  Beleive what you want, but as a human it is easier to have faith in something that you think you can see.

Faith is designed to provide answers when you don't have all the facts.

BTW, I did an index search on the Bible and it doesn't mention PI.  Or pie.  It does have pomegranites and olives, but I don't think that would make good pie.  Just the dimensions of a really big impressive bowl (now that would be a big pie!! :) mmmmm...), described in a measurement that is typically approximate, since it is usually measured using an average body part(arm, elbow to finger).  But the Bible is really close, considering the approximations....

rick

It mentions
He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it. Below the rim, gourds encircled it - ten to a cubit. The gourds were cast in two rows in one piece with the Sea.
The ratio of the circumference to the diameter is 30:10 cubits.
That would be 3.

There are plenty of religious websites that will say how much a cubit is and attempt to dispute this but the simple fact is The bible makes pi = 3. Which it doesn't.

Maybe the next time kid answers 2+2=5 we will say it's okay because he was close.

Sincerely,
Brendhan

[Jerrymac]

When was life discovered on Mars?

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/marslife.html

I already replied to this once. This was on Earth not Mars. The article is littered with maybes, perhapses, and possiblies. I would need more before convicting someone of a crime.

believed to be from Mars
which may be microfossils of
thought to be from Mars

But let me break it down a bit. Twelve pieces of rocks believed to be from the same meteorite, even though the one with the "possible" bug is 3.2 billion years older than the other eleven.  :? No mention of any "primitive bacteria" in the other rocks. But one.... just one.... was found to have "Gas bubbles" that must have been trapped inside of it 1.3 billion years ago that "have a composition which matches the current martian atmosphere as measured by the Viking Landers"

Pick a rock up from the surface of mars and find absolutely positively couldn't be anything else but..... and then I will buy it.

[indypartridge]

It mentions
He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it. Below the rim, gourds encircled it - ten to a cubit. The gourds were cast in two rows in one piece with the Sea.
The ratio of the circumference to the diameter is 30:10 cubits.
That would be 3.

There are plenty of religious websites that will say how much a cubit is and attempt to dispute this but the simple fact is The bible makes pi = 3. Which it doesn't.

Maybe the next time kid answers 2+2=5 we will say it's okay because he was close.

Sincerely,
Brendhan

Ah, but perhaps the simple fact is that you're reading it in English and not Hebrew!
Hebrew, like Greek, is alphanumeric, where letters are often used to represent numerical values.

In Hebrew, the common word to describe circumference is qav, however, in 1 Kings 7:23, the unusual spelling qaveh is used. Whereas qav has a numeric value of 106, the additional letters yield a value of 111, giving an adjustment ratio of 111/106.  Multiple this ratio times the written value of 30 cubits and you get 31.41509433962 cubits, which would then yield a value of pi=3.141509433962, accurate to 4 decimal places,  and about 15 times more accurate than the value of 22/7, which we used in school as a handy approximation before the days of calculators.

[indypartridge]

Life was discovered on mars, not humonoid life but microscopic life. It shows that there may be life elsewhere in the universe.

When was life discovered on Mars?

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/marslife.html

Sincerely,
Brendhan

This wasn't the first time NASA made headlines with dubious science. But, hey, they wanted funding for their Mars missions, so why not garner some big time headlines about "Life on Mars!" ?

Unfortunately, some these links require a subscription, but the titles tell the story:

NASA's claims win few converts
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v384/n6604/index.html
"Many leading researchers who study meteorites and ancient life have weighed the evidence and found it unconvincing."

Death Knell for Martian Life
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15220610.200-death-knell-for-martian-life.html
"Luann Becker and her colleagues at the University of California, San Diego, report that the PAHs found in the meteorite could be contaminants from the Antarctic ice. Becker used a mass spectrometer to analyse the PAHs in several samples of Antarctic ice, including some from the site where the meteorite was found. All the PAHs that McKay's team found in the Martian meteorite were discovered in their ice samples. The PAHs also turned up in other meteorites collected in Antarctica, including several that did not originate from Mars."

J.Kerridge (UC San Diego) provided a counter-argument to the proposal from D. McKay et al. that ALH84001 contains evidence of ancient biogenic activity on Mars. Kerridge noted that every line of evidence presented by McKay to support the biological hypothesis can also be explained by inorganic processes.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19980236014_1998372641.pdf

"Now, however, as the details of NASA's study begin to sink in, scepticism is mounting."
"Last year, researchers led by Jim Papike, a meteor specialist at the University of New Mexico, began examining samples of iron-sulphide mineral that had been deposited in fractures in the rock. They measured the ratio of two sulphur isotopes in these samples. But instead of finding a ratio consistent with a fingerprint for life, they found the opposite: isotope ratios consistent with nonbiological processes."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15120430.200-did-martians-land-in-antarctica.html

[Hopeful]

Brendhan said,>>>> "It is alot more than skull and bones"<<<<<.

I agree, it is also about grant money, defending atheism, higher criticism and pride.  DNA evidence shows that it is not possible for man and ape to be related, regardless of how similar they may look (and act) in some aspects. That 3% difference in DNA may as well be 90%. When speaking of DNA, a miss is as good a mile.

>>>>"Theories are based on facts"<<<<<

To some degree. But in the case of evolution, it is more about being based on a biased interpretation of facts (and trumped up facts, like doctored skeletons and false carbon dating results), and not on the facts themselves. I showed an illustration of this a couple of pages back where a person walks into a room filled with toys and cartoon posters. Some may believe this proves it is a child's room. BUt in reality, it was my boss's wife's office at a shop I worked at several years ago. However, Bible prophecy proves as much as anything that there is a God and that this God interacts with people. Judeo/Christianity is the only belief system wherein prophecy comes true. Yes, it takes faith, because it is written that "without faith, man cannot please God". God has asked for faith as symbol of our love for Him. And without faith that there is a loving and personal God, why would anyone seek to please Him?

Brendhan, just because people are "debating" when ape and man split, and accept macro-evolution o as factdoes not prove that ape and man ever split or were related. It is a theory based on many other theories, and genetics disproves all of it.

KathyP wrote:

<<<<<The BIble is two stories, one about the Jews and the other about salvation through Christ.<<<<

I respectfully disagree. The Bible from beginning to end is about God's will for and relationship to His creatures, including Jews, Hinus, Muslims and Christians and the plan of salvation for all people. I believe true Christianity is simply the BIble understood correctly.Remember, that much of the book of Genesis took place many years prior to the existence of the Jews. Abraham was not a Jew and neither was Noah, Adam, Enoch or anyone prior to Jacob.  The ministry of Jesus was illustrated to the Jews in the sanctuary service and in the many types of the Old Testament. Some Jews got it, even back then,  but most did not.

   You made some awesome comments about how the Roman Church and many Christians who claim to believe the Bible do in fact hold beliefs that are counter to the Bible. I say "Amen" to that. The Trinity, Sunday worship, infant baptism, purgatory are all extra-biblical doctrines invented by Rome and held by many Protestants. Rome did indeed claim to formulate these doctrines on her own authority and not on the Bible. The question is, "Does the church of Rome have authority to write doctrine on its authority? If so, then the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition were "righteous and good".

[Brian D. Bray]

Hopeful; You're starting to sound like a Latter Day Saint.