Hippos eveolved from cetaceans

[Frodo]

You call it trolling, I call it a sense of humour. I think it will be funny if Adam places a piece of rock, or a plate of dust in his living room, and when guests visit him, he shows this rock/dust to them and says, "Meet my papa."

Cheers!

Trolling or humour aside, can you explain why Adam would call rock/dust his papa? Mind you, the dust was the matter of which Adam was made by God in an act of creation. Made from dust = descended/fathered by dust? That's another instance of atheist FAILED logic at work! LOL!

 

[Frodo]

Of the five, only global flood is possible. There may have been more than one. But Noah's Ark in it was described in the bible could not have been possible. The other four are merely stories.

Humans are not anatomically designed to fly, but we have in the last century understood the physics of lift and designed machines to do that.

Here is what I have found on evolution of mozzies, cut and paste from Wiki:

Evolution[edit]
The oldest known mosquito with an anatomy similar to modern species was found in 79-million-year-old Canadian amber from the Cretaceous.[97] An older sister species with more primitive features was found in Burmese amber that is 90 to 100 million years old.[98] Two mosquito fossils have been found that show very little morphological change in modern mosquitoes against their counterpart from 46 million years ago.[99]
Genetic analyses indicate the Culicinae and Anophelinae clades may have diverged about 150 million years ago.[100] The Old and New World Anopheles species are believed to have subsequently diverged about 95 million years ago.[100]
The mosquito Anopheles gambiae is currently undergoing speciation into the M(opti) and S(avanah) molecular forms. Consequently, some pesticides that work on the M form no longer work on the S form.[101]
§Taxonomy of the Culicidae[edit]
Over 3,500 species of the Culicidae have already been described.[102] They are generally divided into two subfamilies which in turn comprise some 43 genera. These figures are subject to continual change, as more species are discovered, and as DNA studies compel rearrangement of the taxonomy of the family. The two main subfamilies are the Anophelinae and Culicinae, with their genera as shown in the subsection below.[103] The distinction is of great practical importance because the two subfamilies tend to differ in their significance as vectors of different classes of diseases. Roughly speaking, arboviral diseases such as yellow fever and dengue fever tend to be transmitted by Culicine species, not necessarily in the genus Culex. Some transmit various species of avian malaria, but it is not clear that they ever transmit any form of human malaria. Some species do however transmit various forms of filariasis, much as many Simuliidae do.
Anopheline mosquitoes, again not necessarily in the genus Anopheles, sometimes bear pathogenic arboviruses, but it is not yet clear that they ever transmit them as effective vectors. However, all the most important vectors of human malaria are Anopheline.

It is to be noted too that most mosquitoes are not blood suckers, so those who do, evolved the ability to scent and ingest animal blood for protein needed to produce eggs. Hence only female mosquitoes suck blood. From the article, it also mentioned that some species being studied today are still undergoing evolutionary changes. And the fact that there are many species and sub-species of mosquitoes is further evidence that mosquitoes have diverged into different forms, or mutations if you prefer. A sign that evolution took place.

You should drop in the Science Centre in Jurong. It has exhibits, illustrations, and videos that support evolution in our past. Also, last night watching Discovery Channel, I was watching a program that shows evidence of meteors from outer space containing protein molecules, suggesting that the basic building blocks of life can be found in space, meaning life could possible be found in places other than our planet.

There is much for us to discover and learn still. We've only just begun.

Cheers!

Please explain why only a global flood could be possible if there is a God, but the rest are impossible. Are you saying that God

1. Cannot create the universe in 6 days?
2. Cannot part the Red Sea?
3. Cannot cause a Virgin Birth
4. Cannot raise the dead aka Resurrection?

I read with much amusement your admission that humans are not designed to fly! LOL!

Yep, we understood the laws of nature and have mastered them in some ways. But who sets the laws of nature and upholds them? where do such laws come from? In a random universe how can you explain the existence of such non-random nature of these laws?

Now to the mozzies, your evolutionary story telling aside, all the PHYSICAL evidence shows that the fossils and living mozzies are identical. Saying that there are many species of mozzies is irrelevant, because creationists are not denying that there are species of mozzies. They are still variations of the the mozzie kind. They were mozzies, are mozzies, and I dare say will be mozzies, even if we grant another 45 million years. WHY? Because of DNA, genetic information. The atheist is at pains to show evidence of a non-mozzie evolving into a mozzie, or a non-mozzie ancestor. If all you show me are species/variations of the mozzie kind, sorry, that evidence is the creationist's evidence too, so it does not work in your favour in any way. In fact, it works FOR the creationist because we predict that the mozzie will always be mozzie.

 

[Agoraphobic]

The swearing by the Bible in the court takes place only in countries where the court system arose from Christian days, and is practiced only because of customs and traditions. It is obeyed only by God-fearing peoples. To most others, it doesn't mean diddly.

Eh, the judge, if he is qualified to be a judge doesn't work under religious laws, s/he bases his/her judgement on the legal laws of the nation. A good judge will not base the case on the religious background of the person standing trial, or his or her beliefs, but what he/she has done. And if the accused claims his/her actions were based on what "God" told him to do, he may get his case referred to mental examination.

Cheers!

Today in court people still swear by the Bible, no? Legit mah?

http://www.lawsociety.org.sg/forPublic/YoutheLaw/GivingEvidence.aspx

"When you enter the witness box, a court official will ask you to 'tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth'. (If you are a Christian, you will be asked to swear on the Bible)."

Now, if telling the truth requires you to say "God said to me..." then can the judge (assume he is atheist ) simply throw the case out because he does not believe in God? If you are the judge and you dismiss the court simply because of this, then you are a FAIL judge.

 

[Agoraphobic]

That was humour. Adam would be hard pressed to find out who was his papa. Even harder to find who to call his mama.

Cheers!

Trolling or humour aside, can you explain why Adam would call rock/dust his papa? Mind you, the dust was the matter of which Adam was made by God in an act of creation. Made from dust = descended/fathered by dust? That's another instance of atheist FAILED logic at work! LOL!

 

[Frodo]

That was humour. Adam would be hard pressed to find out who was his papa. Even harder to find who to call his mama.

Cheers!

More of a failed joke! LOL!

Would Adam be looking for his papa in the first place?

 

[Frodo]

The swearing by the Bible in the court takes place only in countries where the court system arose from Christian days, and is practiced only because of customs and traditions. It is obeyed only by God-fearing peoples. To most others, it doesn't mean diddly.

Eh, the judge, if he is qualified to be a judge doesn't work under religious laws, s/he bases his/her judgement on the legal laws of the nation. A good judge will not base the case on the religious background of the person standing trial, or his or her beliefs, but what he/she has done. And if the accused claims his/her actions were based on what "God" told him to do, he may get his case referred to mental examination.

Cheers!

In case you missed it, the link was to the court's practice in SINGAPORE.

Regardless of whether the accused gets referred to mental examination, the judge is not entitled to just dismiss or throw it out simply because someone mentioned God. Thanks for agreeing.:p

 

[Agoraphobic]

That's a pretty big IF.

1. The universe was formed over billions of years.
2. Sea cannot be parted, what is to hold the mass of water up without holding walls?
3. A woman cannot be pregnated without intercourse (besides artificial insemination)
4. The dead is dead.

Again, as I've said before, you can choose to believe that these events happened if it brings comfort to you. But it is not possible for others to accept them as truths.

That is the evidence I have to support the evolution of the mosquito. If it does not convince you, that is up to you. Going back a few years to get past information already is difficult, now, going back beyond hundreds of millions of years for me is impossible, so I take it from the "experts" in that field, and that is the evidence they have. So now I ask you, how did God create the mosquito? The same way he did Adam? Took some dust, breathed life into it, and Presto! Little buzzing gnat starts flying around looking to stick its proboscis into someone's skin to draw blood and spread disease! This God made everything explanation might serve your curiosity, but it takes a questioning mind to look for cures to diseases, production methods to increase food crop harvests, improve animal husbandry to feed growing populations. God's people can expect manna to fall from the heavens!

Cheers!

Please explain why only a global flood could be possible if there is a God, but the rest are impossible. Are you saying that God

1. Cannot create the universe in 6 days?
2. Cannot part the Red Sea?
3. Cannot cause a Virgin Birth
4. Cannot raise the dead aka Resurrection?

I read with much amusement your admission that humans are not designed to fly! LOL!

Yep, we understood the laws of nature and have mastered them in some ways. But who sets the laws of nature and upholds them? where do such laws come from? In a random universe how can you explain the existence of such non-random nature of these laws?

Now to the mozzies, your evolutionary story telling aside, all the PHYSICAL evidence shows that the fossils and living mozzies are identical. Saying that there are many species of mozzies is irrelevant, because creationists are not denying that there are species of mozzies. They are still variations of the the mozzie kind. They were mozzies, are mozzies, and I dare say will be mozzies, even if we grant another 45 million years. WHY? Because of DNA, genetic information. The atheist is at pains to show evidence of a non-mozzie evolving into a mozzie, or a non-mozzie ancestor. If all you show me are species/variations of the mozzie kind, sorry, that evidence is the creationist's evidence too, so it does not work in your favour in any way. In fact, it works FOR the creationist because we predict that the mozzie will always be mozzie.

 

[Agoraphobic]

Fren, Singapore's current legal system is derived from British.

A few years back in Toronto (Canada), a school boy from a Catholic school took this school to court for disallowing him and his "boyfriend" to his school prom. The Catholic school lost the case. The laws of the land are based on secular laws.

Cheers!

In case you missed it, the link was to the court's in SINGAPORE.

Regardless of whether the accused gets referred to mental examination, the judge is not entitled to just dismiss or throw it out simply because someone mentioned God. Thanks for agreeing.:p

 

[Frodo]

Fren, Singapore's current legal system is derived from British.

A few years back in Toronto (Canada), a school boy from a Catholic school took this school to court for disallowing him and his "boyfriend" to his school prom. The Catholic school lost the case. The laws of the land are based on secular laws.

Cheers!

You said "The swearing by the Bible in the court takes place only in countries where the court system arose from Christian days, and is practiced only because of customs and traditions. It is obeyed only by God-fearing peoples. To most others, it doesn't mean diddly."

This is done also in Singapore. And in case you are not aware, you are committing the genetic fallacy.

Anyway, I have no issue with a secular state per se. Anyway, there is no law without a lawgiver. So where do moral laws come from? Again the evolutionist struggle for a coherent answer, but not so the theist.:p

 

[Frodo]

That's a pretty big IF.

1. The universe was formed over billions of years.
2. Sea cannot be parted, what is to hold the mass of water up without holding walls?
3. A woman cannot be pregnated without intercourse (besides artificial insemination)
4. The dead is dead.

Again, as I've said before, you can choose to believe that these events happened if it brings comfort to you. But it is not possible for others to accept them as truths.

That is the evidence I have to support the evolution of the mosquito. If it does not convince you, that is up to you. Going back a few years to get past information already is difficult, now, going back beyond hundreds of millions of years for me is impossible, so I take it from the "experts" in that field, and that is the evidence they have. So now I ask you, how did God create the mosquito? The same way he did Adam? Took some dust, breathed life into it, and Presto! Little buzzing gnat starts flying around looking to stick its proboscis into someone's skin to draw blood and spread disease! This God made everything explanation might serve your curiosity, but it takes a questioning mind to look for cures to diseases, production methods to increase food crop harvests, improve animal husbandry to feed growing populations. God's people can expect manna to fall from the heavens!

Cheers!

LOL! It seems that you are avoiding to answer the question! May I know why?

Let me ask again, If there is a God, are you saying that God

1. Cannot create the universe in 6 days?
2. Cannot part the Red Sea?
3. Cannot cause a Virgin Birth
4. Cannot raise the dead aka Resurrection?

Of course I know not everyone accept the above as true, but note that this is NOT what I am asking you now, I am asking you whether the above is possible if there is a God. Remember you just conclude all the above is impossible. And you concluded thus BECAUSE of certain assumptions (IF) that you have made about reality and the universe. So now I am asking, if you adopt (just for the sake of argument, not asking you to convert so don't panic ok) a theistic assumption what would your answer be?

BTW, the info you just pasted did not give evidence for the evolution of mozzies. Citing more species of the mozzie kind is NOT evolution which means a non-mozzie evolving into a mozzie. You have no hard evidence for that. The only hard evidence (fossil or amber) you have does not support your evolution belief at all. So how can you just say that it is, when it is not? Every species of mozzie you show me will simply be another specie of the mozzie. What has evolved really? It seems you have put critical thinking on the backbench when it comes to this.

You asked a very simple question. How did God create the mosquito? Well, the Bible did not say "And God created the mozzie" so the reasonable answer is that He created the mozzie the same way He created the other living things as well, be it on Day 5 or day 6. If you want to believe in evolution, however absurd, that's up to you. For me, God created the mozzie fully functional at the get-go. You have to believe that the mozzie had to take millions of years to separately evolve the different parts. But you never give a thought that each incomplete stage of development is a recipe ripe for disaster as natural selection weeds it out of the system.

I think you are pretty ignorant about history and what Christianity has done in terms of civilisation and progression. You really think that Christians do not think about agriculture and solving world problems? Other than this allegation that is completely unfounded, can you provide REAL evidence that Christians just expect manna from heaven? Mind you, the Bible never teaches that Christians should expect manna from heaven, that was a one time event during the wilderness experience of Israel, and never taught as a recurrent provision for all believers everywhere at all times.

 

[Agoraphobic]

Fren, in many countries all over the world today, the legal system evolved in modern times, in which Christian beliefs, and practices were firmly entrenched in societies, so they've had a large influence on the legal procedures. However, I'd like to see how the court proceedings are carried out in countries where Christian influence may not have had such an impact. Examples could be China or Japan. In European countries, before Christianity took hold, they had pagan beliefs, and yet they had law. For the function of society, there has to be some kind of law and order. It just happens that in our planet's recent history, Christianity made a huge imprint, as can be seen in classical artworks. However, it has seen its days and societies are now relying less and less on the bible as a guidebook.

Having said this, morals stem from communities' belief systems, cultures, interactions, religions and many other social norms. In some communities, polygamy is wrong and taboo, yet it is permitted and normal in others.

Cheers!

You said "The swearing by the Bible in the court takes place only in countries where the court system arose from Christian days, and is practiced only because of customs and traditions. It is obeyed only by God-fearing peoples. To most others, it doesn't mean diddly."

This is done also in Singapore. And in case you are not aware, you are committing the genetic fallacy.

Anyway, I have no issue with a secular state per se. Anyway, there is no law without a lawgiver. So where do moral laws come from? Again the evolutionist struggle for a coherent answer, but not so the theist.:p

 

[Agoraphobic]

Fren, I do not belief in God as described by the bible. There may be a more advanced civilisation (although we do not have prove, that is why I say - may). I do not believe that "God" expects a certain conduct from what he/she "created." I do not believe in the Judgement Day, and that God will judge the living and the dead. I believe that we, humans, have evolved, advanced, and improve our existence to more than just "survival." That we aspire to greater heights, develop arts, literature, and religion, philosophy, as we wish to rise above the level of merely grovelling in the m&d and cesspools we evolved from. We are able to reason, to analyse, to understand and learn. I will attempt to answer your questions again:

1. The universe is still expanding. Despite its unfathomable size, it is still growing, and its been billions of years! 6 days, cannot even built a house, let alone a universe.
2. Water seeks its own level. To part a sea, you need to build retaining walls. Either this, or Hollywood tricks.
3. Virgin birth. Mary must have been a totally naïve child. Even more naïve is the community who believed her.
4. Dead is dead. Sorry to be so harsh.

For those who believe, we can say they have faith, in order not to be unkind. I will not utter the words to describe what it actually is as I do not wish to find fault with believers. Myself, I am unable to believe in miracles.

Cheers!

LOL! It seems that you are avoiding to answer the question! May I know why?

Let me ask again, If there is a God, are you saying that God

1. Cannot create the universe in 6 days?
2. Cannot part the Red Sea?
3. Cannot cause a Virgin Birth
4. Cannot raise the dead aka Resurrection?

Of course I know not everyone accept the above as true, but note that this is NOT what I am asking you now, I am asking you whether the above is possible if there is a God. Remember you just conclude all the above is impossible. And you concluded thus BECAUSE of certain assumptions (IF) that you have made about reality and the universe. So now I am asking, if you adopt (just for the sake of argument, not asking you to convert so don't panic ok) a theistic assumption what would your answer be?

BTW, the info you just pasted did not give evidence for the evolution of mozzies. Citing more species of the mozzie kind is NOT evolution which means a non-mozzie evolving into a mozzie. You have no hard evidence for that. The only hard evidence (fossil or amber) you have does not support your evolution belief at all. So how can you just say that it is, when it is not? Every species of mozzie you show me will simply be another specie of the mozzie. What has evolved really? It seems you have put critical thinking on the backbench when it comes to this.

You asked a very simple question. How did God create the mosquito? Well, the Bible did not say "And God created the mozzie" so the reasonable answer is that He created the mozzie the same way He created the other living things as well, be it on Day 5 or day 6. If you want to believe in evolution, however absurd, that's up to you. For me, God created the mozzie fully functional at the get-go. You have to believe that the mozzie had to take millions of years to separately evolve the different parts. But you never give a thought that each incomplete stage of development is a recipe ripe for disaster as natural selection weeds it out of the system.

I think you are pretty ignorant about history and what Christianity has done in terms of civilisation and progression. You really think that Christians do not think about agriculture and solving world problems? Other than this allegation that is completely unfounded, can you provide REAL evidence that Christians just expect manna from heaven? Mind you, the Bible never teaches that Christians should expect manna from heaven, that was a one time event during the wilderness experience of Israel, and never taught as a recurrent provision for all believers everywhere at all times.

 

[Frodo]

Fren, in many countries all over the world today, the legal system evolved in modern times, in which Christian beliefs, and practices were firmly entrenched in societies, so they've had a large influence on the legal procedures. However, I'd like to see how the court proceedings are carried out in countries where Christian influence may not have had such an impact. Examples could be China or Japan. In European countries, before Christianity took hold, they had pagan beliefs, and yet they had law. For the function of society, there has to be some kind of law and order. It just happens that in our planet's recent history, Christianity made a huge imprint, as can be seen in classical artworks. However, it has seen its days and societies are now relying less and less on the bible as a guidebook.

Having said this, morals stem from communities' belief systems, cultures, interactions, religions and many other social norms. In some communities, polygamy is wrong and taboo, yet it is permitted and normal in others.

Cheers!

What you are sharing is not something new to me. I do know that our law courts are carried over from the British system which has a Christian framework. However, just because you have this perception (real or apparent is irrelevant) that less people is relying on the Bible it does not mean that the Bible is any less true. Losing a truth appeal (due to a more secularised culture or due to more atheist propaganda ) is not the same as losing truth content.

Yes, you are probably right that before Christianity was introduced to many lands these lands have their own laws. Yet the Bible's teachings is that these laws (Gentiles) are reflection of moral laws that God has placed in man's hearts. When stripped down to the essentials we find that these laws have something in common with each other e.g. do not murder, do not steal. The atheist is again at great pains to explain how these moral laws or moral values come about. Any evolutionary account of morality fails.

 

[Frodo]

Fren, I do not belief in God as described by the bible. There may be a more advanced civilisation (although we do not have prove, that is why I say - may). I do not believe that "God" expects a certain conduct from what he/she "created." I do not believe in the Judgement Day, and that God will judge the living and the dead. I believe that we, humans, have evolved, advanced, and improve our existence to more than just "survival." That we aspire to greater heights, develop arts, literature, and religion, philosophy, as we wish to rise above the level of merely grovelling in the m&d and cesspools we evolved from. We are able to reason, to analyse, to understand and learn. I will attempt to answer your questions again:

1. The universe is still expanding. Despite its unfathomable size, it is still growing, and its been billions of years! 6 days, cannot even built a house, let alone a universe.
2. Water seeks its own level. To part a sea, you need to build retaining walls. Either this, or Hollywood tricks.
3. Virgin birth. Mary must have been a totally naïve child. Even more naïve is the community who believed her.
4. Dead is dead. Sorry to be so harsh.

For those who believe, we can say they have faith, in order not to be unkind. I will not utter the words to describe what it actually is as I do not wish to find fault with believers. Myself, I am unable to believe in miracles.

Cheers!

Still avoiding I see.

Again I think you panic too quickly. I am not asking if you believe in God. I know you don't. But why can't you keep an open mind and just for the sake of argument answer my questions? You are answering your questions ASSUMING there is no God. How would your answers be different if you assume there is a God? What harm would it do to you to step into your opponent's shoes for a change?

BTW, you also believe in miracles, but in nature as your "God", because you believe that "nature" can work miracles, even change nonliving matter to living organism, just add time as ingredient, anything also can!

 

[Agoraphobic]

Since there are differing views on "truth" for the bible, I will leave that to the individual to decide for him/herself. The way I see the "appeal" of the Bible is that it depends on social trends and attitudes. During the Middle Ages, anyone who opposed the bible's teachings could be accused of heresy, and face severe punishment, jail, or even death. Today, one can openly criticise bible works, and nobody even pays attention. In view of this change in public attitude (depending on where one is), society has been less reliant on bible teachings and direction. I am not saying if this is good or bad, just the trend in society's attitudes.

Our human behaviour may be explained by observing animals. They too have some kind of a social order, loyalty to family and kind, both positive (eg. love, support), and negative (eg. jealousy). Underlying all these behaviors is the ingredient that aids chances to survive, and if this is attained, then comfort and security. Being more evolved, humans have above the "reptilian" instincts (some reptiles have attained more than just instinct type traits and can be protective of younger offsprings eg. crocodiles). From these observations, we can conclude that our human laws for what is proper conduct may have derived from more basal instincts, which grew and adapted in progress with community development.

Cheers!

What you are sharing is not something new to me. I do know that our law courts are carried over from the British system which has a Christian framework. However, just because you have this perception (real or apparent is irrelevant) that less people is relying on the Bible it does not mean that the Bible is any less true. Losing a truth appeal (due to a more secularised culture or due to more atheist propaganda ) is not the same as losing truth content.

Yes, you are probably right that before Christianity was introduced to many lands these lands have their own laws. Yet the Bible's teachings is that these laws (Gentiles) are reflection of moral laws that God has placed in man's hearts. When stripped down to the essentials we find that these laws have something in common with each other e.g. do not murder, do not steal. The atheist is again at great pains to explain how these moral laws or moral values come about. Any evolutionary account of morality fails.

 

[Agoraphobic]

Okay. IF I believed that God exists, and what the bible says is true, then I suppose I would agree with the things here. But I'd find myself without anything to quote other than the bible's writings, which I know, were written by scribes.

FYI, I am an atheist only because people here call me one, as I do not believe in God, in the biblical sense. I have not ruled out that civilizations more advanced than our species may have visited our planet in the past and implanted their DNA into our primitive ancestors. However, this is just speculation, and from watching Ancient Aliens. Again, I just thing that this is a maybe. Honestly, I do not know.

Cheers!

Still avoiding I see.

Again I think you panic too quickly. I am not asking if you believe in God. I know you don't. But why can't you keep an open mind and just for the sake of argument answer my questions? You are answering your questions ASSUMING there is no God. How would your answers be different if you assume there is a God? What harm would it do to you to step into your opponent's shoes for a change?

BTW, you also believe in miracles, but in nature as your "God", because you believe that "nature" can work miracles, even change nonliving matter to living organism, just add time as ingredient, anything also can!

 

[Frodo]

Since there are differing views on "truth" for the bible, I will leave that to the individual to decide for him/herself. The way I see the "appeal" of the Bible is that it depends on social trends and attitudes. During the Middle Ages, anyone who opposed the bible's teachings could be accused of heresy, and face severe punishment, jail, or even death. Today, one can openly criticise bible works, and nobody even pays attention. In view of this change in public attitude (depending on where one is), society has been less reliant on bible teachings and direction. I am not saying if this is good or bad, just the trend in society's attitudes.

Our human behaviour may be explained by observing animals. They too have some kind of a social order, loyalty to family and kind, both positive (eg. love, support), and negative (eg. jealousy). Underlying all these behaviors is the ingredient that aids chances to survive, and if this is attained, then comfort and security. Being more evolved, humans have above the "reptilian" instincts (some reptiles have attained more than just instinct type traits and can be protective of younger offsprings eg. crocodiles). From these observations, we can conclude that our human laws for what is proper conduct may have derived from more basal instincts, which grew and adapted in progress with community development.

Cheers!

I do not agree with the false notion that each individual can decide truth for himself. Truth is discovered, not determined by one's preferences. We are talking about objective truth here, not subjective matters of opinions. As such we strive to align ourselves to the truth. The attitude of people in the past or present towards the Bible is not the subject of discussion. The instititional church was not without her flaws and to the extent that the church acted out of character with the Bible, to that extent the church was wrong. Yet these are the failures of man who has overreached in terms of what they are sanctioned by Scriptures to do. I will not excuse them or defend them (largely the Roman Catholic Church) in their wrongdoing, but suffice to say that no Christians today take such a view of enforcing Christian beliefs. Why? Not because times have changed, but because no such warrant can be teased out of the Scriptures.

If animals and humans both exhibit some kind of similar social behaviour, you take that as evidence that we are just evolved animals? I see it as that we were created by the same God who made us all but made man higher than the animals i.e. created in God's image. Again using evolutionary morality, if someone decides to act animal and take someone's cat and rape them (DIVA??? :p), can evolutionary morality judge them to be morally wrong? No way. Evolutionary morality cannot make judgement about what is morally right or wrong. This is the is-ought fallacy that evolutionists always commit. But being made in God's image means that murder is wrong.

 

[Frodo]

Okay. IF I believed that God exists, and what the bible says is true, then I suppose I would agree with the things here. But I'd find myself without anything to quote other than the bible's writings, which I know, were written by scribes.

FYI, I am an atheist only because people here call me one, as I do not believe in God, in the biblical sense. I have not ruled out that civilizations more advanced than our species may have visited our planet in the past and implanted their DNA into our primitive ancestors. However, this is just speculation, and from watching Ancient Aliens. Again, I just thing that this is a maybe. Honestly, I do not know.

Cheers!

OK, thanks for answering positively that if God exists, then there is no question that God can

1. Create the universe in 6 days
2. Part the Red Sea
3. Cause a Virgin Birth
4. Raise the dead aka Resurrection

Next your skepticism about the above events. You said they are just found in the Bible and can't be trusted since they were written by scribes. But why would the fact that they were written, recorded, transmitted by scribes be an argument against the truth of the Biblical record? The Bible IS an ancient document, and IS a historical document, and so should be subject to the same rules that are applied to any other document of antiquity. Just because it is religious, or records theological history, does not therefore disqualifies it as a historical document.

The atheist label will stick so long as you deny that there is a God. Believing in aliens do not make you a theist. But believing in aliens is appealing to some because it at least "can" explain the fact of intelligent design we see around us. And that's the thing, isn't it? Everywhere we look around we immediately recognise the marks of intelligent, purposeful, design. Crediting it to chance is absurd, so if one cannot have God as the cause, next has to be the aliens! But aliens do not solve the basic questions.

 

[Agoraphobic]

Objective truth? Subjective opinion? We come back to square one again. You believe in the bible as truth, I don't. It depends on who we accept as the judge. In certain "primitive" societies, cannibalism was practiced, and wasn't considered wrong, in our present societies, it is a crime. Times have changed, and so has our perception, or at least the majority.

Our present day interpretation of evolution of animals is that life started sometime ago as a single celled organism, and evolved subsequently into the various branches of animals and plants. Man's evolution pathway is suspected to be along the lines of primates and apes and branched off late in the game. I do not know about God's image. I do not know what God looks like. The renaissance artists' impression of God depict him with human features. Our earlier civilisations believed that heavenly deities can, and do interact with mortal beings here on Earth. Somehow, this practice has stopped. The God(s) don't exist anymore.

Cheers!

I do not agree with the false notion that each individual can decide truth for himself. Truth is discovered, not determined by one's preferences. We are talking about objective truth here, not subjective matters of opinions. As such we strive to align ourselves to the truth. The attitude of people in the past or present towards the Bible is not the subject of discussion. The instititional church was not without her flaws and to the extent that the church acted out of character with the Bible, to that extent the church was wrong. Yet these are the failures of man who has overreached in terms of what they are sanctioned by Scriptures to do. I will not excuse them or defend them (largely the Roman Catholic Church) in their wrongdoing, but suffice to say that no Christians today take such a view of enforcing Christian beliefs. Why? Not because times have changed, but because no such warrant can be teased out of the Scriptures.

If animals and humans both exhibit some kind of similar social behaviour, you take that as evidence that we are just evolved animals? I see it as that we were created by the same God who made us all but made man higher than the animals i.e. created in God's image. Again using evolutionary morality, if someone decides to act animal and take someone's cat and rape them (DIVA??? :p), can evolutionary morality judge them to be morally wrong? No way. Evolutionary morality cannot make judgement about what is morally right or wrong. This is the is-ought fallacy that evolutionists always commit. But being made in God's image means that murder is wrong.

 

[Agoraphobic]

My opinion on why the Bible was written, and compiled the way it was ...................... is for political reason; Rome's. To make Christianity it's "official" religion, it had to be seen as truthful, and good. The Jewish old testament predicted the coming of a Messiah, which the character of Jesus suited fine, so they put it together to support that person to fulfil the prediction. In doing this, they (the authority) also conveniently left out the other books written about the person Jesus (eg. Gospel of Mary). So when Rome made Christianity its official religion, that took care of the growing rebellion. Christians (now comprising the Gentiles, the largest non-Roman group under Roman rule) became subservient and obedient, and compliant to the ethics and kindness taught by the book, became much easier to rule. I do not see the Bible as a book to look to for explaining our world. it is a book for the purpose of promoting Christianity.

Cheers!

............ But why would the fact that they were written, recorded, transmitted by scribes be an argument against the truth of the Biblical record? The Bible IS an ancient document, and IS a historical document, and so should be subject to the same rules that are applied to any other document of antiquity. Just because it is religious, or records theological history, does not therefore disqualifies it as a historical document.

The atheist label will stick so long as you deny that there is a God. Believing in aliens do not make you a theist. But believing in aliens is appealing to some because it at least "can" explain the fact of intelligent design we see around us. And that's the thing, isn't it? Everywhere we look around we immediately recognise the marks of intelligent, purposeful, design. Crediting it to chance is absurd, so if one cannot have God as the cause, next has to be the aliens! But aliens do not solve the basic questions.