This is why evolution is better than creationism. Their is no way to disprove creationism. Their is ZERO evidence for creationism.

If you want to disprove evolution go and find a fully formed modern chimp skeleton in the fossil record in ANY TIME PERIOD IT IS NOT SUPPOSE TO BE IN. Evolution has not been disproven by science. Science is the only thing I will trust to disprove it.

Here is the thing I dont get christians.....If god created the world and everything on it at the same time then WHY did he appear to do it in an evolutionary fashion? Why are the simplest lifeforms the oldest? Why do lifeforms grow more complex as we examine each time period of the fossil record? Why do we have fossil records of millions of species in each time period that did not survive?

Evolution is not COMPLETE. We do not have fossils that show every little change from one species to another but the above questions are valid and, imo, PROVE that their is something more to evolution than their is creationism.

Evidence for creationism......see bible. THAT IS IT!!! Everything else science has studied about our world points COMPLETELY away from this book especially in regards to creationism. Christians will bend to the will of science within the next hundred years. The bible will be reinterprated to allow for evolution as gods plan. Shit that is intelligent design. Intelligent design tells me christians know they are licked. Good luck.

What i don't get is how christianity views god as having creating the world in seven days - i mean... wouldn't he have had to create time in order for him to work by?

Oh, and ancient gods ftw.

What i don't get is how christianity views god as having creating the world in seven days - i mean... wouldn't he have had to create time in order for him to work by?

Oh, and ancient gods ftw.

First I'll answer this question:

Time does not exist. Time is a human creation.

One day a man awoke and discovered that it takes 24 hours for the Earth to rotate in a complete circle around its axis. He then invented a clock, with the #'s 1-12, and 2 different distinct sections, AM and PM. He then divided the earth into sections of 15 degrees, and each degree represents 1 "hour" on the clock. As you move across the earth, there are different "time zones."

The source power, or what everyone else calls "God" did not invent time. Time never existed to begin with. There is only past, present, and future events.

One day the source power decided to create the earth, the stars, the planets, the sky, and the sun. The sun is an exact copy of the source power's true form - if the sun suddenly shut down, every living creature, plant and animal alike, would surely die.

Without the source power, we would all die. That is why the sun is so important to our existance.

The "seven days" in the bible referes to sections of events. There were 7 distinct phases in the creation process, but I don't believe it took a total of 168 hours (7 days x 24 hours) to complete the process.

I honestly have no idea how long it took to create the universe as it is today. I don't believe any human being that is alive today knows the answer either - its just been sooooo long that everyone has forgotten the answer to that question (all the knowledgeable humans died eons ago)

This is why evolution is better than creationism. Their is no way to disprove creationism. Their is ZERO evidence for creationism.

If you want to disprove evolution go and find a fully formed modern chimp skeleton in the fossil record in ANY TIME PERIOD IT IS NOT SUPPOSE TO BE IN. Evolution has not been disproven by science. Science is the only thing I will trust to disprove it.

Here is the thing I dont get christians.....If god created the world and everything on it at the same time then WHY did he appear to do it in an evolutionary fashion? Why are the simplest lifeforms the oldest? Why do lifeforms grow more complex as we examine each time period of the fossil record? Why do we have fossil records of millions of species in each time period that did not survive?

Evolution is not COMPLETE. We do not have fossils that show every little change from one species to another but the above questions are valid and, imo, PROVE that their is something more to evolution than their is creationism.

Evidence for creationism......see bible. THAT IS IT!!! Everything else science has studied about our world points COMPLETELY away from this book especially in regards to creationism. Christians will bend to the will of science within the next hundred years. The bible will be reinterprated to allow for evolution as gods plan. Shit that is intelligent design. Intelligent design tells me christians know they are licked. Good luck.

I believe that evolution happens over a period of time - the good genes are kept in a species and the bad and uncessary genes are discarded throughout the gene pool over the centuries.

However I disagree that we "evolved" completely. I believe there was a point where the source power decided to create something, such as a few groups of small families of human beings. That small group then began to have children, multiply at an exponential rate, and the gene pool was cleansed based mainly upon the physical health of the said human beings + desired attractiveness traits.

For example, a really fat and ugly woman is much less likely to mate and have kids than someone who looks like Pamala Anderson. Pamala Anderson is much more likely to get fucked than a fat, ugly chick. Therefore, Pamala Anderson's hot genes are spread throughout the gene pool, whereas the fat ugly chick has no children, dies off, and her faulty genes die off with her.

the good genes are kept in a species and the bad and uncessary genes are discarded throughout the gene pool over the centuries.
I see you have a firm grasp of evolutionary theory. :rolleyes:

However I disagree that we "evolved" completely. I believe there was a point where the source power decided to create something, such as a few groups of small families of human beings.
Have any evidence for this creation of human families? Scientific evidence from multiple branches of science have evidence to the contrary.

That small group then began to have children, multiply at an exponential rate, and the gene pool was cleansed based mainly upon the physical health of the said human beings + desired attractiveness traits.
The gene pool was cleansed?

For example, a really fat and ugly woman is much less likely to mate and have kids than someone who looks like Pamala Anderson. Pamala Anderson is much more likely to get fucked than a fat, ugly chick.
You sure about that? There are plenty of fat, ugly chicks getting fucked day and night by desperate men everywhere- and there's no shortage of them.


Therefore, Pamala Anderson's hot genes are spread throughout the gene pool, whereas the fat ugly chick has no children, dies off, and her faulty genes die off with her.
Cool. How much longer before all chicks are hot? What's taking so long?

First I'll answer this question:

Time does not exist. Time is a human creation.

One day a man awoke and discovered that it takes 24 hours for the Earth to rotate in a complete circle around its axis. He then invented a clock, with the #'s 1-12, and 2 different distinct sections, AM and PM. He then divided the earth into sections of 15 degrees, and each degree represents 1 "hour" on the clock. As you move across the earth, there are different "time zones."

Time exists. The man-made part and everything you just described is how we measure it. Plain and simple. That is like saying distances do not exist b/c one day a man awoke to discover the distance between himself and his door were 18 lengths of his foot. A very weak argument.

Without the source power, we would all die. That is why the sun is so important to our existance.

That is why nearly all religions have involved sun worship. Primitive man realized the importance of the sun and paid homage to it. Jesus is the lastest incarnation of sun worship. You appear to be a sun worshipper. Until it does anything to prove otherwise, it is just a ball of gases operating under hydrogen fission and fusion. We dont understand everything about your god but we do understand much.

The "seven days" in the bible referes to sections of events. There were 7 distinct phases in the creation process, but I don't believe it took a total of 168 hours (7 days x 24 hours) to complete the process.

The authors of the genesis knew how long a day was. They should have used phase. An all powerful god wants it in 7 days......7 days is all it takes.

I honestly have no idea how long it took to create the universe as it is today. I don't believe any human being that is alive today knows the answer either - its just been sooooo long that everyone has forgotten the answer to that question (all the knowledgeable humans died eons ago)

Current observation suggests 13.7 billion years. This is a mathmatical principle. This is most likely the age of the universe and most definitely the age since the big bang. Recent speculation has touched upon the idea that our universe may be part of a larger and much older universe with very different physical properties. There is no way to test this, however, so until we know more the universe is 13.7 billion years old. Praise be unto science.

However I disagree that we "evolved" completely. I believe there was a point where the source power decided to create something, such as a few groups of small families of human beings. That small group then began to have children, multiply at an exponential rate, and the gene pool was cleansed based mainly upon the physical health of the said human beings + desired attractiveness traits.

Your idea is interesting but has no factual basis AT ALL. We as humans are forced to rely on what we know. We know that evolutinonary theory has withstood the test of time so far. That is to say, while it has changed based on knew information, it is still a valid explanation for the creation of life. What is invalid is anything that has ZERO evidence to support a claim AT ALL such as your source power theory. Your source power theory and christian theory is factually equal.

Both theorys are also equal to this theory I am about to make up:
I created the universe when I awoke (or was born). Everything and all every living things memories is b/c of my desire to create the world you know when I was born (awoke/materialized into this plane of existence)

That load of shit is JUST AS VALID as ANY OTHER creationist explanation for the universe. However all creationist arguments live in the shadow of science.

I have to admit I snigger everytime I see a pic of Neanderthal man.

He had better eyesight than me, was much stronger, had a better immune system, was a superb hunter and probably had enough intelligence to be able to post here.

But you got out evolved by me , sucker!

Its foma either way.

"However I disagree that we "evolved" completely. I believe there was a point where the source power decided to create something, such as a few groups of small families of human beings."

You're right. Our evolution was helped along by the Autobot Matrix of Leadership, and it's god Primus. Only Unicron now stands in the way of our ascendancy to the Vok.

What i don't get is how christianity views god as having creating the world in seven days - i mean... wouldn't he have had to create time in order for him to work by?

Oh, and ancient gods ftw.

I would hope that intelligent Christians--there must be a few of them--realize that the Bible is mostly myth and metaphor.

I would hope that intelligent Christians--there must be a few of them--realize that the Bible is mostly myth and metaphor.

Yes they probably do but remember (And I assume thats its the same for Native American legends) that myths are often truer, more factual than we think and its our understanding thats at fault.

We prefer to speak of 'poetic' or 'prophetic' language rather than metaphor.

What a lot of people don't realise is that the bible doesn't actually deal with the creation of the world as such.

I want to do a thread about understanding genesis sometime...

Yes they probably do but remember (And I assume thats its the same for Native American legends) that myths are often truer, more factual than we think and its our understanding thats at fault.

We prefer to speak of 'poetic' or 'prophetic' language rather than metaphor.

What a lot of people don't realise is that the bible doesn't actually deal with the creation of the world as such.

I want to do a thread about understanding genesis sometime...

Myths may have SOME truth to them and most serve an allegorical purpose, but they are still NOT true.

I believe their are FAR too many christians who believe men rose from the dead and walked on water. The bible is not to be taken literally at all.

I think the bible is a pretty cool book the same way I think Blake's Urziden is a cool book. The only difference is people do not take Urziden literally.

Myths may have SOME truth to them and most serve an allegorical purpose, but they are still NOT true.

I believe their are FAR too many christians who believe men rose from the dead and walked on water. The bible is not to be taken literally at all.

I think the bible is a pretty cool book the same way I think Blake's Urziden is a cool book. The only difference is people do not take Urziden literally.

Give me an example of abiblical myth you think has little or no truth to it.

Men 'rise from the dead' or rather wake up in the morgue all the time. It can be bloody difficult to determine when someone is dead.

The whole walking on water is most likely based on a misunderstanding of the koine and was compounded later. Think how random our use of prepositions is in English...'I am on the phone' for example is nonsense, unless you are indeed standing on it.

Give me an example of abiblical myth you think has little or no truth to it.

Men 'rise from the dead' or rather wake up in the morgue all the time. It can be bloody difficult to determine when someone is dead.

The whole walking on water is most likely based on a misunderstanding of the koine and was compounded later. Think how random our use of prepositions is in English...'I am on the phone' for example is nonsense, unless you are indeed standing on it.

I got a good one for you. How did sampson kill an army with a jaw-bone of an ass.

The woman who turned to a pillar of salt when she saw the god destroying the city.

Do the mythos of the ancient greeks, mayans, norse, and anglo-saxons all then have truth to them as well.

You can read to much into ANYTHING. You can take an episode of the smurfs and put the kind of "truth" you are supposing to it. I am willing to bet someone has written a book based on the Utopian (arguably communist) society the smurfs developed.

First I'll answer this question:

Time does not exist. Time is a human creation.

One day a man awoke and discovered that it takes 24 hours for the Earth to rotate in a complete circle around its axis. He then invented a clock, with the #'s 1-12, and 2 different distinct sections, AM and PM. He then divided the earth into sections of 15 degrees, and each degree represents 1 "hour" on the clock. As you move across the earth, there are different "time zones."

The source power, or what everyone else calls "God" did not invent time. Time never existed to begin with. There is only past, present, and future events.

One day the source power decided to create the earth, the stars, the planets, the sky, and the sun. The sun is an exact copy of the source power's true form - if the sun suddenly shut down, every living creature, plant and animal alike, would surely die.

Without the source power, we would all die. That is why the sun is so important to our existance.

The "seven days" in the bible referes to sections of events. There were 7 distinct phases in the creation process, but I don't believe it took a total of 168 hours (7 days x 24 hours) to complete the process.

I honestly have no idea how long it took to create the universe as it is today. I don't believe any human being that is alive today knows the answer either - its just been sooooo long that everyone has forgotten the answer to that question (all the knowledgeable humans died eons ago)

This is an interesting theory, and back when I used to do alot of acid, I would have agreed with you entirely.

I believe that the categorization of time, that is, the symbols and methods for measuring time, are of human origin, while time itself exists independently of human awareness.

I like to think of time as the final element in the four-dimensional model of spacetime; as a result of the formation of matter and the influence of gravity.

Our perception of time is directly related to our perception of light.

I got a good one for you. How did sampson kill an army with a jaw-bone of an ass. I have dealt with this one in a previous thread.

The woman who turned to a pillar of salt when she saw the god destroying the city.

Okies, what I'm saying now is totally off the top of my head and I haven't checked any sources or reread the bible passage.

I may well be very wrong.

If you had read the following in any other ancient historical document , what would your first thought be?

"And fire and sulphur fell from heaven destroying the city. A woman who went back to look turned into a pillar of salt"

As an educated intelligent person you'd think volcano ? Wouldn't you? Or if you're more off beam and like Daniken you'd think alien nuclear war.

Your inability to recognise this as a factual account is due to the 'REDAKTION'.

The priests who compiled the OT edited it heavily. They joined ancient myths together that had no connection to another and changed time/location details at will. This means that the original story of Lot probably didn't take place in Israel at all.

Somewhere someone in the ancient world experienced a volcano eruption that laid waste to a major city and left people turned to stone/ash.

Which is all fairly believable if you look at Pompeii.

You see what I mean? The myth is probably very true, our understanding is a fault, hampered by modern misconceptions and ancient editing.

I don't know off the cuff why a 'pilar of salt' was the description used I'd have to check. But please rid your mind of images of white table salt statues.




Do the mythos of the ancient greeks, mayans, norse, and anglo-saxons all then have truth to them as well. Yes my studies into mythology have lead me to believe that the 'pagan' myths are probably just as true as the biblical ones.

I heard that salt was a mistranslation of ash, or something like that.

What happens to people near an atomic blast?

I heard that salt was a mistranslation of ash, or something like that.

What happens to people near an atomic blast?

Well, they either get vapourised or the intense heat pulls their lungs from their mouth.

In otherwords, they die.

Also; Aliens don't use nukes - they need us for food in order to continue their grand journey thru space.

You can read to much into ANYTHING.

Like Nostradamus's "predictions" which people read into exactly like you are and then postdict what has already happened and what we already know into what was written many years ago.

You can do what you are doing with the bible WITH NEARLY ANY BOOK. You can do it with the book of mormon. You can do it with peter pan. Find some account of a group of missing english youngsters and then explain that is what peter pan really meant when he called them lost boys. Even better find a story about the aforementioned missing youngsters being kidnapped and forced to work on a pirate ship. Enter captain hook. If you really wanted to you could enter reality into ANY fictional book.

Perhaps it was talking about Pompeii and a volcanic explosion. Maybe it was talking about an event similiar to the Tunguska Event. Both seem equally likely to me. The argument is then speculation. You say Volcanoe, I say Tunguska, Christains say god did it and nobody's version has more support than the others.

You can read to much into ANYTHING.

Like Nostradamus's "predictions" which people read into exactly like you are and then postdict what has already happened and what we already know into what was written many years ago.

You can do what you are doing with the bible WITH NEARLY ANY BOOK. You can do it with the book of mormon. You can do it with peter pan. Find some account of a group of missing english youngsters and then explain that is what peter pan really meant when he called them lost boys. Even better find a story about the aforementioned missing youngsters being kidnapped and forced to work on a pirate ship. Enter captain hook. If you really wanted to you could enter reality into ANY fictional book.

Perhaps it was talking about Pompeii and a volcanic explosion. Maybe it was talking about an event similiar to the Tunguska Event. Both seem equally likely to me. The argument is then speculation. You say Volcanoe, I say Tunguska, Christains say god did it and nobody's version has more support than the others.

My point wasn't to provide an explaination of what happened (ie 'read in')but to show that there is nothing unbelievable about the events described and that we have proof such events can occur.

Just because an account seems to your mind to be a myth doesn't mean it isn't true or is a work of fiction.

In the case of the bible, yes there are bits of fiction in there but a lot of the things people dismiss as mythical or fictional are infact just as likely to be accurate and factual.

In the case in point there is no reason to suppose Lot didn't exist. Just as there is no reason to think that King Arthur,Gilgamesh or Beowulf weren't real people.

Whether or not Lot existed in the time and place depicted in the bible is less likely. But certainly it must be considered a possibility.

To dismiss the more incredible biblical accounts as fictional is dangerous (in a scholarly sense) and simply shows that a 'proper education' is not proof against prejudice.

...or the intense heat pulls their lungs from their mouth.

:eek:

Icky.

My point wasn't to provide an explaination of what happened (ie 'read in')but to show that there is nothing unbelievable about the events described and that we have proof such events can occur.

Just because an account seems to your mind to be a myth doesn't mean it isn't true or is a work of fiction.

In the case of the bible, yes there are bits of fiction in there but a lot of the things people dismiss as mythical or fictional are infact just as likely to be accurate and factual.

In the case in point there is no reason to suppose Lot didn't exist. Just as there is no reason to think that King Arthur,Gilgamesh or Beowulf weren't real people.

Whether or not Lot existed in the time and place depicted in the bible is less likely. But certainly it must be considered a possibility.

To dismiss the more incredible biblical accounts as fictional is dangerous (in a scholarly sense) and simply shows that a 'proper education' is not proof against prejudice.

I agree that there are historical parts in the bible and many of the things could have been changed and seem more mythical. I believe people should look for Lots tomb as well as King Aurthurs and the like. It seemed as though you were ready to explain every part of the bible as either, historical and accurate, or historical but inaccurate and that is what I disagreed with b/c MANY things in the Bible are just flat out bull shit.

I do see what your saying though. How far have historians come with this type of idea? Have they proved some cases of the Bible being a total rip-off of another historical event such as Pompeii (christian transforming into) Soddam?

I agree that there are historical parts in the bible and many of the things could have been changed and seem more mythical. I believe people should look for Lots tomb as well as King Aurthurs and the like. It seemed as though you were ready to explain every part of the bible as either, historical and accurate, or historical but inaccurate and that is what I disagreed with b/c MANY things in the Bible are just flat out bull shit.

I do see what your saying though. How far have historians come with this type of idea? Have they proved some cases of the Bible being a total rip-off of another historical event such as Pompeii (christian transforming into) Soddam?

I get pissed off by both the xtians who think everything in the bible is literally true and by atheists who think it all fiction.

Although of the two I have more sympathy with the 'ungodly'.

Whatever else the bible might be, it is an historical document and deserves to be treated as such. It should be subjected to the same criteria as anyother work of great antiquity.

I am no longer up to date on the state of biblical scholarship but a good book on the subject is The Unauthorized Version (http://www.amazon.com/Unauthorized-Version-Truth-Fiction-Bible/dp/0679744061/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-3597200-0255952?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1188687413&sr=8-1), which although now some 14 years out of date and also overly skeptical is a good introduction to the subject.

:eek:

Icky.

I thought it was kinda obvious actually when i found out - those people whom escape the blast radius but not the heat radius which is given off by the blast, you never hear about the specifics of how nuclear bombs kill people whom are* instantly disintergrated.

Specifically, it's cause of the air trapped in your lungs, and the heat of the blast sucking all the air into it.

this post made me think of jet li's the one when they start using those super-nades, and you see the dude's mouth flapping around (as if his lungs were about to pop out, apparently.).

They really should tell people about this, it could save a lot of lives in the event of a nuclear holocaust.


EDIT: Yes, i was freaked out too.

*Aren't.

Concerning the Bible, maybe the events are true but it's the wording or editing that gives it the mythical/legend impression when you first read it. This is suggested by the woman turning into a pillar of salt like said on the last page.

Another one is the kingdom of israel, since it probably wasn't a kingdom ruled by kings but a local village with a leader of some sort.

Whatever else the bible might be, it is an historical document and deserves to be treated as such. It should be subjected to the same criteria as anyother work of great antiquity.

I dunno If I would consider the bible a history book though. While I do understand that the bible may contain plenty of factual events, I think they are edited into a way so that they are congruent with the times of the book and so that they support the religion. From my understanding, though I may be wrong, there are eventst that are true. Like the jewish doods being the Egyptians slaves, and the one dood led em away after fooling the Pharoh. But I don't think he changed a stick into a snake with the help of god. Perhaps he was the houdidni of his times. Him parting the red sea may have been fiction, I dunno.

Another point is that many leave out other religious books, like the Quran and all those other books, I'd like to see a side by side comparison of all the found holy books, that would be an interessting project.

Him parting the red sea may have been fiction, I dunno.

I saw some documentary where they explained what most likely happened. Basically the doc. says that they crossed some narrow part of it during low tide.

Okies, what I'm saying now is totally off the top of my head and I haven't checked any sources or reread the bible passage.

I may well be very wrong.

If you had read the following in any other ancient historical document , what would your first thought be?

"And fire and sulphur fell from heaven destroying the city. A woman who went back to look turned into a pillar of salt"

As an educated intelligent person you'd think volcano ? Wouldn't you? Or if you're more off beam and like Daniken you'd think alien nuclear war.

Your inability to recognise this as a factual account is due to the 'REDAKTION'.

The priests who compiled the OT edited it heavily. They joined ancient myths together that had no connection to another and changed time/location details at will. This means that the original story of Lot probably didn't take place in Israel at all.

Somewhere someone in the ancient world experienced a volcano eruption that laid waste to a major city and left people turned to stone/ash.

Which is all fairly believable if you look at Pompeii.

You see what I mean? The myth is probably very true, our understanding is a fault, hampered by modern misconceptions and ancient editing.

I don't know off the cuff why a 'pilar of salt' was the description used I'd have to check. But please rid your mind of images of white table salt statues.

There's another possibility.
Sodom and Gommorah were both built near the dead sea. The Dead Sea has been gradually evaporating and getting smaller for, as far as we can tell, thousands of years. As it shrinks it leaves large mineral deposits and salt caves. If a city was built on top of a large enough network of salt caves then really it shouldn't be to much of an issue if the caves are sturdy enough. Mix the caves, your city and an earthquake, though and you have a bigger problem. The earthquake would have collapsed all of the buildings much like microwaving a cheescake. there wouldn't be a trace left the geography would be completely altered and there would be fuckloads of salt everywhere. What if Lots wife fell into a weak salt cave and the earthquake shuffled up an existing big block of salt to the surface.

I thought it was kinda obvious actually when i found out - those people whom escape the blast radius but not the heat radius which is given off by the blast, you never hear about the specifics of how nuclear bombs kill people whom are* instantly disintergrated.

Specifically, it's cause of the air trapped in your lungs, and the heat of the blast sucking all the air into it.

Care to elaborate? Hot air expands as the molecules gain more energy and move faster, which would cause you to be pushed away by the wind from the heat expanding. If it suddenly got very cold, then I could see that happening as all the air rushed in and created some sort of vacuum, but I just can't figure out how hot air would suck your lungs out....?

Care to elaborate? Hot air expands as the molecules gain more energy and move faster, which would cause you to be pushed away by the wind from the heat expanding. If it suddenly got very cold, then I could see that happening as all the air rushed in and created some sort of vacuum, but I just can't figure out how hot air would suck your lungs out....?

There's really only one explanation to this... craaaab people... craaaaaaaabbb people..

Care to elaborate? Hot air expands as the molecules gain more energy and move faster, which would cause you to be pushed away by the wind from the heat expanding. If it suddenly got very cold, then I could see that happening as all the air rushed in and created some sort of vacuum, but I just can't figure out how hot air would suck your lungs out....?

It's not hot air sucking your lungs out. Also your lungs don't actually get sucked out. They explode.
The difference in pressure is what does the lung damage. Immediately after the blast there is a huge wave of high pressure air followed by a wave of extreme low pressure. The high pressure wave, whilst probably also picking you up and flinging you about the place like a little ragdoll would compress your body including your ribcace and diaphragm. when that passes you all of a sudden you are in a near vacuum and the air in your lungs is stored at a much higher pressure than the air outside so your lungs have to expand to cope with the new air pressure in and around them, unfortunately, they quite often can't and so the explode inside your chest, in much the same way as Pulmonary barotrauma sometimes affects deep sea divers who ascend to fast and hold their breath.