evolution beats creationism 10 to 3 and thats generous

page: 11
13
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 10:38 PM
link   
I want a different explanation. I don't like either one of those. Come on people we have to have better imaginations that that. There is another explanation I know there is.




posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by calstorm
 


There is but can the human species accept it ???

It doesn't involve religion either.



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 04:28 AM
link   
reply to post by ashanu90
 





go do something constructive

As for weather or not I post to this thread is all up to me. The same as what I say there in. I wasn't refering to you as I recall. So zip it. The truth
of the matter is simple for any one to see. It does not say bats are birds.
It says don't eat the bat, in plain english. thread closed.



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 11:56 AM
link   
It's quite saddening to the level of ignorance in this thread concerning the understanding of modern evolutionary theory. I simply do not understand how someone can deny empirical evidence that has been collected over the past 150 years because it might disagree with your doctrine.

I recommend the following video (from a devout catholic and biologist):

In particular, you can watch from 33 minutes where he starts to explain the technical aspects that prove a common ancestor between humans and primates. But I would watch the entire video if you have 2 hours to spare (a miniscule amount of time compared to the amount of time it must have taken to develop the ignorance in this thread) where he also destroys intelligent design being considered science.




posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


why would anyone want to eat a bat in the first place? is your god talking to idiots?


i scoff at at your ignorance
scoff! scoff!

so you zip it

see you do this alot someone will tell you what something is and you say something along the lines of "nuhuh your dumb" as for the brain arguement we had earlier sink your optical nerves into this (i found this on another thread about science explaining NDE's)

Yes, really. Changes in your brain cause changes in your conscious experience, and changes in conscious experience can always be explained by changes in the brain. The mind and consciousness are inseparable from the brain. People with brain damage have mental dysfunction. You can predict brain damage if you observe mental dysfunction. You can take psychoactive drugs which alter your brain chemistry and your conscious experience will change. Every state of consciousness can be directly mapped to a neurobiological state. The relationship is one to one, as far as we know. We haven't completed the mapping process, but so far it's one to one. Functionally identical. It just looks different when you are the brain in question then when you observe it from the outside.

Do you suppose that this perfectly exact one to one mapping of brain state to consciousness state is a coincidence? If you damage your hippocampus, you won't be able to form memories. If you damage your optic nerve, your won't have visual experiences of sense perceptions. If you excite your pleasure centers, you will feel pleasure. How can any rational person refuse to accept that the brain causes conscious experience when these relationships can be - and have been - demonstrated experimentally? You can hold your breath right now until you pass out. You know why? Because your brain is starved of oxygen so it stops working, and since it causes consciousness, you cease to be conscious. You can test it right now and prove which one of us is right. Go ahead.



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by Terapin
 





1The Bible states that Eagles carry their young on their wings, which is factually incorrect and scientifically impossible.





Lev. 11:13, 19 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls...And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat

2 Does this say bats are birds to you. Why do you insist on ambarassiing yourself.

3 Who is the one who was tasked with naming every animal?
It was Adam.

[edit on 29-3-2010 by randyvs]


1 explain that
2 yes it does it is exactly what is says
3. adam did not people named all the animals have you noticed that there are animals being discovered all the time that havebeen around for a while..also who names them?? us! not adam

its official ats we have a troll



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 09:19 PM
link   
nevermind.

[edit on 31-3-2010 by DisappearCompletely]



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


watch creationism get schooled
www.youtube.com...



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by DisappearCompletely
 


First of all thank you DC for providing the video. I found it both informative and educational.

Secondly, as I’ve already declared in my past postings here I’m not what you call a typical Creationist or a proponent of ID (which both have political and religious agenda).
My participation in the forum is to explain why I believe in Creation and to challenge the evolutionary facts in light of true science, scritptures and logic. Like what I’ve also stated, majority of the things that I’ve said are readily available in the website that I provided.

So far here’s what got from watching the video. Please correct me if I made a mistake in my summary.

Topic: Ken Miller (KM) on evolution and collapse of ID:

Science as defined by KM:

Science is built around theories which are strongly supported by factual evidence. Everything in science should be approached with an open mind studied carefully and critically considered.

Singling out evolution is legally dangerous (KM).

The Dover trial (Dover Pennsylvania) proved this to be true.

Result of the hearing – found that board of education tried to force the teachers create a curriculum for teaching ID.

Lawsuit ensued and was decided not to go with the ID curriculum.
Board members were voted out of office.

Federal judge (Jones) said that ID was unconstitutional (see Kitt Miller).

It was revealed that opponents of evolution (proponents of ID) were rewriting the definition of science to boost ID: - they proposed that science needed to have “more adequate explanations” of things (nature) as opposed to “natural explanation”. But it was also revealed that the new definition is bordering on a “super natural explanations” or on a “non-naturalistic explanations”.

Michael Behe – was cited as “in favor of ID” and included astrology as part of science.

Findings in the Dover trial:

ID was deemed not proper to be a class curriculum.

ID – collapses as a scientific theory due to:

1) Inabilities to explain or counter argue against the latest fossil findings.
2) ID arguments:
a. Fossil records have a “problem” so evolution failed.
b. The fossil records don’t support evolution because the “links” are missing between species.

But according to latest findings the claim is:

“So many intermediate forms have been discovered between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, and along the primate lines of decent that it often is difficult to identify categorically when the transitions occurs from one to another particular species” – National Academy of Science 1999

Dr. Christine Janis (Paleontologist) provided additional proof when she stated that 11-12 fossils were found in the Powder Basin of Wyoming and said that due to the great amount of “intermediate” fossils found it was difficult or questions came up as to where the transitions occurred.

As an example the whale vs. dolphins study was cited – Q: was there an intermediate form found? Claim was that the skeleton of the “walking whale” found in Indies River confirmed it.
Claim was that the:
1)A middle ear was “dissected by nature” and evolved to its present form in order to work under water.
2)Whale genome sequencing refuted ID.
3)We share common ancestry with the Great Apes – I.e. chromosome numbers:

The evolutionary hypothesis of common ancestry says that our chromosome numbers are very close to the great apes: less 2.

Human (homo): 46 → 23 from mom and 23 from dad.
Chimpanzee (Pan): 48
Gorilla (Gorilla): 48
Orangutan (pogo): 48
But why 46 and not 48?

Supposition – 2 chromo were missing. Theory: they 'must have gotten fused'.

Problem: where to find it and how – study the genome.

According to the study of the genome - they concluded that the 2 missing chromosomes got fused.

cont...
(edit - spc)

[edit on 1-4-2010 by edmc^2]



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 03:49 PM
link   
cont...
Testable prediction: Common ancestor had 48 chromosomes (24 pairs) and humans carry a fused chromosome; or ancestor had 23 pairs and apes carry split chromosomes.
Chromo types:
Centromere
Telomeres
Chromo2 - was formed by fussing two primate chromosome (head to head fusion)
Located at base 13.

Cited 3rd proof that evolution is a fact and ID is not:
1)Bacterial flagellum
2)Blood clotting cascade
3)generation of biological information

According to Michael Behe:
“An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly by numerous, successive, slight modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional”

1) The Bacterial Flagellum was the “poster-child' for ID to explain that any missing part in the complex system renders evolution nonfunctional. But according to study it was claimed that this is not so as some animals don't have all of the required chromosomes to function properly.

2) Blood clot is one of the other proofs cited to show that evolution is a fact by proving that something missing does not necessarily mean that it will not work.

Michael Behe was exposed in the court hearing as someone ignoring evolutionary facts by not accepting 9 books explaining evolution.

Lemon test: ID is a religious idea. – God friendly science and undermine evolution.

KM: very dangerous to be introduced in class as it forces students to believe in God or Science. False choice – this is the problem with Dover policy.

Steven Myer: would like to teach the controversy of evolution to snick in creation in classrooms.

Findings: Creator was converted to a Designer – Creation to ID.

Barbara Forest: grafted the number of the word “creation” mentioned in the textbooks. A comparison between the older version and the latest version and found a complete reversal between the original publication and latest publications used of the word Creation and ID.

Time line: 1987 – Edward Vs Aguilar: “Creation” was relabeled as “ID”.

Robertson (700 club) said that ID is religious.

ID publications: Discovery work books

According to the peer review rule:
When a comes up it must go through a “peer review”

Scientific Process:
Novel Scientific Claim → Research → Peer Review → Scientific Consensus → Classroom and Textbooks

While ID goes from -- ID “Theory” → Classroom and Textbook

How ID wants it: a Theistic Science

KM: Science in the US will be jeopardized if ID is taught.

Q/A
Qoute:
Sen Santorum:
“If we are a mistake of nature (evolution) - morality won’t matter” but KM said not so – morality is important to all.

“Political agendas are also affected by the debates where science is questioned”

Champions of evolution:
Steven Gould
Carl Sagan

Christian vs. Muslim science:
Harun Yaha – Muslim anti evolution (ideas recycled from Christian Science - ID).

Muslim Caliphate – leaders in mathematics and science disappeared due to religious laws imposed by the leaders – claimed might happen in the west if ID is passed/allowed.

Why science declined in the past 50 years? It’s because of anti evolution groups.

ID is just the latest.

James Watson (molecular biologist DNA) – put out new editions about evolution.

KM believed on a Creator and evolution.

Rise of fascism due to ID (under the Bush regime).

KM: no similarity with the Nazi Germany.

Science must be apolitical/a-religous.

Dover decision became a political event.
...
Critical Analysis of Evolution – will/might replace ID – another way to attempt to convince students to accept ID.

7 step pathway – 7 different enzymes - soil bacteria evolve from tnt by co-opting other enzymes. – By proper opportunity.

Will there be a new similar Judge (Jones) like the one in Dover if a lawsuit arises.

End.

I’m doing additional research and will post my thoughts next time.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 03:56 PM
link   
A single celled organism that just popped into existence (irreducible complexity anyone?) , suddenly decided that it needed a toe... So it thought, and strained and meditated very hard over millions of years, which is hard considering that it could not think or anything, and out popped a toe...

Evolution is ludicrous... It take more faith for me to believe that than God...



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by DisappearCompletely
 

DC -After doing a little bit more of research – Google Search / reading publications – I’ve discovered a lot of studies done and research done debunking the things that Dr. Ken Mitchell presented in his seminar; just Google “walking whale”, “middle ear evolves”, “missing chromosome evolution” and you will come up with many differing views – some are as informative and educational as Dr. Ken Mitchell’s findings - but in the opposite point of view – favoring Creation.

For instance, I found this logic about “fused chromosomes in humans” to be interesting and thought provoking.


If according to Dr. Ken Miller – the 2 human chromosomes - his exact statement- “must have gotten fused” is accepted as the final authority and explanation to the two missing chromo (in the evolution community).
Then the logical question is – What lead him or made him believe in the first place that chromo2 were originally separated?

My thoughts:
If it’s based on the “great apes” then the next logical questions are:

• What made the two chromo fused?
• Did they fused by themselves?
• What factors involved to inhibit fusing?
• What was the reason behind the fusing? Survival of the fittest?
• Was this fusing by accident or by “design”?
• Was it by a random act or by design? Was it w/o purpose or with purpose?
• Will this fussing continue? If not, why not?
• If it does, then what will become of humans - the next step?
• Was the “fusing” a form of mutation instead of by design (that is if there’s such a thing as “fusing”)?
• At what point did this genetic change stopped? Why did it stopped? Or is it still ongoing? Facts?
• If humans was the product of this supposed “fusing” of genes of the “great apes” – why do we posses qualities such as: love, wisdom, justice, power, mercy, sense of remorse – conscience, intelligence, sense of wonderment, ability to composed beautiful songs/sonnets, etc and yet our supposed “ancestors” don’t? Do such qualities products of evolution or are they products of creation since man was created in “God’s image” (Gen 1:26-28)?

What about other animals or plants that have the same number of chromosomes – did they also evolve from the “great apes” or vice versa? Which evolved first (from the organic soup)? Do you have facts not hypothesis (phylogenies)?

For example I found these lists: 46 chromo
Reeves' Muntjac
Sable Antelope
Black rat (Rattus rattus) , but not all of them have 46
European hare (Lepus europeus)
Merriam’s ground squirrel (Spermophilus canus)
Southern short-tailed shrew (Blarina carolinensis)
Mountain beaver (Aplodontia rufa)
Beach vole (Microtus breweri)
Nilgai (Boselaphus tragocamelus)
Kirk’s dik-dik (Rhynchotragus kirki)
Grey vole (Microtus arvalis)
Large bentwing bat (miniopterus schreibersi)
Bolivian Tuco-tuco (Ctenomys boliviensis)
Grevy’s zebra (Equus grevyi)
Crowned Lemur (Lemur mongoz coronatus)
Red Titi (Callicebus cupreus)
Diphasium,
Lycopodium

More in the animal Kingdom: branch
PICES: Mollienisia, 36-48
NEMATHELMINTHES: Ascaris, 2, 4, 22, 48-50
AVES: Rhea, 42-68, Passer, 40-48, 54-60 / Anas, 43-49, 80 / Columba, 50, 31-62 /Larus, 60.
MAMMALIA: Erinaceus, 48 / Lepus, 36-46 / Peromyscus, 48, 52 / Microtus, 42, 46, 50 / Apodemus, 46, 48, 50 / Ratus, 46, 62 / Ovis, 33, 48, 54, 60 / Sus, 18, 38, 40 / Equus, 60, 66 / Rhesus, 42, 48 / Homo 46.

• If evolution is the result of all of these, what is the reason behind the same chromo number and yet varied?
• Why or how were the chromos arranged so wonderfully? By accident, by chance, by coincidence, by nature or was it arranged by an intelligent Being (God)?
• What is the probability of the genes/chromos arranging themselves randomly, unintelligently, by accident, by chance, w/o any outside help?

cont...
(Edit - fusing not fussing)

[edit on 2-4-2010 by edmc^2]



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 07:53 PM
link   
cont..

The more I look into this the more I’m convinced that life was created by a very loving being (God). Why just by looking at the DNA itself, one is left to wonder how it was put together. What wisdom, love and power to arrange the genetic codes in such a wonderful way that it resulted in different kinds of species with their own unique ways of living and characteristics. A variety within their/its own kind (Gen1: 11-25) from the simplest to the most complex. No wonder Dr. Hitching commented




“Proteins depend on DNA for their formation. But DNA cannot form without pre-existing protein.”


Leslie Orgel calls the existence of the genetic code


“the most baffling aspect of the problem of the origins of life.”

And Francis Crick concluded:


In spite of the genetic code being almost universal, the mechanism necessary to embody it is far too complex to have arisen in one blow.”


Only with a close mind can one deny all of this and not see the reason behind all of it.

And finally, if the “fussing” really occurred, what will be the expected obvious effects on the structure of the species; that is, what changes can we expect/see when a species evolves to another species; let’s say a mice evolving into a horse or vice versa. Based on the claims made by evolutionist-paleontologist we have so much evidence! But where are they? Can the fossil record really provide the facts to confirm the claims – a bone changing into another form gradually - intermediate forms? We will take a look at this (maybe) next time.



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 08:32 PM
link   
Irreducible complexity is an argument from ignorance, you're basically saying, I don't know how this could have formed naturally, therefore god did it, you have to realize that we're really really really stupid, on a cosmic scale, we're like ants, I think it's arrogant for us to assume that we know all about how DNA must have been created by some supernatural force.

[edit on 2-4-2010 by hippomchippo]



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ashanu90
 





see you do this alot someone will tell you what something is and you say something along the lines of "nuhuh your dumb" as for the brain arguement we had earlier sink your optical nerves into this (i found this on another thread about science explaining NDE's)


Your funny. You think you have to explain scientific explanations to me.
Your like some one who is full of shizzle, you keep putting words in my mouth. It's also very childish to repeat my use of the moderate term," zip
it" back to me. Everyone knows science has explanations. You've already told the world you don't believe you have a soul. You don't believe in
God, magic NDEs. The list you wil find as I said before will have to grow. Life to you is a space between two nothings.
Nothing could be more illogical.
Just a little something to chew on banana boy. In the very near future when we are both dead and gone. I promise not to say I told you so.
There is an endless ocean of things science can't explain. Granted we have
learned many things through science. Science can not tell us ever, what
ought to be done.
When we do solve the great mystery. I know at the very least, I will be as happy as you are.

The fool has said there is no God. Then comes death, then JUDGEMENT.
This retort does not require a response. Have a nice day.

Oh you are right about one thing though.
Putting me on your list of foes.



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by ashanu90
 





see you do this alot someone will tell you what something is and you say something along the lines of "nuhuh your dumb" as for the brain arguement we had earlier sink your optical nerves into this (i found this on another thread about science explaining NDE's)


Your funny. You think you have to explain scientific explanations to me.
Your like some one who is full of shizzle, you keep putting words in my mouth. It's also very childish to repeat my use of the moderate term," zip
it" back to me. Everyone knows science has explanations. You've already told the world you don't believe you have a soul. You don't believe in
God, magic NDEs. The list you wil find as I said before will have to grow. Life to you is a space between two nothings.
Nothing could be more illogical.
Just a little something to chew on banana boy. In the very near future when we are both dead and gone. I promise not to say I told you so.
There is an endless ocean of things science can't explain. Granted we have
learned many things through science. Science can not tell us ever, what
ought to be done.
When we do solve the great mystery. I know at the very least, I will be as happy as you are.

The fool has said there is no God. Then comes death, then JUDGEMENT.
This retort does not require a response. Have a nice day.

Oh you are right about one thing though.
Putting me on your list of foes.

Your god must love you.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ashanu90

1nowhere is this design more evident that in DNA which is something scientists are still trying to figure out.

1says who? perry stone? ignorance.


do you know anything about DNA? did you know that DNA has punctuation?!

you are talk about a LITERAL programming language. and lets not even get into how the cell is even able to read that language.

oh and dont tell me its complex from "natural selection" because thats not true. DNA is something that was necessary from the beginning.

i dont even know who perry stone is, but i dont him need to tell me or show me that DNA is not a random phenomenon



2"scientists" especially of the kind like dr.dawkins refuse

2.taht is your speculation that he ignores this.
it is apparent that he knows differently, and he is well versed in many religions but he is still an atheist i think he has done his homework quite well


ive read his work. he ignores evidence of design. even his "arguments" against creationism dont even answer the claims.

yes he did do his homework, but then he decided what was truth for him.




and creotionism has no backing other than the bible and many christians will say that the fact the bible exists proves everything about god, angels and, creation.


3completely unsubstantiated statement.


3ive actually heard people say this


so... if other people are saying it that means its substantiated now?



4the bible is supported by scientific accurancy, historical accuracy, attempts to destroy the bible, attempts to change the bible and even prophecy that is specific. the exact reason the bible is so hotly contested is because it DOES have alot of evidence to support it. even the fact we are debating this now is evidence that the bible is no normal book.


4.a bible can be destroyed easily theres a thing called fire you know
and the bible is only partially historically correct i still am not convinced of the genesis account


the church felt that way too, but they couldnt suppress it. interesting huh?



5the bible only said that they were slaves. it said nothing about pyramids so im not sure were you are getting this conclusion.


5.if jews were slaves do you honestly think the pharoh would let the jews lie around while the egyptians busted their asses building the pyramids? LOGIC!!


ok... i repeat, where does the bible mention the pyramids? where the pyramids the only building project the egyptians ever did? when where the pyramids made? when were the jews slaves?

before calling "LOGIC" get your facts first.



6wrong. infact it is the opposite. scientists are amazing that moses got it right. the problem is how you are reading it.


6. mioses didn't write the bible i doubt he even existed.
emporer constantine wrote the biblle to control his subjects


lol, thats rich!

its like you pulling statements out of thin air to help you prove a point.

we KNOW that the old testement was written long before constantine because we have copies that are dated long before christ!

whoever you are listening to to get your information, stop. they are lying to you.



7the creation account is written from the point of view of a person standing on the earth.


7. and why do you say that?


read this.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

if you read genesis chapter 1 from that viewpoint, it is scientifically accurate.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Yes the Bible is indeed accurate in all aspects of science. One can see where where the Bible refers to bats as "Fowl" (birds) and states that Eagles carry their young on their backs, were the bible frequently mentions that the Earth does not move and is flat, while the Sun revolves around the Earth. I particularly like where the Bible talks about giants, unicorns, dragons and other animals well known to science, such as the cockatrice which the Bible mentions.

I have another book that talks about unicorns and giants and dragons, but alas it is not used by a religious power structure to control the masses and to keep them away from understanding. Ignorance is a sin and promoting ignorance is doubly so.

There is noting wrong with religious faith, and there is nothing that says that Evolution must conflict with faith. Choosing to ignore the fact of evolution is another thing entirely. As we have witnessed evolution occur within our lifetime, to willingly choose blindness indicates an unhealthy obsession with faith over common sense.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by hippomchippo
 





Your god must love you.


Yes, I'm sure of it. Wheather I'm worthy or not. No way never could be.
That doesn't stop him from loving you either. God made us with a potential
we will never realise. Until we know him. My biggest ambition in life should
be to make him smile. I can't understand most people. I understang God
just fine.

I have never seen anyone's redundent crap about God and the Bible
amount to anything. It's all been said thousands of times by thousands
of people right here on ATS.
The arguments against creation are all as old as creation.
They never amount to squat.

Men without nipples.


[edit on 3-4-2010 by randyvs]



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Terapin
 

Terapin - just trying to understand where you are coming from while waiting for CD’s reply to my “fusing” Qs. Anyway, last time you said this:

I never stated that Evolution proves that god does not exist. This is a discussion about those who believe that evolution does not exist. There are those who believe that everything exists in the state that god created it in, and that nothing ever changes. That things do not evolve. This is rubbish as we have seen things evolve in our lifetimes. Take the flu virus for example, it evolves at a rapid pace.

But my question to you is where do you stand in this great discussion/debate? Are you a Christian who also believes in evolution or just someone who happen to believe in God and evolution? Or someone who believes in God, Creation and Evolution? If so where do you place Jesus Christ in this picture? Do you trust or even believe his words?

Then you also use the Bible in your comments but portray it as both inaccurate and accurate and even mystical. Does this mean you don’t believe that the Bible is the Word of God? Or is it just a “good moral guidance” book? Do you think it contains the answers to the most basic questions about life - that is the purpose of life?
To quote you said:

The Bible is a social guide, not a book of science. It is full of scientifically inaccurate concepts, and also full of good moral guidance. I am disappointed as I thought you had more to offer than self imposed blindness.
- btw, sorry to disappoint you but I’m not offering myself.
Now in your statement below, do you really believe that the Bible contains animals like the ‘mystical’ “cockatrice and unicorns”? Otherwise one might conclude that you are in some kind of far-out psychedelic land of the lost.

I particularly like where the Bible talks about giants, unicorns, dragons and other animals well known to science, such as the cockatrice which the Bible mentions.


I have another book that talks about unicorns and giants and dragons, but alas it is not used by a religious power structure to control the masses and to keep them away from understanding. Ignorance is a sin and promoting ignorance is doubly so.

Huh? “religious power structure to control the masses”??
Now in your latest post you also said this:

Originally posted by Terapin
Yes the Bible is indeed accurate in all aspects of science. One can see where the Bible refers to bats as "Fowl" (birds) and states that Eagles carry their young on their backs, were the bible frequently mentions that the Earth does not move and is flat, while the Sun revolves around the Earth.

Is this sarcasm or are you really serious? Are you trying to portray (the God of the) Bible as inept because something seems to be inconsistent/inaccurate? I hope not, anyway, please pardon my ignorance (to your wisdom) but according to my studies of the scriptures - the "Old Testament" was written in Hebrew and some in Aramaic. So if one is to study it, one needs to consider also the original language or else we get into trouble of injecting our own understanding. Like what I've said the bible is 100% accurate when it is put against true science. Do you agree? I hope so. But one thing that I find most surprising, for someone to say

“I have read the Bible, cover to cover and know it well. I do not stick my head in the sand however and ignore reality. [edit on 23/3/10 by Terapin]”
and yet not aware of the simple things about the Bible is very questionable. For example we know that the commonly known *English word “Fowl” refers to birds (of the feather). But do you know also that in the Hebrew language the original word is “'ohph” which was derived from the verb “fly” and correctly applied to all WINGED or FLYING creatures as in Gen 1:20-22?
Cont...





 
13
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join