Poll: How did human life come about?

[torpid]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
I both provided and described the the source of this elsewhere, but since you at least dug up this much, I will refresh it. The Bible, when properly translated, says this in the first couple of verses in Genesis. I realize that you and many others do not consider this a valid source of information, but that is not my problem. But, regardless of your own biases, if you do not believe the Bible, you should still consider the concept, because it is not one that science has considered, yet there is factual evidence to support it.

OK, let me see what you mean about that last sentence. You are saying there is factual evidence to support parts of the bible in general, but not specifically this part, right? Or are you saying that in addition to being described in the bible in this manner, there is also evidence to support this specific event as described in the bible?

If you are simply saying that since parts of the bible are factually accurate, all of the bible is factually accurate, I do not think you will ever convince someone of science that this is a valid example of evidence. But thanks for at least clarifying your opinion which is logically impossible to refute at this moment since it requires assuming something to be true because of the source of information and not because of any actual evidence and one cannot prove a negative like this.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
The bible is the biggest con in the history of man. If the writers only knew just how far their means to have power would control the world and the ignorant human race, they would be laughing their asses off.

I'm curious, do you think the ancient writers of the Vedas are laughing their asses off (if they could)?
What about the writer(s) of the Quran?
The writers of the Greek mythologies?
What about the Norse?
Or Shintoism?
Does Buddha sneer at us?
Or Conficious or the developers of the Tao?




No, I imagine you'd say "probably not" even though that doesn't make much sense beyond simple prejudice, now does it? So kindly STFU, eh? All religions began much as science begins, by people trying to understand the human condition. Religions differ in that, at one point or another, they stopped trying to understand because they thought they did understand. There was never really a malicious intent, just an overbearing belief that one is right that becomes so all-encompassing that it can no longer accept the possibility of being wrong. That's really the only thing that separates religion from science, and why I get so ticked off when internet morons try to claim that science knows it all. It doesn't and it never will, and that's the best part about science, get it?

Why would you imagine my answer? They are all cons, however, christianity is the biggest con in my book because it has done more harm than any of the others imo. Why would you "imagine" that I'd say "probably not"?

Btw, have of your comparisons are not religion...

Good lot of assumptions from you... one of the reasons that I stated that I can't stand your arrogant postings in another thread. You think WAY too highly of yourself and your opinions.

Sorry, I'm not the one who's arrogant here. You're just an ignorant bigoted asshole who thinks his prejudices are the laws of nature, and I just call it like it is.

Again, you think very highly of yourself. I have the right to have my own opinion. You think YOUR opinion must be accepted by everyone.. that is what makes you arrogant.. and name calling only reinforces how immature you are.

Uh... you might want to pay attention here... you made this personal, not I (and you should leave this personal attack BS in P&N). And my response is that you're a bigot. What little intelligence you have is overruled by your emotional prejudices.
There's a reason the humanist crowd is increasingly separating itself from the evangelical atheist crowd. You people are sick and delusional. Dictating to people what they should believe is harmful, whether it's religion or atheism. You cite the harms caused by religion, I ask you, how many people died in religious wars last century? None, there weren't any. OTOH how many people did authoritarian atheism ala communism kill last century? Over 100 million.
Maybe now you might understand. I personally don't like religion. But authoritarian evangelical atheism certainly not the answer. Ask yourself, why do you care about other people's personal beliefs? What does it really matter if, despite our massive education efforts, a largish percentage of people insist on clinging to traditional beliefs even when those beliefs are scientifically wrong? Why do you care? Why do you want to force those people to change their beliefs?

I stated an opinion. Then, you asked a question, made up your own answer for me and then told me to "stfu"... that made it a personal attack on me.

I have the right to an opinion that you may not like. That doesn't mean you act aggressive and rude to me. You need to learn to deal with that without lashing out.

 

[torpid]

PS, I'm not sure why you bother disputing the validity of Lucy though since per your belief it has zero bearing on whether human life is a result of an evolutionary process that began a long time ago. It's 3 million years old, much earlier than the event you believe happened.

 

[Seekermeister]

BD2003,

I never said that all lifeforms were extinguished from this earlier Earth Age, nor did I say they weren't. As far as the older "human" fossils, all that proves is that they existed, not unlike those people of the time prior to the flood of Noah. Despite the beliefs that some have, that ALL creatures were preserved in the Ark, that is not true, and some were extinted then. The fact that some species that are extanct also have fossils is not disproof, nor is it surprising.

 

[shadow9d9]

"I ask you, how many people died in religious wars last century? None, there weren't any. "

That is your opinion. Not fact. I view things differently.

Do you know what a bigot means? "a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion."

Having an opinion that the bible is one of the biggest cons in history is a simple opinion. Unless I act prejudicial, it does not make me a bigot. However, your subsequent attacks on me(making up questions, then assuming an answer, then telling me to stfu, then calling me an asshole and a bigot) is what a bigot is. The irony is strong.

I am married to a christian btw. How could I be a bigot when I am tolerant enough of my wife's religion to marry her and have a baby?

Tolerance is not about opinion, it is about actions. Your actions were those of attacks. That is the definition of intolerance. You need to learn to accept other peoples' opinions.

 

[Seekermeister]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
I both provided and described the the source of this elsewhere, but since you at least dug up this much, I will refresh it. The Bible, when properly translated, says this in the first couple of verses in Genesis. I realize that you and many others do not consider this a valid source of information, but that is not my problem. But, regardless of your own biases, if you do not believe the Bible, you should still consider the concept, because it is not one that science has considered, yet there is factual evidence to support it.

OK, let me see what you mean about that last sentence. You are saying there is factual evidence to support parts of the bible in general, but not specifically this part, right? Or are you saying that in addition to being described in the bible in this manner, there is also evidence to support this specific event as described in the bible?

If you are simply saying that since parts of the bible are factually accurate, all of the bible is factually accurate, I do not think you will ever convince someone of science that this is a valid example of evidence. But thanks for at least clarifying your opinion which is logically impossible to refute at this moment since it requires assuming something to be true because of the source of information and not because of any actual evidence and one cannot prove a negative like this.

Wrong! I never said anything to imply that the Bible is anything other than totally accurate...in so far as the imformation that it provides. Obviously, it is not nearly large enough to contain all information, nor was it designed to do so. When we learn about something not in the Bible, the only aspect relative to this discussion, is whether it contradicts the Bible or not. Many people believe that there are many contradictions, but there are none except those caused by misunderstanding, misinformation or personal biases slanting either.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
BD2003,

I never said that all lifeforms were extinguished from this earlier Earth Age, nor did I say they weren't. As far as the older "human" fossils, all that proves is that they existed, not unlike those people of the time prior to the flood of Noah. Despite the beliefs that some have, that ALL creatures were preserved in the Ark, that is not true, and some were extinted then. The fact that some species that are extanct also have fossils is not disproof, nor is it surprising.

So all life forms weren't extinguished...only some. So what event separated one age from the other then?

It could not have been the great flood, since that happened after the new age started, which I assume began with adam and eve.

If the bible is to be taken as accurate, that would include the act of creation outlined in genesis...how does this fit in with previous life still existing?

 

[Seekermeister]

BD2003,

So all life forms weren't extinguished...only some. So what event separated one age from the other then?

It could not have been the great flood, since that happened after the new age started, which I assume began with adam and eve.

If the bible is to be taken as accurate, that would include the act of creation outlined in genesis...how does this fit in with previous life still existing?

As I already implied, a flood...much like that of Noah. The account of the creation of this age begins with the Earth already existing, but flooded. "The Earth was without form and void" is properly translated "The Earth became without form and void". Everything following this was about the creation of this age, and is otherwise mute about the previous one.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
I both provided and described the the source of this elsewhere, but since you at least dug up this much, I will refresh it. The Bible, when properly translated, says this in the first couple of verses in Genesis. I realize that you and many others do not consider this a valid source of information, but that is not my problem. But, regardless of your own biases, if you do not believe the Bible, you should still consider the concept, because it is not one that science has considered, yet there is factual evidence to support it.

OK, let me see what you mean about that last sentence. You are saying there is factual evidence to support parts of the bible in general, but not specifically this part, right? Or are you saying that in addition to being described in the bible in this manner, there is also evidence to support this specific event as described in the bible?

If you are simply saying that since parts of the bible are factually accurate, all of the bible is factually accurate, I do not think you will ever convince someone of science that this is a valid example of evidence. But thanks for at least clarifying your opinion which is logically impossible to refute at this moment since it requires assuming something to be true because of the source of information and not because of any actual evidence and one cannot prove a negative like this.

Wrong! I never said anything to imply that the Bible is anything other than totally accurate...in so far as the imformation that it provides. Obviously, it is not nearly large enough to contain all information, nor was it designed to do so. When we learn about something not in the Bible, the only aspect relative to this discussion, is whether it contradicts the Bible or not. Many people believe that there are many contradictions, but there are none except those caused by misunderstanding, misinformation or personal biases slanting either.

What utter nonsense. Take Genesis, for example. Gen 2:17 "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day thou eastest thereof thou shalt surely die," and then Gen 5:5 "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died."

Good luck with whatever mental gymnastics you have prepared to respond. It is obvious both of these verses cannot be simultaneously true.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister

Originally posted by: torpid
OK, let me see what you mean about that last sentence. You are saying there is factual evidence to support parts of the bible in general, but not specifically this part, right? Or are you saying that in addition to being described in the bible in this manner, there is also evidence to support this specific event as described in the bible?

If you are simply saying that since parts of the bible are factually accurate, all of the bible is factually accurate, I do not think you will ever convince someone of science that this is a valid example of evidence. But thanks for at least clarifying your opinion which is logically impossible to refute at this moment since it requires assuming something to be true because of the source of information and not because of any actual evidence and one cannot prove a negative like this.

Wrong! I never said anything to imply that the Bible is anything other than totally accurate...in so far as the imformation that it provides. Obviously, it is not nearly large enough to contain all information, nor was it designed to do so. When we learn about something not in the Bible, the only aspect relative to this discussion, is whether it contradicts the Bible or not. Many people believe that there are many contradictions, but there are none except those caused by misunderstanding, misinformation or personal biases slanting either.

Wrong? What's wrong? I was asking a question about what you meant by your last sentence. I am not sure what your reply has to do with my question. I find it confusing. I was only asking what you meant by evidence in your last sentence. Whether you meant that the evidence is that the bible is always accurate and therefore it is accurate in this case, or whether you meant that the bible describes it and also there is some evidence outside of the bible which backs it up.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
BD2003,

I never said that all lifeforms were extinguished from this earlier Earth Age, nor did I say they weren't. As far as the older "human" fossils, all that proves is that they existed, not unlike those people of the time prior to the flood of Noah. Despite the beliefs that some have, that ALL creatures were preserved in the Ark, that is not true, and some were extinted then. The fact that some species that are extanct also have fossils is not disproof, nor is it surprising.

You seriously believe that a global flood happened? And that most of the existent species were saved on a boat?

Wow.



...after rereading your post, really wow.

also, it's "extinct."

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
BD2003,

So all life forms weren't extinguished...only some. So what event separated one age from the other then?

It could not have been the great flood, since that happened after the new age started, which I assume began with adam and eve.

If the bible is to be taken as accurate, that would include the act of creation outlined in genesis...how does this fit in with previous life still existing?

As I already implied, a flood...much like that of Noah. The account of the creation of this age begins with the Earth already existing, but flooded. "The Earth was without form and void" is properly translated "The Earth became without form and void". Everything following this was about the creation of this age, and is otherwise mute about the previous one.

You don't discount earlier fossils, and the extinguishing of ALL life forms, yet how is anything but a fish going to survive the first great flood without an ark to ride upon?

 

[Seekermeister]

Garth,

What utter nonsense. Take Genesis, for example. Gen 2:17 "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day thou eastest thereof thou shalt surely die," and then Gen 5:5 "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died."

Good luck with whatever mental gymnastics you have prepared to respond. It is obvious both of these verses cannot be simultaneously true.

That raises the question of whether Adam and Eve were still alive after eating the "apple", or whether we today are truely alive? Also, since to God, a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is a day, it would have to be understood whose time is being referred to. To understand these verses, it requires being able to see things through God's eyes.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
BD2003,

So all life forms weren't extinguished...only some. So what event separated one age from the other then?

It could not have been the great flood, since that happened after the new age started, which I assume began with adam and eve.

If the bible is to be taken as accurate, that would include the act of creation outlined in genesis...how does this fit in with previous life still existing?

As I already implied, a flood...much like that of Noah. The account of the creation of this age begins with the Earth already existing, but flooded. "The Earth was without form and void" is properly translated "The Earth became without form and void". Everything following this was about the creation of this age, and is otherwise mute about the previous one.

You don't discount earlier fossils, and the extinguishing of ALL life forms, yet how is anything but a fish going to survive the first great flood without an ark to ride upon?

Not to mention the whole issue of saltwater fish vs. freshwater fish and the salinity of the flood waters. Rain doesn't fall as salt water, so what are all the saltwater fish to do?

Oh, I know... God "miracled" them thru it.

 

[Seekermeister]

BD2003,

You don't discount earlier fossils, and the extinguishing of ALL life forms, yet how is anything but a fish going to survive the first great flood without an ark to ride upon?

The short answer is...how ever God decided. I could add a number of possibilities, but then I would simply be guessing, much like science does.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Garth,

What utter nonsense. Take Genesis, for example. Gen 2:17 "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day thou eastest thereof thou shalt surely die," and then Gen 5:5 "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died."

Good luck with whatever mental gymnastics you have prepared to respond. It is obvious both of these verses cannot be simultaneously true.

That raises the question of whether Adam and Eve were still alive after eating the "apple", or whether we today are truely alive? Also, since to God, a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is a day, it would have to be understood whose time is being referred to. To understand these verses, it requires being able to see things through God's eyes.

In other words, you believe they must be true, even though by all accounts and evaluations they appear false. Why do you bother discussing anything?

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
BD2003,

You don't discount earlier fossils, and the extinguishing of ALL life forms, yet how is anything but a fish going to survive the first great flood without an ark to ride upon?

The short answer is...how ever God decided. I could add a number of possibilities, but then I would simply be guessing, much like science does.

Well, thats a pretty strange god, who would decide to let land animals temporarily breathe underwater, and flood the planet, rather than just eradicating the unchosen at the snap of a finger.

Most creationists take a literal, hard-line stance that falls apart under close scrutiny, but you've chose to take a literal interpretation, taking liberties with it at will, and vaguley yet positively defend it even though it falls apart at a mere glance. Bravo.

Since this line of reason has reached absurdity and beyond, I'd love to actually hear those possibilities you'd add. Make no mistake, I am absolutely, 100% patronizing you, but this is your opportunity to get it all out.

The stage is all yours.

 

[Seekermeister]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Seekermeister

Originally posted by: torpid
OK, let me see what you mean about that last sentence. You are saying there is factual evidence to support parts of the bible in general, but not specifically this part, right? Or are you saying that in addition to being described in the bible in this manner, there is also evidence to support this specific event as described in the bible?

If you are simply saying that since parts of the bible are factually accurate, all of the bible is factually accurate, I do not think you will ever convince someone of science that this is a valid example of evidence. But thanks for at least clarifying your opinion which is logically impossible to refute at this moment since it requires assuming something to be true because of the source of information and not because of any actual evidence and one cannot prove a negative like this.

Wrong! I never said anything to imply that the Bible is anything other than totally accurate...in so far as the imformation that it provides. Obviously, it is not nearly large enough to contain all information, nor was it designed to do so. When we learn about something not in the Bible, the only aspect relative to this discussion, is whether it contradicts the Bible or not. Many people believe that there are many contradictions, but there are none except those caused by misunderstanding, misinformation or personal biases slanting either.

Wrong? What's wrong? I was asking a question about what you meant by your last sentence. I am not sure what your reply has to do with my question. I find it confusing. I was only asking what you meant by evidence in your last sentence. Whether you meant that the evidence is that the bible is always accurate and therefore it is accurate in this case, or whether you meant that the bible describes it and also there is some evidence outside of the bible which backs it up.

My mind is going too many directions at once, so if I'm not exactly on the money, you will have to understand. The evidence outside of the Bible is not new, it is merely looking at what is available with an mind that is not set in stone by current theories. I will not attempt to go into details about all of these, because that would not accomplish anything. Yet, as an example, when we look at the distribution of fossils, such as sealife on mountain tops, or the stratification of the Earth's surface, it clearly is evidence of global floods. I shall not argue about this, you can either consider it or not.

 

[Seekermeister]

Garth,

In other words, you believe they must be true, even though by all accounts and evaluations they appear false. Why do you bother discussing anything?

The question should be, considering your attitude, why do you bother with reading anything that I write...much less respond to it?

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Seekermeister

Originally posted by: torpid
OK, let me see what you mean about that last sentence. You are saying there is factual evidence to support parts of the bible in general, but not specifically this part, right? Or are you saying that in addition to being described in the bible in this manner, there is also evidence to support this specific event as described in the bible?

If you are simply saying that since parts of the bible are factually accurate, all of the bible is factually accurate, I do not think you will ever convince someone of science that this is a valid example of evidence. But thanks for at least clarifying your opinion which is logically impossible to refute at this moment since it requires assuming something to be true because of the source of information and not because of any actual evidence and one cannot prove a negative like this.

Wrong! I never said anything to imply that the Bible is anything other than totally accurate...in so far as the imformation that it provides. Obviously, it is not nearly large enough to contain all information, nor was it designed to do so. When we learn about something not in the Bible, the only aspect relative to this discussion, is whether it contradicts the Bible or not. Many people believe that there are many contradictions, but there are none except those caused by misunderstanding, misinformation or personal biases slanting either.

Wrong? What's wrong? I was asking a question about what you meant by your last sentence. I am not sure what your reply has to do with my question. I find it confusing. I was only asking what you meant by evidence in your last sentence. Whether you meant that the evidence is that the bible is always accurate and therefore it is accurate in this case, or whether you meant that the bible describes it and also there is some evidence outside of the bible which backs it up.

My mind is going too many directions at once, so if I'm not exactly on the money, you will have to understand. The evidence outside of the Bible is not new, it is merely looking at what is available with an mind that is not set in stone by current theories. I will not attempt to go into details about all of these, because that would not accomplish anything. Yet, as an example, when we look at the distribution of fossils, such as sealife on mountain tops, or the stratification of the Earth's surface, it clearly is evidence of global floods. I shall not argue about this, you can either consider it or not.

Sealife at mountaintops? Where?

Before you even post a link, I can pretty much already counter that ridiculous notion. Being that mountains are created from the smashing of tectonic plates together, or from valleys being eroded, it shouldnt be surprising to find land that was once underwater at the tops of mountains.

Unless we want to throw away the concepts of plate tectonics and erosion in order to support the theory of global floods, then well, I just don't know what to say.

 

[Rapidskies]

What utter nonsense. Take Genesis, for example. Gen 2:17 "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day thou eastest thereof thou shalt surely die," and then Gen 5:5 "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died."

Good luck with whatever mental gymnastics you have prepared to respond. It is obvious both of these verses cannot be simultaneously true.

I believe this passage refers to a spiritual death not a physical one. Adam and Eve before the apple had a intimate relationship with God in which they could actually speak with him, interact with him, see him etc. Think of the spiritual death they would have suffered being cut off from God after disobeying him, the utter emptiness that they would feel after being cast out. Hence one tree was the tree of Life and the other tree represented spiritual death.

 

[Seekermeister]

BD2003,

I just don't know what to say.

Why do I doubt the sincerity of this? Especially considering the tenor of your previous post.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Rapidskies

What utter nonsense. Take Genesis, for example. Gen 2:17 "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day thou eastest thereof thou shalt surely die," and then Gen 5:5 "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died."

Good luck with whatever mental gymnastics you have prepared to respond. It is obvious both of these verses cannot be simultaneously true.

I believe this passage refers to a spiritual death not a physical one.

Interesting. Where does it say that?

Adam and Eve before the apple had a intimate relationship with God in which they could actually speak with him, interact with him, see him etc. Think of the spiritual death they would have suffered being cut off from God after disobeying him, the utter emptiness that they would feel after being cast out. Hence one tree was the tree of Life and the other tree represented spiritual death.

The Hebrew word "twm" is used 694 times in the Bible, and in each case it is used to describe a physical death. What makes this an exception, other than the fact that you need it to be in order to weasel out of an obvious contradiction?

 

[Kirby]

Originally posted by: Garth

What utter nonsense. Take Genesis, for example. Gen 2:17 "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day thou eastest thereof thou shalt surely die," and then Gen 5:5 "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died."

Good luck with whatever mental gymnastics you have prepared to respond. It is obvious both of these verses cannot be simultaneously true.

When Adam ate from the tree he died not in the literal sense, but from a purity sense. He committed the first sin, and that act damned all of man afterwards. The Bible isn't completely literal, as in all literature, fiction or non-fiction. It doesn't have say that the passage is literal. Wouldn't it suck if all literature had a footnote explaining what was literal and what wasn't?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Garth,

In other words, you believe they must be true, even though by all accounts and evaluations they appear false. Why do you bother discussing anything?

The question should be, considering your attitude, why do you bother with reading anything that I write...much less respond to it?

Because falsehoods left un-corrected are potentially harmful to the less informed.