Creation/Evolution; Which is true?

[legomania100]

As for the lack of evidance for Jesus' apperance being recorded, He was a Jew, and lived with Jewish people, and Jewish people at that time interperetted the law as not allowing them to draw pictures of anything, flowers, rocks people, nothing. Why would there be a description of His appearance? Does it really matter?

Wow, no shred of evidance proving Jesus existed? That's a new one. Ever heard of Josephus? He records the ressurection of Jesus as a fact. How about the Bible? It is still used by archeologist to find buried cities. That is historically accurate! The Romans have records of Jesus, the Muslims have records of Jesus, Pontius Pilate was (historically proven) the Prefect of Israel of that time, and he leaves records of Jesus. That's more then a shred!

Ahh, the good old "who did Cain marry" question. Did you notice that the Bible rarely mentions daughters? Cain married a sister! That was still allowable. Who would object? What other options are there? God didn't say anything about incest until 3000 years later.

Scientifically, incest is illegal because of the highly increased chances of a physical deformity do to duplicity of mutations. Shortly after the Fall of Man, and before the Flood, harmful mutations would have been in short supply, especially in the first generation after Adam. Incest at that time was no problemmo, though they wouldn't have called it that.

[legomania100]

Good thinking though. I like it when people think.

[legomania100]

By the way, did you look at the other 11 young earth arguments I posted?

[bloodyvisigoths]

legomania100 wrote:

<quoted text>
OOhh goody! fun stuff!
1: You are absolutly right. One geneology is Joseph's family, and one is Mary's family. Matthew was trying to prove Jesus' royal heritage, which is carried through the father or adoptive father (Joseph). Luke, the doctor, wanted to prove Christ's humanity, so he traced the lineage through his birth mother's line. In the hebrew, it was appropriate to use the father's name, then to switch to the mother's line. No contridiction, it's a complementary section.

You obviously didn't read my post very well, so I'll repeat: There is a discrepancy of *FIFTEEN GENERATIONS!!* At 20 years per, that makes either Mary or Joseph 300 years older than the other.(Since Mary was allegedly only thirteen at the time, that makes Joseph well over three hundred years old. How can this be? Oh, wait, I forget; your god's "infallible" word says people used to live for nine hundred years and more. That explains it all; deus ex machina.) And still, Mary's name appears nowhere in either genealogy. Why is this, if she was so venerated?

legomania100 wrote:

<quoted text>2: Just because they record differant last words does not mean that any are wrong.

WTF?!? Of *course* it does! No such testimony would ever hold up in any American court of law! Put away the crack pipe, scooter, it's bad for your brain!

legomania100 wrote:

<quoted text> Matthew was standing at a distance, hence hearing only the loud cry.

So you admit he didn't know what he heard, assuming that he was even present at this alleged crucifiction (get it? cruci-*fiction?*). Makes him unreliable.

legomania100 wrote:

<quoted text>Luke was not a follower at that time, and wasn't there. He likely got his 'last words' as you call them, from another disciple.

That makes it hearsay. I don't accept hearsay as gospel, as you obviously do.

I didn't call those last words the last words; the Bible does.

legomania100 wrote:

<quoted text> Mark was standing right at the cross (he heard conversation) and he says Jesus cryed out. Again, these passages are not contridictory, but complementory.

How do you figure they're complimentary when they clearly contradict each other? At the very least, by your own words, they certainly don't back each other up.

Logic and reasoning are wasted on you.

[bloodyvisigoths]

(good god, why do i bother...)

legomania100 wrote:

As for the lack of evidance for Jesus' apperance being recorded, He was a Jew, and lived with Jewish people, and Jewish people at that time interperetted the law as not allowing them to draw pictures of anything, flowers, rocks people, nothing. Why would there be a description of His appearance? Does it really matter?

Yes, it does matter. He allegedly perormed miracles that were *seen by many,* yet *no one* can describe him.

(By the way, it's "evidence," not "evidance." Put down your Bible, and pick up a dictionary, you'll go farther in life.)

legomania100 wrote:

Wow, no shred of evidance proving Jesus existed? That's a new one. Ever heard of Josephus? He records the ressurection of Jesus as a fact.

And I saw Superman on TV. Must be real.

legomania100 wrote:

How about the Bible?

Already proven unreliable by its own accounts. There were no witnesses to the crucifiction. The Bible clearly implies that.

legomania100 wrote:

It is still used by archeologist to find buried cities. That is historically accurate! The Romans have records of Jesus, the Muslims have records of Jesus, Pontius Pilate was (historically proven) the Prefect of Israel of that time, and he leaves records of Jesus. That's more then a shred!

I repeat: Early christian fathers admitted that jesus's appearance was unknown, yet it was claimed that jesus was known throughout the world. How would they know him if they didn' know what he looked like? &#65279;And as for his disciples, as I've already mentioned, the only source for the disciples/apostles is in *christian* literature, in which the stories of their "lives" are in fact highly apocryphal, allegorical and, therefore, woefully inadequate as history or biography.

Don't show me christian literature to back up christian claims. It's like trying to use the Bible as proof that the Bible is accurate.

legomania100 wrote:

Ahh, the good old "who did Cain marry" question. Did you notice that the Bible rarely mentions daughters? Cain married a sister!

According to the Bible, there was no sister, scooter. First there was Adam, and then there was Eve. And then there were Cain and Abel. That makes a total of four--do the math. Cain killed Abel. Four minus one equals three. I ask again: Where did the wife come from? Obviously, it's just another case of deus ex machina.

Now I'm gonna go out and play with my dog.

[bloodyvisigoths]

legomania100 wrote:

By the way, did you look at the other 11 young earth arguments I posted?

No, I didn't. Christian fiction does not interest me.

[Fish]

legomania100 wrote:

As for the lack of evidance for Jesus' apperance being recorded, He was a Jew, and lived with Jewish people, and Jewish people at that time interperetted the law as not allowing them to draw pictures of anything, flowers, rocks people, nothing.

That's convenient.

[Fish]

legomania100 wrote:

Ahh, the good old "who did Cain marry" question. Did you notice that the Bible rarely mentions daughters? Cain married a sister! That was still allowable.

Incest the best. Put your family to the test.
--old rhyme from the teen years

Are you saying that no matter who we have sex with, it's incest, since we all offspring of Cain and his sis?

[Fish]

Should say: "since we ARE all offspring of Cain and his sis...."

[Fish]

legomania100 wrote:

That was still allowable. Who would object? What other options are there? God didn't say anything about incest until 3000 years later.

Did God change his mind 3000 years later?

[legomania100]

Fish wrote:

<quoted text>
Did God change his mind 3000 years later?

God changed the rules to protect mankind from harmful mutations, which are more likly to be apparant in close relationship marrages. Yes, we are all related, so if you didn't marry a family member,(however so far distant) what did you marry?

[legomania100]

bloodyvisigoths wrote:

<quoted text>
No, I didn't. Christian fiction does not interest me.

So you have no responses to hard, cold facts of science?

[legomania100]

bloodyvisigoths wrote:

(good god, why do i bother...)
<quoted text>
Yes, it does matter. He allegedly perormed miracles that were *seen by many,* yet *no one* can describe him.
(By the way, it's "evidence," not "evidance." Put down your Bible, and pick up a dictionary, you'll go farther in life.)
<quoted text>
And I saw Superman on TV. Must be real.
<quoted text>
Already proven unreliable by its own accounts. There were no witnesses to the crucifiction. The Bible clearly implies that.
<quoted text>
I repeat: Early christian fathers admitted that jesus's appearance was unknown, yet it was claimed that jesus was known throughout the world. How would they know him if they didn' know what he looked like? &#65279;And as for his disciples, as I've already mentioned, the only source for the disciples/apostles is in *christian* literature, in which the stories of their "lives" are in fact highly apocryphal, allegorical and, therefore, woefully inadequate as history or biography.
Don't show me christian literature to back up christian claims. It's like trying to use the Bible as proof that the Bible is accurate.
<quoted text>
According to the Bible, there was no sister, scooter. First there was Adam, and then there was Eve. And then there were Cain and Abel. That makes a total of four--do the math. Cain killed Abel. Four minus one equals three. I ask again: Where did the wife come from? Obviously, it's just another case of deus ex machina.
Now I'm gonna go out and play with my dog.

Don't you think it odd that people would die for following a man that never existed? Historically, Jesus is recorded by many sources, Josephus, the Romans, the Greeks.
Appearance unknown? besides my previous argument, Do you know what the pharohs of egypt looked like? Do you assume that they were two dimensional? Were the Mayan in Inca empires non-existant because they left no pictures of thier leaders?

And if Logic and Reason are lost on 'us,' Why do you bother to argue? Are you insecure in your beliefs?

[legomania100]

And picking on spelling looks a lot like desperation.

[beachball]

legomania100 wrote:

<quoted text>
God changed the rules to protect mankind from harmful mutations, which are more likly to be apparant in close relationship marrages. Yes, we are all related, so if you didn't marry a family member,(however so far distant) what did you marry?

Gee, I guess the perfect, all knowing, infallible god forgot to figure that in right from the start.

[legomania100]

By the way, who said twenty years per generation? That's not bibically recorded, that's today's stats imposed two thousand years ago. Who said that the first born child is the one mentioned in the geneologies? The spread actually isn't that bad, especially considering that families generally had more children in that time period, especially the Jews.

[legomania100]

And for the Cain/Abel marrying sister part, do you think that by the time Cain was old enough to murder Abel, that there wern't some other siblings floating around? Historical records do not mentions everybody, only those significant to the text.

[legomania100]

beachball wrote:

<quoted text>
Gee, I guess the perfect, all knowing, infallible god forgot to figure that in right from the start.

No, not forgot. Pre flood, and close to Adam, it was not a neccesary precaution. Now it is. God doesn't make ridiculous rules, He makes rules to keep mankind safer.

[Kliedav]

legomania100 wrote:

First, I would like to make an important definition. That of "Religion"
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
If I may be so bold as to paraphrase, that means that a religion is what you believe about how you got here, what life is all about, and how you should behave.
Christianity is a religion.
Islam is a religion.
Pantheisim is a religion.
Creationism is a religion.
Evolution is a religion.
Suprised at the last one? Here, I'll show you why it is a religion.
All of the above views theoretically explain how we got here, in an unobsevable way. Christianity says "God Created," Evolution says, well, "It happened by accident"
Each gives the value of a person. Christianity says that each person is of immesurable value. Evolution says that we all came from dirt, and therefore that is our value.
Both Christianity and Evolutionary Theory tell what happens when a human dies too. One says that the person dies and goes to either heaven or hell, the other that the person decomposes and becomes ingested as worm chow.
Notice, that I have not projected any arguments between the two views of Creation/Evolution, just stated a few of thier inherent worldviews with basic logic and deduced that Evolutionism is as equally a religion as Creationism.
Now, with that in mind, I would like to debate which religion is backed up by science. For example, what evidences are there for both sides? Does good science,(2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.) support one side or the other?
I understand that this is a very heated topic, and would ask that everybody who contributes refrain from profanity, name calling, and insulting of intelligance. These only raise tempers and really have no place in a debate, expecially a science debate.
Of course, if someone breaks basic etiquitte, please ignore them.
I look forward to seeing what comes of this!

You made the statement that evolution teaches that we came from dirt,Gen 2:7 makes the statement that God formed the man out of the dust from th ground.Scientifically if you take the components of the human body you will find the same minerals in the dirt or dust. I don't find in evolution anything concerning how a person should behave,something else that you stated.The bible says in ecclesiastes 9:5,10 that when your dead your dead,nothing more nothing less.And also Romans 6:23 says that the wages sin pays is death again nothing more and nothing less as a matter of fact god told adam "dust you are to dust you shall return."

[legomania100]

You have it mostly correct. I'm glad, you are another person who thinks, I like that in people. Good style.

Correct, Genesis says that our bodies are made of dust, but what of the rest of us? What of the soul? Life did not come from the dirt, but from the Breath of God.

Romans 6:23 relates to spiritual death, which is defined as an eternal seperation from God. Every soul is eternal. Every soul does not live in heaven, many are eternally seperated from God in Hell. That is ultimate death.

The relation between evolution and behaviour is logically inferred. I'll walk you through it.

Evolution (The complete theory involving cosmic, chemical, stellar, organic, and macro-evolution) states that in the beggining, there was a big explosion which eventually condensed into the galaxies and solar systems, including ours. From the lump of dust that formed earth, life eventually arose. Nothing created that life, so it is responsible to no one but itself. That life then evolved into us over billions of years. Again, that would make us responsible to no one but ourselves.(Remember, I do not believe this)

If I am responsible to no one but me, I can do whatever I want, right? No rules but my own. That is the fallout of Evolution.

Side effects include life after death and self-value. According to Evolution, there is no life after death, so we may as well enjoy ourselves while we're here. Do whatever feels good. Besides, our value is only that of what we are made of, Some water, carbon, nitrogen, and other chemicals that accidently came to life. If there is a God, and Evolution occured, we are an 'oops!'

Creationism of course, says otherwise. According to the Bible, we are precious to God, because he made us, gave us souls, and even when we sinned against God, He sent His Son to die in our place. That is a very high value. Much more than some random chemicals. As for life after death, like I said, every soul is eternal. Some choose God, and others reject God. The result is a choice between Heaven and Hell.

I hope I was clear on all of that, if I was at all vauge, please point it out and I'll try again.