And I've done exactly that - read it (the bible) many times. And, you know? The bible is the reason I don't believe in God or organized religion.

Well . . . that, and my experiences with the Catholic Church.

Adnauseum posts: [quote]The crux of any Christian belief on the forming of man i.e that God created man in six days and rested on the seventh, is refuted by Darwin who has a natural answer to man's existence in the first place. I Quote: "We are beginning to see that the awesome wonder of the evolution from amoeba to man--for it is without a doubt an awesome wonder --was not the result of of a mighty word from a creator, but of a combination of small, apparently insignificant processes." quote]

I take exception to your use of the word "refuted". Neither Darwin, nor his disciples, or any one else for that matter, have ever refuted Genesis 1:27.

"And God created man to His Own Image: to the Image of God He created him: male and female He created them."

The dogma of Darwinian Evolution that has masqueraded scientific hypothesesis and speculation as established "fact" is being exposed for the lie that it really is.

Darwinism teaches that we are descendants of ape-like 'ancestors' who as part of nature developed, step by step, from more primitive animals and lower forms of life all the way back to amoebas and molecules. In science text books Darwinism is presented as an established fact of science which claims that over millions of years, all plants, animals and mankind evolved from a common ancestor and diversified from one species into newspecies.

We see pictures of peppered moths, Darwin's finches, and Haeckel's drawings of early embryos of fish to humans, sketches of horse 'evolution', and so-called homologous limbs from a bat's wing to a human hand. All these supposed similiarities are to indicate evidence all evolutionarily descended from an common ancestor. Allof these are blatant misrepresentations drawn not from true scientific evidence but from pure evolutionary faith.

These evolution icons misrepresent the truth and some are downright false and fraudelent. The science community has known this for a long time, but nonetheless they fail to come right out and say so. Why? Because Evolution Theory has moved from real science to a complete wordview, a politically correct ideology.

Micro-evolution, evolution within a species, is proven and at work in nature. Macro-evolution as a process of change from one species to another new one, has been proven impossible. Man may resemble chimpanzees and our DNA code may be similiar, but that proves only that they are similiar and nothing more. Man's DNA has been decoded. In 2007, we have definitive scientific knowledge that the genetic barrier prevents change beyond the species. Mankind is totally distinctive and exceedingly unique and intricate. There is no way we are the workings of blind, random chance.

Darwinian Evolution has been pumped into man's conscience since the mid 1800s. One idea after another has been presented, yet, they all have failed to provide evidentury substance. Natural systems degenerate from order toward disorder called entrophy.
Darwinian Evolution requires faith in the opposite.

I believe that, whether we support Darwin or Dawkins, or not, there is no evidence to suggest that they are atheists simply because they theorise on evolution or the birth of man. Modern Christians need to question reality more and decide whether they need to abide by SOME of the bible's teachings or not. I am certainly not an atheist and I have a God who stands by me at all times, holding my hand and I thank him often, but I am loathe to believe that "flaky history stories" should be subject to the intense scrutiny we seem to read into them just because we wish to.

The New Testament appears to have more philosophical teachings until we learn that "impossible" miracles and transformations take place. I am not being blasphemous when I suggest that Jesus, a good, ordinary man, becomes a Jerry Falwell at times, and a Harry Houdini at others. I'm serious--we need to pull the Bible apart and find out what really happened rather than hanging on every word and reading things into it that probably never happened. Bible students study what: A History book, a book that is out of date, A book with good stories but little explanation on why deeds occured, a book that treads warily close to the afterlife without explanation, miraculous deeds without explanation, impossible transformations without explanation?

The Bible is out of date and we need to revise it thoroughly and properly so that it makes sense to modern man.

"I am not being blasphemous when I suggest that Jesus, a good, ordinary man,"

Isn't that blasphemy? Calling God a good, ordinary man?

Jythier, what is blasphemous about calling Jesus a "good, ordinary man"? Explain yourself.

Jesus himself would have liked to have been called a "good, ordinary" man for I believe He was humble.

Why do you say the bible is out of date? Truth doesn't change. it's our culture that's changing leaving truth for relativism. And not for the better I might add.

Murder is still wrong.
Adultery is still wrong.
Divorce is still wrong.
Sex outside the bonds of marriage is wrong
Treating people unkindly is still wrong
Vengeance is still wrong
Hatred is still wrong

Now we may SAY these things are not ALL wrong. But take a look at the results and chaos they leave behind when done and it's quite clear these things are not good things. Even tho the culture is OK with these things today.


The bible makes perfect sense to anyone who is willing to take the book and read it with the right spirit. As a Christian, I believe the words written are from the very mouth of God.



Yes, Jesus very favorite title for himself was Son of Man, using this term more than any other for himself.

But he was much more than that. He was God revealed in human flesh. He was God walking among men. To say that he was a "good" man is an understatement. He was a "perfect" man; one without sin.

The Bible is God's written Revelation to mankind. The Bible is God's Book. It's the pre-eminent Book that tells of all ages and is for all ages and therefore will never be "out of date".

It's not that it doesn't make sense, but more that it's difficult to understand, which should challenge modern man all the more.

Adnauseum posts:


Now this is getting a tad closer to the heart of the matter...to the crux of the underlying problem of believing in Darwinian Evolution. Remember that belief has consequences.

Are we descended from apes? Darwinian Evolution teaches yes, we are. This is a mighty important question for people to think through. It ends up making them decide between believing they "evolved" from apes or were created by God. The significance of the way one answers that is what goes to the heart of the matter.

It is critically important because opinions about the origin of life affect the way people think and how they act. Are there social consequences to believing in Darwinian Evolution?

First let's take it from the Darwinian Evolution perspective ---

If humans descended from animals, why not behave like animals? If nature is all there is, why believe in good and evil? If we evolved by the rationale of Darwin’s genetic philosophy, “survival of the fittest”, then getting rid of the unfit or unwanted is desirable. It’s just the law of the jungle from which we evolved. Mercy killing aka euthanasia, forced sterilization as in Communist China, selective breeding of humans, while unpopular with some, would be very beneficial and logical to others. Communism, Nazism, secular and atheistic humanism, and the practices of racism and abortion are dependent on the plausibility of Social Darwinism that everything, including man came into existence by chance and over trillions of natural events over billions of years, then we have no control over these events and are relieved of our responsibility to one another, including our responsibility to some Supernatural Creator.

If molecules to apes to man idea is true, then man is the highest form of being. He can make up his own rules about right and wrong and produce his own moral and ethical laws. If humans evolved from apelike creatures, then some advanced higher than others, and are inherently superior. That was Hitler’s twisted logic wasn't it? Since 1973, some 50 million Americans, an entire generation, have been killed in the womb. From the Darwinian Evolution perspective, these killings are rationalized and justified. If humans are just evolved animals, isn’t it a women’s right to “terminate an unwanted pregnancy", if she and society would benefit?

If Creation and Genesis 1:27 is true, then we were created by God, and because of that God gets to make the rules. His standards decide right and wrong and His Laws are what we strive to live by.

I hear the sentiment, but from an objective stance I believe that would cause more issues than it solves. Its hard enough to try and "believe" a book put together over nine centuries, and that contains a large number of illogical and inconsistent parables. The Leadership of the major Christian Religions have already canned the literal sense of the seven day creation, that in itself calls into question large parts of the remainder of the Bible, but if the rest is rewritten as well, it will just verify its contents as a collection of various opinions, not a collation of Faith.

Last but no means least, Christians already avoid the topic of the Hypostatic Union as it destroys totally the Faith they currently practice, many refuse to acknowledge the events in 451AD despite their Religous leaders signing up to it. If the Bible is also conveniently re-written because of the gaping holes of logic in it - that will set the seal on any possibility of rebuilding the drastically reduced number of practicing Christians.

Zydor posts:

Too bad this didn't happen in the case of Darwinian Evolution Theory. It certainly wasn't proven before accepted as taught as true science.

It's maddening to me that for years students across the land are getting very strong doses of Darwinian Evolution presented not as a theory but as an established fact of science. They are never told there are no transitional forms ever found. That the missing links are still missing. They're not told that life does not come from non-life.

In Icons of Evolution, Jonathan Wells writes about textbooks filled with Darwinism and exposes the misinformation and falsities. He pretty much sums it up when he writes,

"There are entire areas of biology that have no need for evolutionary theory...A true scientist would say that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evidence. Instead of teaching science at its worst, we should be teaching science at its best."

Fair call, Darwin Theory as originally presented had its problems, and it wasnt until almost 100 years later that the basic tenent was accepted as being backed up by solid evidence. There is little doubt that in an absolute sense it had its problems when first presented. Knowledge has moved on now via things like carbon dating (etc). Its stretching it too far to say Darwin Theory in itself destroys the seven day creation, it couldnt 100 years ago, but it did point out the road to go down in search of further facts, later provided by carbon dating (etc).

The literal seven day creation as described in the Bible cannot stack up against facts now known concerning the existence of mankind millions of years ago. The latter will continue to evolve and develop as new facts are found, but sufficient exists to provide the right Freeway, we are just searching for the correct exit ramp.

Really Darwin Theory is - in todays context - just the theory that started us down the road we are travelling now, allbeit we are a hell of a long way down that road. To deny evolutionary theory completely is illogical, sufficient evidence now exists to set evolution in concrete as a true concept. As you rightly point out though, there are gaps, but those gaps are not wide enough to destroy the basic concept.

ZYDOR POSTS:


Carbon dating is great and can give useful results, but only for measuring certain things in thousands of years. It is provably unreliable especially in the case of proving something is millions of years old. So, if you want to show that humans have existed for millions of years, you'll have to come up with something other than carbon dating for that.

It's 2007, and real modern science itself is challenging Darwin's theory to the hilt and slowly but surely sending it to the scrap heap. Biochemistry has also come face to face with the fact that their science is asking questions regarding ultimate origins of life. Reasoned analysis of the latest scientific data on DNA has shown that what was considered as "mindless matter" is in fact a network of precise and exquisite processes, laws, and structures. It has demonstrated that living beings are imbued with ingenious architecture, databases, and operating systems that construct, repair and replicate themselves.

The discovery of these complex bio chemical systems that are essential for the functioning of life and their appearance cannot be attributed to chance. They discovered that these systems only work when every other part of them is in an exact order or alignment which Michael Behe describes as 'irreducible complexity'. Does this prove that Intelligence must have been involved in the origination of life. Maybe yes, maybe no. What it does prove beyond a shadow of a doubt is that the genetic barrier of DNA prevents change beyond the species. That conclusively throughs out macro-evolvution. There is no "evolving" from an amoeba to an ape to a man.

Zydor posts:


Where are you getting these fairytales?

All educated persons of Columbus' day knew the earth was round. They knew if from reading Sacred Scripture for one. If KFC reads this, she'll be able to cite that.

The Venerable Bede c.673-735 taught that the world was round, as did Bishop VIrgilius of Salzburg 720-784, Hildegard of Bingen 1098-1179, and Thomas Aquinas 1224-1274. All four ended up Saints. Sphere was the title of the most popular medieval book on astronomy, written by the English scholastic, John of Sacrobosco, 1200-1256. It informed not only was the earth but all heavenly bodies are spherical.

You are anxious to claim there is a bitter warfare between religion and science. And this isn't surprising becasue it's been the primary polemical device used in the atheist attack on the faith. Same thing with the Hypostatic Union which I'll address later. Also, would you be more clear on your



when are you claiming the BIble was re-written? and I don't have a clue what the rest of this means.

I make no attack on Faith, I have consistently stated a genuine desire to resolve the whole issue in my mind - and most certainly not at the expense of rediculing a Faith a stance I find utterly abhorent. If others wish to believe in a particular Faith, thats fine, I make no judgements on the correct nature or otherwise of their decision - but that does not mean to say I have to agree with it. I certainly make no claim of bitter warfare between science and religion, others may have, thats their perogative. I have doubts and concerns that do not allow me to go down the Faith route, and nothing I have seen or had explained to me yet convinces me otherwise. Dont assume because I have atheist views, that I have a bigotted outlook, that is so far from reality its unreal.



Clearly it does for you, not for me. What is clear is that mankind has existed far longer than is apparent from Bible texts. As I understand it the furthest back in time an estimate can go from the Bible texts in terms of mankinds creation is 6000 years. That we have been on this planet far longer is in little doubt. The latter has been acknowldged by all the main Christian Religions, hence most no longer claim that the seven day creation is a literal explanation of events, more a parable.


I am not, I was presenting a case for it not to be rewritten, as it would serve no purpose in trying to convert non believers, in fact it would be counter productive, it would make matters worse, the last thing that should happen is to rewrite it. It was in response to an earlier post at post 18, as many others did.


Please do not assume that because I state things that others do not believe that somehow I am attacking them or their Faith - I dont. However in my mind certain things dont hold true, and until I become convinced otherwise, that will remain the case. If others wish to believe in a particular Faith, I have no issue with that at all, I hope it provides them with an inner peace that many seek. I most certainly dont have the termerity to say they are "wrong", they can believe what they wish. I have faught in many situations for others to have that right to believe in what they wish, including getting shot at and lunatic religious extremists slinging bombs at me. Not all atheists are rabid biggots.

Zydor,

When I asked:



I was referring to the last sentince in your post # 24. I didn't connect that as your reply to Adnauseum's last sentence in # 18.

thanks for explaining that...now it makes more sense.



Yes, I must admit that your comments are even-handed.

I've noticed that most supporters of Darwinism Evolution argue for it not by defending its tenets, rather by attacking the Church, the Faith, her doctrines as you with the Hypo. Union), Sacred Scripture, Christianity and even Christians themselves. It's been this way ever since Darwinism Evolution has become a worldview, an ideology.

Is it co-incidental that Adnauseum called Jesus Christ an ordinary man, and you are arguing the Hypostatic Union?

C'mon everyone of you Darwinism supporters, where's the defense... prove macro-Evolution...tell how you evolved from an ape..give all the details how that happened...show the scientific evidence..

How can any one, including Dawkins, objectively, impartially, and intellectually seriously prove Darwin macro-Evolution by attacking Christianity?

But then again proving Evolution Theory isn't what is important in the atheist crusade, attacking Christianity is.