isaac_dede,

Everyone has reasons for what they choose to believe. The goal here is not to try to disprove your source but to explain why 'we' believe what we believe.

When the Bible is concerned I have not heard any reasonable reason given for believing it other than "It is God's word" (so sayeth the the Church fathers and they sayeth it because in the Bible "it is written!" and behold the power and infalibility of the written word!)

Another reason given for believing that the Bible is the word of God is that it has been around for so long. Over 2000 years. God must be protecting it. NO, that's not the case, the reason it has been around for so long is because the Church and the people cling to it stubbornly and practically worship it as God.

That is faith in the Church fathers and in the written word, not faith in God. That is faith in a book.

Where believers in the Bible are tortured is that if part of the Bible is proven to be wrong then they are forced to consider that the rest of it could be wrong too. Then it all begins to fall apart and there goes their faith in the Book.

And because their faith in God is so interconnected with their faith in a Book there goes their faith in God. They loose their faith. And some people, I have have discovered, (in another thread) don't think life is worth living without a the idea of a God and an afterlife. They can't even imagine a different kind of "God" than what has been described to them in the Bible, so the death of the Bible is the death of their faith in God.

The person in the other thread said he may as well just go jump off of a cliff. Life would be meaningless and pointless with no God or afterlife he said.

So this is why I think so many people want to argue about theories of scientific discovery, because for them, it chips away at their own faith foundations.

The solution to this of course, is to change your foundations. Accept the idea that the Bible was written by ancient men in ancient times and is not the word of God. Keep your faith in God by accepting God for what ever God turns out to be. Just because he or It does not conform to your ancient text and your installed belief, do not throw away your appreciation for life and love.

jb

In other words, don't loose faith in God, (whatever that concept is) just because the Bible is dismissed or proven wrong. The Bible is not God. It is not to be worshiped.

There is no reason to believe that the Bible is the word of God either. That boils down to having faith in the Church fathers who make that claim. The Bible, written by men, allegedly inspired by God, is the claim. The true authorship of the Bible is not really known.

Live life for the wonder and joy of it. Life is a miracle. To accept and enjoy that miracle without expectations of what God is or how we came to be here is true faith. You can't loose that faith no matter what science discovers or how our ancient scriptures are interpreted or understood or misunderstood.

Take what is given and be grateful. You have life. Be grateful for that.

Okay - now you're running amok.

There is NO proof that evolution is truth. There is proof that mutations occur, but that's it. And that is within species.

I would be curious to see you list these "proofs" and demonstrate how they are observable occurances to support a human and an ape having a common ancestor.

Let's get this straightened out before we move onto religion being a hoax.

Let's not make the stetch of equating conjecture with evidence - shall we, else you'll prove every religion on earth a verifyably correct.

Obviously - you are infamiliar with the bible.

Why would you bother to discuss it if you don't even know what it says?

I do love that you are soooooo firm in your anti anything but god/bible/creatonism Elijay.

It's admirable....

I still dont get why everyone has to try so dismally to prove each other wrong...

why is it not ok to say it's possible....either way...?

How does that shake anyone's foundations....scientific or religious?

I absolutely agree with Jeannie.

I'm not an atheist either. I'm an 'agnostic'. And what does that mean? It means that I don't know for certain what's going on.

Let's face it, if there is a supreme being that supreme being is playing hide and seek. To pretend that you know where it's hiding when you really don't is to live a lie.

Would I lie to God?

Absolutely not!

Would God want me to lie to Her?

I hope not!

So for me to claim that the Bible is the "word of God" when I honestly don't know that to be the truth I would be lying!

What is TRUE is that I have studying the book in great detail for over 40 years. My honest conclusion is that the Old Testament it appears to be written by a bunch of male chauvinistic idiots that haven't got a CLUE how to parent children.

And if that's what God is truly like then I must be honest with God and tell God that if the Bible is "His word" then my personal assessment is that he's a horrible parent. Pehaps it's because he has no parents of his own? I don't know, but someone needs to tell him the TRUTH, and the truth is that he's a horrible parent.

If God can't handle the TRUTH then it isn't much of a God.

Now when I read the New Testament it seems extremely conflicting. Jesus says that he did not come to change the laws and that not one jot nor one tittle of the law shall pass. Yet according to the story he does indeed change change the laws of the Old Testament. I outlined them in my previous post.

There are many other conflicts in the things that Jesus is said to have preached. It makes no sense to me on many levels both, from the point of view of Jesus, and from the point of view of the God of Abraham. The Old and the New Testaments are in dire conflict.

Add to this the historical FACT that there were many different types of Christians in the early days of Christianity. And these Christians were even murdering each other because they held different beliefs of what Jesus stood for.

After some time people in AUTHORITY (which most certainly wouldn't have been the diciples of Jesus), decided to write their own version of the "Jesus Rumors" and that's what we today call the "Holy Gospels".

There is nary a word of Jesus in the Gospels. It's all hearsay that was written at least a half a century after Jesus existed (assuming he existed at all). I personally believe that someone existed, preached brotherly love, denounced the ways of the Old Testament and was crucified for Blaspheme. Whoever that man was become a ledgend and there were many rumors about what he stood for.

The Gospels were written by authoritarians who wanted to put an end to the many rumors and USE the dead Jesus as a marionette doll to support THEIR VERSION of the rumors. And their version was to use Jesus to prop up the very dogma that he had actually denounced.

Before those gospels were written there were many people who followed Jesus like a Buddha (a mortal man who was enlightened). In fact, that's precisely why the men in authority felt a need to write their own version of the rumor and use Jesus' martyrdom status to prop up the AUTHORITY of the Church.

And that's what they did.

Had it never struck your curiosity why throughout history is was considered blaspheme and heresy to even QUESTION the validity of the "Holy Scriptures"?

That's because men didn't want anyone asking question and exposing it's LIES.

And like Jeannie already pointed out, that's why it lasted so long, it was basically forced on people at threat of excommunication from the Chruch and the community, and possible physical punishment or even DEATH.

Are you aware that even as recent as the time of Isaac Newton a person could be hung for claiming that the Holy Scriptures are not true?

Isaac Newton studied the Bible even more than he studied physics and he came to the conclusion that Jesus was not the son of the God of Abraham. Yet he couldn't voice this opinion in his day because he could have been hung for having said such a thing.

Fortunately he did make it known well enough that his views were indeed passed down through history, but they aren't very well known to most people because the Christians certainly aren't bragging about it.

Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, Richard Feynman, and many other brilliant men all denounce the Bible as being the word of God. The Bible was written by superstitious men, not a supreme being. And Jesus could not possibly have been the son of the God of Abraham, he didn't even agree with many of the ways of the Old Testament.

But like Jeannie says, that doesn't mean that you need to become an atheist. Just recognize that the Bible has nothing to do with God.

That doens't make the concept of God any less possible. You just might need to redefine the way you think of God.

I let God be whatever God is. If I were to demand that the Bible speaks for God then I would be telling God what God must be like!

I value honesty above all else. I honestly don't know that the Bible is the word of God. To claim that it is would indeed be a lie. I can easily claim that I believe it to be impossible to be the word of God, because I personally don't believe that God would be as stupid and ignorant as the Bible demands that God must be.

So if I were to tell God the TRUTH I must confess that I don't believe that the Bible is the word of God. That's the TRUTH anything less would be a LIE.

In order for me to become a Christian I would need to LIE to God and pretend that I think the Bible actually makes sense or speaks of wisdom. I don't believe that it does either of these things.

And yes, if the Bible truly is from God then I have no choice but to conclude that God is both stupid and ignorant based solely on that book. Anything less would be a LIE.

If you'd have to lie to God to appease God, then wouldn't that be a terrible pickle? If you made it to heaven you'd need to keep the lie up for all of eternity.

I'd rather be TRUTHFUL and be sent to hell. At least I would know that I did the RIGHT thing by my own values, and in the end I'm really the ONLY PERSON that I need to answer to. I could accept hell if it means that I'm standing up for the higher moral ground.

And that's the irony of Christianity. To be TRUTHFUL could supposedly bring you the WRATH of GOD.

Does that make any sense to you at all?

More than likely the book was written by very arrogant egotistical men who were trying to scare people into cowering down to the authority of THEIR chruch. It has nothing to do with an God.

Actually evolution from one species into another has already been shown in both bacteria and fruit flies.

The fact of the matter is that this is precisely the same kind of thing that happened when the Church was trying to refute the Sun-centered solar system. The evidnece was OVERWHELMING yet they continued to be stubborn for YEARS until they finally had no choice but to give in.

It's just religious resistance of TRUTH in favor of unproven dogman.

In fact, how utterly silly that someone who worships an unproven dogma should ask for 'proof' of anything.

It's absurd.

You're refusing to believe in something for which there is OVERWHELMING evidence, in favor of believing in something that has no evidence at all. None, zip, zilch.

It's truly religious.

In fact, I've personally given so much evidence of why the Bible can't possibly be the word of any consistent all-wise God that as far as I'm concerned I've "proven" beyond any shadow of a doubt that it can't possibly be true.

Not only is there no good reason to believe it, but there are a myriad of really SOUND REASONS to recognize that it is necessarily the made up demagogurey of men.

It use it as an arugment against the OVERWHELMING evidence for evolution it turly insane. Even the Pope knows better.

Actually - Jess, I'm not. I'm not quite sure why it is an either or thing on these theads - that if one does not see how Evolution is fact it is because they believe the bible. I've thought the idea of evolution was non-sense when I was a New Ager, a Buddist and an Atheist.

The other thing I find no credibility in are the calims that the bible has been proven false. I'm still waiting to see what supports that idea. All I've ever seen for proof is that because "Evolution is fact" the bible must be false. Ummm... isn't that the same "rediculous claim" from Creationists about evolution?

I've never attempted to prove anyone wrong here. My assertion is that if you can't prove yourself right - stop claiming it as "fact".

Which - by the way - I have never asserted about Christianity. It a belief with undemonstratable events. There won't be any verifyable world-wide floods happening anytime soon - I doubt anyone will be walking on water - and they'll be no virgin births.

But let me add - that we will not be seeing any any new sea creatures suddenly abandoning their necessary habitat to climb aboard dry land and start dwelling there - if they haven't done so already, I doubt any Apes are going to start walking upright and taking English as a Second language classes - nor do I believe we are going to witness any spontanious generation of life outside of a laboratory where a species suddenly decides to switch kind.

It's all a matter of world view, and subjective faith. Call it science - call it religion. Dress that pig up any way one wishes - it's still a pig. Thinking it's gonna fly is a matter of faith. Claiming it once flew....

Well - you can decide for yourself on that one.

What did those fruit flies turn into? Bats - sparrows - Eagles?

What are they now since they are no longer fruit flies?

This post illustrates a vast misunderstanding of the idea of species.

The bottom line is this, if you don't understand what makes two similar creatures different species, then you have no business talking about evolution, breeding ect.

Forgive me but this posts demonstrates the inability to respond to a simple question with a demonstratable response.

This should be easy for you. What did these fruit flies evolve into?

Maybe you don't understand the question?

It goes like this.

We have a fruit fly.

Verifyable evoluytion took place - changing the species.

It is now a (fill in the blank).

You went to school - didn't you? You know how this works.

Thanks for sharing a little of yourself, and your OWN journey to where you are now..I do appreciate it Elijay...

And your last sentence says it all.....

we DO decide for ourselves.... on everything....

I do like to try to show a few different ideas... discoveries, breakthroughs, that interest me...

and again....You decide for yourself, what fits, what doesn't.

Eljay, what about the bonobo chimps?


While they may appear chimpanzee-like to the untrained eye, bonobos are different. "In terms of body mass, they are very similar to chimpanzees," de Waal explains. "But they're much more gracile.

They have longer legs, they're slender, they don't have the huge shoulders and thick neck [of chimps], and they have a smaller head. They're also more elegantly built and move more elegantly than chimps. And when the bonobos stand upright, they look very human-like because they have these different body proportions." It's their social behaviour, however, that's the real pièce de résistance.

"In terms of social behaviour, bonobos are almost the opposite of the chimpanzee in that they're relatively peaceful," de Waal remarks. "As far as we know, they don't have inter-group warfare going on, they eat a little bit of meat but much less than chimpanzees, and they're not great hunters." But here's where it gets interesting: "Male dominance is not there. It's rather the opposite where females dominate the show." And it doesn't stop there!

"They seem to resolve a lot of their conflicts with sexual behaviour," he says. "If two bonobos have a fight, they may make up with a sexual reconciliation, which is typical for their species. So there's a lot of sexual activity that goes on that has more social meaning than reproductive meaning." Their sexuality also mirrors humans in a couple of other ways, too.

"Bonobos have a greater variety of sexual postures," he reveals. "The bonobos can do it any way they want – and they can do it face to face also. So positionally – so to speak – they have a richer repertoire. And their sexual behaviour is not just male to female. It's also female-to-female and male-to-male and male-to-juvenile." In fact, they make the human sexual revolution of the sixties and seventies look tame.

But what does this all mean for theories of human evolution? "The bonobo is almost a complete contrast to the chimpanzee, even though the two species are so closely related," de Waal explains. "So there's no reason, from the biological perspective, to suggest that the chimps are a more important model than the bonobo, because they're equidistant to us."

As de Waal suggests, "it's possible that the common ancestor was not exactly like the chimpanzee, but it may have been something in between a chimp and a bonobo. That means maybe there was aggression and male dominance [as some theories suggest], but it's very well possible there were maybe lots of other tendencies that have not been emphasised so much in models of human evolution." …like the propensity for pleasureful sexual activity, for instance!


http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Vines/4451/BonobosLikeHumans.html

If I'm not mistaken - the Bonobo chimps are.... Chimps.

Have there been any that have turned into a Human? When Bonomo chimps mate - don't we get.... Bonomo chimps?

There haven't been any Humans who have decided to regress back to Bonomo chimps that we know of. Have there?

While I don't doubt the observances of the Bonomo chimp - if we took any reference to "evolution" out of this report, would it change the observations?

Well Eljay, the way I understand it, evolution does not happen overnight. I could be wrong.

I've heard the same thing. How convienient. Sort of justifies the lack of demonstratable evidence to say it takes a few million years for this to happen. But hey - it's a fact you know. Just take our word for it. No wait... can't relly on human testimony. Now what.

Sounds like a religion to me.

The thing is Elijay, we have posted evidence after evidence, and each time you just brush it off, without actually looking at it.

For instance: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

Also, the big difference between Religion and Science(and Evolution) is that religion is set-up for "just take my word for it"(i.e. Papal Infallibility, in layman's terms, if the Pope says god told him, you have to take it on faith as being true) In Science, you have peer review. Basically, you come up with a (testable) theory, it has to stand up to people trying to disprove it. Also, you have to keep in mind the Scientific definition of the word "theory", which, is basically, an idea that ties a group of facts together.

I never said how long it takes. But you can see there are differences between these chimps compared to other chimps. Did you not read the descriptions?

I don't study the scientific theory of evolution. I know very little about it. I know that it is just science. I am not threatened by it. It does not shake my spiritual life or my foundations of faith like it obviously seems to do to some some people who worship the Bible.

It is the Bible you are defending Eljay, not God. Why don't you realize that?

Besides, people have posted plenty of evidence, you just don't read it.

Why is it so hard for humans to believe that it took time for their species to develop? Why are people content believing that they are nothing more then the manifestation of dust in a 24 hour period? Hey i say let people believe what they want to believe. The truth is always going to be the truth regardless of our petty human beliefs. No sense wasting time arguing about. Frankly i think we have more important things to do.