Out of respect for the members of the politics forum I have decided to no longer participate in these threads.
Buttered_corn I would like to finich our discussion because I think it is going to be a very interesting discussion for me. Maybe not you so I would like for us to continue in PM’s. If you choose not to I totally understand.
I?d like to make a minor point re the current discussion of prehistoric creatures and their inclusion/non-inclusion in the bible.
At 300BC the Chinese knew of and made documents recording Dragon Bones ? the fossilised remains of dinosaurs
http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s1334145.htm
In addition, early fossils of Nautolis (the Ammonite) (a swimming shell creature ? the shell being a tight and classic spiral) were found in the 1700s in the UK, and as people were?nt able to explain how an obvious shell could exist as stone, nor make the mental leap that something had to exist a long time under rock to create an impression and infill with silica (forming the fossil), people would carve a snake head into the shell, and proclaim the fossilised ?snake? as evidence to the Noah flood. The roman Plinius the Elder wrote of these shells in 79AD.
So where people are discussion in this thread that Dino?s were?nt known of until the 1800?s : Not so. They?ve been known since early roman times, and simply ? religious thought / dogma got in the way of investigation. Indeed ? DaVinci wrote of shell fossils in the 1500?s and proposed logical argument against the theocratic dogma of the time
http://fossils.edwardtbabinski.us/
“In the mountains of Parma and Piacenza multitudes of rotten shells and corals are to be seen, still attached to the rocks… And if you were to say that such shells were created, and continued to be created in similar places by the nature of the site and of the heavens, which had some influence there --such an opinion is impossible for the brain capable of thinking, because the years of their growth can be counted on the shells, and both smaller and larger shells may be seen, which could not have grown without food, and could not have fed without motion, but there they could not move.
And if you wish to say that it was the Deluge which carried these shells hundreds of miles from the sea, that cannot have happened, since the Deluge was caused by rain, and rain naturally urges rivers on towards the sea, together with everything carried by them, and does not bear dead objects from sea shores toward the mountains. And if you would say that the waters of the Deluge afterwards rose above the mountains, the movement of the sea against the course of the rivers must have been so slow that it could not have floated up anything heavier than itself.”
I was well aware of the discovery of fossilised bones as early as 300 B.C. by the chinese, point is, nobody understood what these bones were until the 18th century
Electric_eals, i take your point that the mental leap to assign fossils to an early pre-mammal era came in the 1800’s.
My point is that religion has gotten in the way of investigation of these items. The dogma of the day actively discourages investigation into “theocratic-sanctioned facts”. Indeed Plinius of Rome noted the Ammonite fossils and named them after an Egyption god’s horns.
I find this suprising, as the romans were a seafaring society, and as such should have been able to make the leap that the Ammonite fossils very closly resembled existing sea shells of living molluscs. And so, further investigation and advancement of knowledge could have occured.
However, attributing an item to the relm of a Deity seems to automatically shut off peoples brains, and that being the case, no further thought need be entertained.
I want to thank everyone for their responses. I started this thread to gather information from those that are not Christian and more specifically Agnostic/Atheist. Not to take on all comers and defend the Christian faith. I feel that the information that I have gathered here will be very helpful to me.
In this thread I have learned about many different religions. This has clarified some of my own beliefs and forced me to do some research to find out what I did not know. I asked the question out of honest curiosity. I wanted to know why people did not believe, and I got more than I bargained for. For those that responded with respect and thoughtfully considering the question, my deepest thanks.
I will be happy to answer any questions directed at me. If I have left someone hanging and I did not respond please PM me. I will not shy away from hard questions. There has just been so much information on this thread that I have found it hard to keep up. I would like to close with where I stand/come from and a few ideas to think about.
I am a Christian and I go to a Baptist Church.
I believe that the Bible is the word of God. Given by God through men.
I believe that the Bible should be studied in an intelligent way. This means that you cannot just read what is on the page and understand it. Some parts are literal and some are not, but there are principles and wisdom to be gained from all. Keep in mind that the Bible did not come with an expiration date. It was written for all people until the end of time.
The Bible is not all inclusive.
We seek God because of the prompting of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit also provides understanding of spiritual things.
Jesus is the only path to God and eternity with him.
a. Born of a virgin
b. Lived a sinless life
c. Died for the atonement of sin and rose again
d. Is the Son of God.
With out these things Jesus is not a sufficient sacrifice.
Jesus died for all sins past, present and future.
Science is a gift from God and not in opposition to him.
The laws that govern this universe were put in place by God.
The gifts (i.e. science, natural resources, time, money, talents) that God has given us should be respected and used properly. If not then we (all life) will suffer the consequences.
A few things to think about:
Reference materials:
http://www.insight.org/ToolsforGrowth/Default.asp Look at How to Study the Bible
http://rzim.org/ Check radio Broadcast Archives (this man will rack your brain)
http://www.ligonier.org/
http://reasons.org/
http://oneplace.com/real_answer/
http://www.walkthru.org/site/PageServer?pagename=lote Listen online and Message Notes
http://www.equip.org/
If you are interested in my story read below.
This is my story and I will try to keep it short. I was raised in a some what Christian home. I had a good childhood and though we believed in God once we left church we didn?t discuss it. When I was twelve years old my Sunday school teacher (Truett Cathy the founder of Chick-fil-A) spoke to me about being baptized. I did it more out of pressure than anything else.
I have a lot of respect for him and the example that he has shown young people. A few years later I found myself in a different church. My youth minister was Hugh Kirby. He was a power lifter. This was the first time that I had seen the combination of a man who was godly and physically powerful at the same time. I was baptized again and this time it was my choice. Throughout this time I had never lived a Christian life. This was the first time that I started to meet God part way.
I joined the Army and went to a number of different places; one in particular was Ludwigsburg Germany. I was in the Airborne Infantry in a Long Range Surveillance Unit. I attempted to stand my ground spiritually, but failed. I no longer went to church; I drank heavily and spent time with many women. It was easy to justify. I was the only Christian that I knew of and I drank less and was not near as wild as others in my unit.
One day a guy came up to me and very respectfully made one statement. ?When you first came here I had respect for you, because you knew what you believed and you stood up for it. I?m sorry to say that I?m disappointed.? This guy didn?t believe the way that I did. This was the first time in a long time that I had thought about my example as a Christian. People are watching. It has been a rocky road since then. When I think back, these are the years that formed the man I am today.
This was the time span that my faith was formed and tested. It is hard to explain. I may have failed many times, but my faith did not. Through physical and emotional valleys it has carried me. Even in combat it gave me peace. It was really tested in June of 2000. My son was born with a genetic disorder. He could not eat by mouth for the first year and had severe breathing issues.
That first year we were in and out of hospitals and emergency rooms. We spent the first month in a NICU before they could figure out what was wrong. During this time I have never felt so helpless. I did what little I could do and I depended on God for the rest.
Through out my travels I have learned:
The last two are more important.
Me Solomon Grundy
Excellent post. Well written, simple, honest, straight forward to the point and most importantly, no hammer.
[quote]doogie wrote:
Plagiarism, noun. [from plagiary.] The act of purloining another man’s literary works, or introducing passages from another man’s writings and putting them off as one’s own; literary theft.
…
…
…
purloin … “to take away for one’s self; hence, to steal; filch”
…
You take away from him the reward for his own efforts of thought.
[/quote]
Doogie,
I will start by saying I do not know one way or the other whether or not Zeb was being truthful in later posts when he said that he did not take passages from the websites you cited.
If he did take those passages from those websites, then he is guilty of lying when he later denied it.
But even if he did take those passages, it seems to me unlikely that he is guilty of plagiarism in any morally significant sense. It seems to me that as a necessary condition for something to be morally plagiarism, at least one of two elements must be present, “A” or “B”:
A) One can reasonably infer that the author or other rightful owner would not want to be quoted or paraphrased without attribution. Or one can reasonably infer that the author or other rightful owner might suffer some type of unwanted loss by being quoted or paraphrased without attribution.
B) The phrase quoted or paraphrased without attribution contributes to the attainment of at least one of the following by the “taker”:
Academic credit.
Financial gain.
Intended personal glory or repute, whether substantial or trivial.
Collateral unintended glory or repute, but only if the degree of collateral undeserved unintended glory or repute is significant compared to the amount of awkwardness or extra effort that would have been required to cite sources. Here the amount of effort and/or awkward cluttering of text with citations that would be expected to avoid any given amount of collateral undeserved unintended glory might also vary with the customs of the forum or media within which the unattributed borrowed phrase is being used.
With regards to “A”: I think we can reasonably infer that the authors of the passages in question on free Fundamentalist Protestant websites would like to see their analyses spread as far and wide as possible, and would not particularly care whether they personally receive any credit.
With regards to “B”: Zeb (hypothetically, assuming he lied) used somebody else’s phrases without attribution to argue an unpopular point he earnestly believes is important, for no academic credit and no payment. As far as I can see there does not appear to be any intent to gain repute or personal glory. The likely amount of unintended collateral gain of personal repute would seem to me to be trivial enough that careful citation of sources to avoid it might not be morally necessary.
All in all, even if Zeb did lie, I don’t think he was guilty of the particular sin of plagiarism in these posts.
(Of course, I suppose it is possible you knew that all along and just wanted to see if you could get him to lie.)
One more thing … if you see any phrases from my post on another website: lemme know so I can sue the hell out of 'em! 
[quote]NealRaymond2 wrote:
doogie wrote:
Plagiarism, noun. [from plagiary.] The act of purloining another man’s literary works, or introducing passages from another man’s writings and putting them off as one’s own; literary theft.
…
…
…
purloin … “to take away for one’s self; hence, to steal; filch”
…
You take away from him the reward for his own efforts of thought.
Doogie,
I will start by saying I do not know one way or the other whether or not Zeb was being truthful in later posts when he said that he did not take passages from the websites you cited.
If he did take those passages from those websites, then he is guilty of lying when he later denied it.
But even if he did take those passages, it seems to me unlikely that he is guilty of plagiarism in any morally significant sense. It seems to me that as a necessary condition for something to be morally plagiarism, at least one of two elements must be present, “A” or “B”:
A) One can reasonably infer that the author or other rightful owner would not want to be quoted or paraphrased without attribution. Or one can reasonably infer that the author or other rightful owner might suffer some type of unwanted loss by being quoted or paraphrased without attribution.
B) The phrase quoted or paraphrased without attribution contributes to the attainment of at least one of the following by the “taker”:
Academic credit.
Financial gain.
Intended personal glory or repute, whether substantial or trivial.
Collateral unintended glory or repute, but only if the degree of collateral undeserved unintended glory or repute is significant compared to the amount of awkwardness or extra effort that would have been required to cite sources. Here the amount of effort and/or awkward cluttering of text with citations that would be expected to avoid any given amount of collateral undeserved unintended glory might also vary with the customs of the forum or media within which the unattributed borrowed phrase is being used.
With regards to “A”: I think we can reasonably infer that the authors of the passages in question on free Fundamentalist Protestant websites would like to see their analyses spread as far and wide as possible, and would not particularly care whether they personally receive any credit.
With regards to “B”: Zeb (hypothetically, assuming he lied) used somebody else’s phrases without attribution to argue an unpopular point he earnestly believes is important, for no academic credit and no payment. As far as I can see there does not appear to be any intent to gain repute or personal glory. The likely amount of unintended collateral gain of personal repute would seem to me to be trivial enough that careful citation of sources to avoid it might not be morally necessary.
All in all, even if Zeb did lie, I don’t think he was guilty of the particular sin of plagiarism in these posts.
(Of course, I suppose it is possible you knew that all along and just wanted to see if you could get him to lie.)
One more thing … if you see any phrases from my post on another website: lemme know so I can sue the hell out of 'em! ;)[/quote]
If we are going to start adding a bibliography to every post then they are going to get huge.
Me Solomon Grundy
[quote]electric_eales wrote:
NealRaymond2 wrote:
electric_eales wrote:
Still haven’t explained this to me
The only thing that looks like a problem regarding the dinosaurs is that Genesis says the world was created in six days. Assume that “day” could be a metaphor or alternate word meaning “era” rather than “24-hour period” and the dinosaur problem is solved.
Please tell me you are taking the piss!?
This has to be the dumbest response I have ever read to any argument
[/quote]
look at the order of which things are created, it flows very well with evolution, you have sea creatures being created first, then land animals, and then finally humans. the bible does have a simple way of putting things, but try explaining evolution to a people in an era that wouldnt understand. the bible says to explore him and we will find answers that eventually come back to him. dinosaurs can be included in the creation described by the bibles. they are in fact part of or evolution and in our dna, so they do have there place in the creation story in the bible, just no name for them.
“The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation… his religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.”
-albert Einstein - theoretical physicist
"The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of masses of the proton and the electron… the remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the developement of life.
-Stephen Hawking - theoretical physicist
"for the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power or reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorancep; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries
-Rober Jastrow-astronomer
[quote]hardcoreukno0359 wrote:
look at the order of which things are created, it flows very well with evolution, you have sea creatures being created first, then land animals, and then finally humans. the bible does have a simple way of putting things, but try explaining evolution to a people in an era that wouldnt understand. the bible says to explore him and we will find answers that eventually come back to him. dinosaurs can be included in the creation described by the bibles. they are in fact part of or evolution and in our dna, so they do have there place in the creation story in the bible, just no name for them.[/quote]
[quote]Ken Kaniff wrote:
Hm, id just like to know why the usa is the only civilized country where fewer than like 99,99% percent of the people “believe” in evolution. Why is that? I just dont get it. Canada, all of europe, basically the entire world besides maybe the arab countrys. No other christian country has this debate.
What are the reasons for that?[/quote]
Because evolution is just not believable from a consistent scientific model perspective. Darwin stated we evolved from Apes, yet Apes exist today and so does man, yet none of the supposed intermediary species between Apes and man exist. Logic would dictate that other intermediary species, and at least the most recent species would exist, yet they don’t.
So the US doesn’t believe in evolution because of the sheer lack of scientific evidence.
I also believe it is because of the poor adherence to the scientific model by evolutionary scientists, which dictates that the hypothesis be revised or discarded when the evidence does not support the current hypothesis. And yet to date the evolutionary hypothesis has not be revised or discarded for a new hypothesis. This fact would indicate more of a predetermined bias than unbiased scientific inquiry.
So I guess we just have less blind faith in science than Europe.
I think alot has to do with environmental upbringing. I was never TOLD to believe, or disbelieve I simply choose for myself what felt natural, and greatly appreciate my parents giving me the choice. I don’t rule out the possibility, but have not felt compelled to live my life according to “Christian beliefs.”
Another fact that leads me to hold no faith is the fact that there are 100’s of different religions, how do you know you have the right one? How can you be sure that the next guy doesnt have the ulimate Truth…you dont, and thats why its called faith and not truth.
I think human beings are driven to find “answers” for the mystery of life and the fact is no one possess the answer(s). I am comfortable not knowing the answer and knowing that no other human possesses the answer. Everyone finds their own truth through their experiences. If Christianity helps you live a more fullfilling life, you win. It doesnt help me though…I like the mystery of life and would never kid myself into thinking I have the answers for others to beleive. I also like learning about other cultures, and dont discount those ideals because it contradicts my thoughts
because one is never enough
It seems that you are suggesting that evolution teaches that modern man evolved from modern apes. Is that what you are suggesting?
[quote]soupandspoons wrote:
“Darwin stated we evolved from Apes, yet Apes exist today and so does man, yet none of the supposed intermediary species between Apes and man exist. Logic would dictate that other intermediary species, and at least the most recent species would exist, yet they don’t.”
It seems that you are suggesting that evolution teaches that modern man evolved from modern apes. Is that what you are suggesting?
[/quote]
No, I’m saying that modern man evolved from early apes that are the same as apes today. How can you have apes that “evolved” from other apes and still be apes 15 billions years later and yet have no intermediary species around?
I guess my point is that there are a lot of holes in the evolutionary hypothesis that should, in a purely scientific model, change the hypothesis or at least modify it. Yet that hasn’t happened. So that is NOT science that is a presupposed biased position just like religion.
Science has a much more documented evidence then any religion has to suggest that the thoery of evolution is correct.
Christianity will eventually become a thing of the past as the general population become more scientifically aware and intellegent.
Throughout history many religions and religous beliefs have ceased to exsist and there is no reason to say that Christinity will not follow this trend.
non-beleivers are just ahead of the game.
For those that are discussing Evolution:
Which version of Evolution do you most agree with, Darwinian Evolution or Neo-Darwinism or something newer?
Once you define your stance then you can debate more effectivly.
Me Solomon Grundy