The argument would likely be that the choices you make during the "eyeblink" might determine how you spend eternity.

In regard to that, there are also aspects of religion which I find unfortunate.

You find it unfortunate that some people think there is more to life than +/-70 years and then getting sick and dying?

I find it unfortunate if there isn't an afterlife and people end up wasting the short time they've got planning for something that will never come.

I think it's unfortunate that people view life in that manner. I find Heaven to be a poor excuse for being judgemental.

I'm agnostic. I see nothing wrong with people applying religion to themselves. If someone needs "god has a plan" when their dog dies, or an authority figure to say "do unto others," I would not dream of denying them that. People do plenty of good for the sake of religion. But when it's applied outwardly as an excuse to judge and control others (and it frequently is), I see a problem.

We find it unfortunate when those people want to control others to behave in the ways dictated by their understanding of God and faith. That's all.

The vast majority of agnostics and atheists agree that western religions, for the most part, espouse values that are a great idea for most people to live by as a personal code. Speaking personally, the teachings attributed to Jesus are a great guide to living a happy life. But I don't need you or anybody else who believes in God and the Bible as you do expecting me to adhere to said code when it goes against the conclusions I've reached. It doesn't bother me at all if you or anyone else believes God will punish people for being gay or anything else that the Bible claims is a sin. It does bother me when you or anybody else wants to prevent me or anyone else from acting however I or we wish to, when it doesn't negatively impact you in any way.

Hang on Kevin. It sounds like you are making this personal. Leave it at "anybody". I don't think Joel has tried to force his beliefs on anyone here as far as I can tell. He has only shared them.

It is personal, for all of us. Everybody in this thread participating in the discussion is coming from his own personal viewpoint. Note that I didn't accuse anybody of personal attacks and I don't think I said anything that would be construed as such. I just think it's disingenuous for us to have a debate involving the details of religion, faith and dogma and pretend that we're not personally invested in our own parts of the discussion. So I say "you" and "I" because it's applicable. I don't think there's anything wrong with that as long as none of us is presuming to speak for others when we do it.

I understand what you are saying. I guess it comes down to your definition of wasting.

Since I can only speak for myself, lets use me as an example. I am 26. I am married to a woman that I love. I have 2 beautiful sons. I have a loving family and many close friends. I like beer and wine tasting, playing football on weekends, camping, boating, hunting, going to movies, playing video games, having a lot of heterosexual sex, building things, drawing, and hopefully I will soon add racing to the list:cool:. I also go to "church" 2 times a week where we study the bible. I make it a point to talk to people about my beliefs if there is an opportunity because it is a big part of who I am.

Please be honest because you can't hurt my feelings. Does this sound like I am wasting my life? I honestly don't think we are that different.

There are hundreds of thousands of religions in the world. To say that all religions push their beliefs on people and are judgemental is a false and unfair statement. I agree with Kevin and the rest of you when you say its not right to judge someone or try to control them based on what you feel is right. I can only speak for myself when I say that I do not do that in life and I don't think I have in this thread.

On the other hand, and I am not talking to any one individual here but, please do not assume what I believe. I do not believe that I will go to heaven or hell. I have had lots of pets die and I don't believe God has any plan for them. I do not believe when a person is killed in an accident that "God needed another angel". How you live your life is completely up to you and I would never try to do anything to stop you.

Let me ask a question. If an individual believes completely in their heart that there is a God and a purpose and a way to gain everlasting life free from sickness and death(like it talks about in the bible). Wouldn't you feel obglated to tell people about it?

To me that doesn't seem unfair. You already try to help people in smaller ways just on this forum. What if you posted a thread on some new tires that you absolutely love and that you feel, handle better than others you have tried. Would it be fair for someone to say "I find it unfortunate that you are trying to impose upon me what tires I should and should not run." No. That wouldn't make any sense.

I construed it as such or I would not have said something.

When you quoted Joel, using "you" implies him personally and he has not "expected" you to do anything as far as I know, just shared his beliefs as you are. Your comments would not have had less value had they said 'anybody' in place of "you or anybody else" where appropriate IMHO.

I am just suggesting we stick to "anybody", "people" and such. Yes, Joel used "you", but in terms of asking an individual a question.

As we are on one of the topics you don't discuss at a dinner party, just suggesting we all to be mindful of our word choice.

I wasn't talking about you specifically, in fact not even in the faintest. I was more thinking along the lines of a 20 year old Muslim that straps a bomb to his chest and dies because he thinks he can help his cause on the way to 72 virgins and everlasting awesomeness.

That's religion used as a brainwashing tool and not at all as a belief system for improving your life here on earth, which how most religious people I know approach religion. When religion is an all-encompassing, fundamental tenant of your life to the exclusion of everything else that's wonderful in the world, then you're doing it wrong.

But when was the last time you heard someone say, "run those tires and you're going to hell?" ;)

I've said that to anyone that plans to buy another set of RE92s.

I find that unfortunate

If people (and by people I mean me, you, Joel, and everyone else posting in this thread) are going to discuss religion/God/faith/beliefs, then a certain measure of "polite" line-toeing has already become moot. I maintain that nobody here has gone on to get into offensive territory, i.e. flaming, name-calling, etc. I just don't see the point in discussing religion in a purely abstract fashion. If I'm going to debate Joel or anybody else, it's coming down to what he believes or what I believe, and that's personal by nature. "Personal" shouldn't have to mean offensive though.

It's not a "fault", or a defect, it's a feature... to illustrate a point. My point was not that homosexuality is okay with Jesus, my point is that if is so fucking important, then why isn't it spelled out more clearly and talked about more often by Jesus in the New Testament? It is barely mentioned even by his surrogates (including one who never even met him), but it is never ever talked about specifically by him at all, aside from what you mentioned - presumptively lumping it in with general fornication/adultery/<insert any "sexual immorality" here>. Jesus was too caught up in other shit like feeding the poor and loving thy neighbor. For all I know homosexuality is as bad and unclean as premarital sex... or menstruation... or other Leviticus abominations like eating pork and shellfish... based on the NT. Just seems to be pretty low on the priority list I guess.

... <double post?>

There are many details about the law that Jesus didn't address specifically...mostly because it was unnecessary. His audience at the time was made up mostly of torah-observant jews, who needed no clarification on points of torah law. When speaking to jews (which was practically all of the time), Jesus had no need to explain that homosexuality fell under the category of sexual immorality any more than people in here need to know that street racing falls under the category of stupid driving. You don't go into details about something that everyone already knows about. This is the reason why Paul DOES go into details...because he was preaching to non-jews (gentiles) who had no prior knowledge of torah law, and who needed to be brought up to speed on specific details, or at the very least have the definitions explained. In any case, the issue of homsexuality had been clearly dealt with in the torah...a book that Jesus refered to and quoted from constantly. Many people don't seem to understand that the Old and New testaments aren't isloated form eachother, but you do have to account for cultural differences.

Just as a note about your facts...the "surrogate" who you claim never met Jesus (I assume you are talking about Paul) did in fact know Jesus, and would have heard Him teach directly. Paul was a Pharissee (part of the jewish leadership), and would have been in Jerusalem every time Jesus came there to teach. Paul and Jesus could have easily met and talked beforehand. Just because the bible doesn't specifically record an event, doesn't mean it didn't happen. In addition, the bible teaches that Paul did talk to Jesus on several occasions after Jesus' resurrection, most notably on his trip to Damascus. I have no doubt that you would not believe that account, but for what it's worth , it is in the scriptures. Also, if you believe that Jesus spent most of His time being concerned about the poor and teaching "love thy neighbor", then it seems likely that you have not actually read the gospel accounts, or at least remembered what was in them. Jesus spoke on many subjects, including pointing out hypocricy in other people. Jesus clearly taught that sin of any kind was serious, but He did not find it necessary to define every single point of sin, since that had already been done in detail in the torah, specifically Leviticus. His audience would have known that. People today only seem to have issues with it because they cannot recognize that the New Testament compliments and completes the Old Testament...they were never meant to be seperate, and Christians who actually study the entire bible know this.

But if Jesus is God, and God is all-knowing, why didn't he foresee the confusion nowadays?

An unfair and unanswerable question. The Bible does not claim to know or understand the mind of God. It just tells people how to live and act, not the secrets of the universe. It's a bit ignorant for someone to say (in earnest, not sarcastic jest as Scott did to kick this whole thing off) that God hates gays, or anyone else, or to presume any other views God may hold that aren't expressed in the canonized books of the Bible. It is different for someone to say "God says..." if there's Scripture to back it up. Someone who believes in the literal interpretations of the Bible is correct to say that it is (or was, depending on your specific beliefs) a sin to do or not do something specific, from their perspective. But there are no verses of scripture that answer a "why" question.

I think Rob asked a fair question. To keep from sending this thread in another direction I have PMed Rob an article dealing with that exact subject. If anyone wants to read it, let me know.

I don't believe it is an unanswerable question. In fact, I'm willing to bet that anyone who believes in God has answered questions like that for themselves. The biggest test of faith is to challenge it. If you can get past those obstacles, in a manner that makes sense to you, it only serves to strengthen your faith.

Personally, I don't believe in God. I have many reasons. A lot of them stem from that question, but mostly comes down to the fact that I just don't believe. And that is what makes these conversations so dangerous. Your (you, me, everyone) beliefs are shaped from years of internal debate (at least they should be, or they are weak).

Seems like that ship sailed a while ago

The problem with religious tomes are the editors and in some cases translators. Both testaments were compiled by men with human failings and opinions. It has been a while, but the Discovery channel had an interesting show on "books" left out of the bible.

And the "books" themselves are a product of their times and any interpretation IMHO has to be taken in that context.

I do not really disbelieve anything in the bible, but in no way shape or form trust the men who may or may not have had good intentions over the centuries in changing/shaping those ideas/words.

My problem with religion is not faith itself, but with the organizations and organizers of religion.

To take that to an extreme, are the Pope and Osama Bin Laden really that different? In some ways, you could say the only difference is the pulpit they speak from and in that respect, which appears more opulent and self aggrandizing?

I think we should revoke the tax exempt status on all religious organizations and tax the snot out of any profits they make. Religion should not be a business model.

So I guess there are people in the world practicing "Jedi" as a faith/religion these days. . . I have to wonder if, 2000 years from now, it will have its origins lost in time and garner a substantial following

Let's get this thread back on track.

http://digital-photography-school.co...-a-rainbow.jpg

Actually, it'll be Oprahism.

But seriously, this is an important point. The legitimacy of the Bible as the literal word of god really only comes from the generations and generations of people that accept it as such. When all those books were originally written, they were not immediately recognized as the word of god. It took revisions, editing, and even committee meetings of church leaders over 100's of years before some books were canonized and others dropped. The contents of the Bible were selected by man from a wide range of sources. Since the very start, it was man's interpretation of what he though god's word was that got into the Bible, so to me it's not at all a leap to suggest that man should continue to interpret the Bible with modern eyes.

And not to single out the religious folks, but I'm curious as to why you believe the Bible is the word of god. What evidence do you have that it should be taken as god's literal word? Every answer I've ever received to that question has been a circular argument that boils down to "the Bible is the word of god because it says it is in the Bible, which is the word of god, so it has to be true". What convinces you to take the Bible literally when logically it's so much more likely that it's a man made document that attempts to explain the nature of god/morality/etc?

I never did answer the original question. Thanks Mike for reminding me.

I blame the Care Bears.

http://www.imgag.com/product/full/wp/3043664f.jpg

Lets put everyone on the same playing field. I will tell you why I believe in a creator and that the bible is inspired by him if you tell me what you believe in and why you believe it.

I think that will depend on the individual. I'm not accusing anyone here of this, but I've seen that for many it's easier than actually thinking for themselves.

I was raised Christian but always had trouble "buying in" to it. Something always seemed a little off. It wasn't until I was living on my own that I finally reached the conclusion that I was agnostic, and the decision to cast off the religious inclinations that had been presented to me as fact since birth was a very challenging one to make. Many people make the mistake of viewing agnosticism as being "indecisive" or "taking the easy way out," when it frequently is exactly the opposite. In my case, I spent about three years "soul searching" and studying before becoming comfortable saying, "based on what I know of religion and man, I believe religion is man-made and false."

So for me, remaining christian would have been the "easy way," as I continued to take it for granted.

I have no problem with that. But are you saying the Bible is inspired by god, or the literal word of god? Because I would be willing to accept the Bible as "inspired" because to me, that doesn't imply a required literal interpretation.

But as far as what I believe, I'd call myself an atheist-leaning agnostic. Basically, I don't believe in a god as described by the major religions. IMO, there is no "man in the clouds" that has a purpose for mankind. If there is a god (i.e. an entity that created the universe), he/it/whatever must exist outside of our universe. Because of this, a) it is impossible for him to interact with the universe without violating the laws that make it operate, and b) as part of our universe, we do not have the capacity to understand god or anything that exists outside our universe.

So, with regards to Christianity... I believe Jesus was a real person, and a great philosopher. I agree with the majority of his teachings, but I believe that some of it is a product of his time and therefor outdated and can be disregarded as such. I do not believe Jesus was the literal son of god, I don't believe that the folks in the Bible that talked to god ever did so literally. Some of them may have been charlatans, but I suspect that the majority of them simply were inspired by prayer/meditation, so they likely believed they were in fact instructed by god. And to me, none of that invalidates the teaching in the Bible... it just means that as a follow of the Bible, people need to interpret the lessons therein and critically apply them to their lives. Blindly following the Bible results in conflict with those that interpret it differently, which IMO is exactly the opposite of what Jesus would have taught.

I believe that morality comes from within each person, but is mostly a concept born out of mankind's nature to form a stable society. IMO, society has evolved as a mechanism of humans to allow us to be more successful than all the other animals that didn't develop a structured system for working together. So most people have an inherent moral compass that allows us to determine whether or not our actions are good for just us, or good for all of us. Those that don't have that compass are reigned in through law, which is why law should reflect our common morality. I don't believe mankind needs guidance from a higher power in order to be able to determine right from wrong, nor do I believe mankind needs some sort of threat of damnation in order to prevent most of us from doing wrong. We just need individuals willing to stand up for what's right and teach others, even at their own personal sacrifice, not unlike what Jesus did when he was martyred.

And most importantly, I don't feel like I'm missing out by not believing in a Christian style god, or the implication that we as humans aren't anything special. IMO, the universe is so amazing on its own, that just being a tiny part of it, with the ability to think and reason and learn about it is already an amazing gift from god/the creator/FSM/whatever. I'm just fine with the idea that if god created the universe, we are probably such a tiny little eddy in the massive currents of time and space that god probably wouldn't even take notice of us, let alone bother to speak to us and guide us personally, even if he could without breaking the laws of physics that allow the universe to operate. Just because we weren't created for a specific reason does not preclude us from finding purpose.

I'm not getting involved in this, because the simple (and sufficient) answer of faith, evidence, and inherent conviction/recognizance does not play out well on a casual internet forum. No, I am not talking about Global Wa.......I mean.......Anthropogenically-Driven Climate Change......

However, if you are REALLY dying to hear some more educated pro-Christian arguments related to the inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility of Scripture, then here are some, certainly not exhaustive or maybe even exactly what you are looking for:

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninf...ID=22007185544
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninf...ID=22007185643
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninf...ID=22007185826

Rainbows, they are proof of precipitation, not gayness. I know this, because I am in Logan, Utah taking a datalogger programming class right now, and while I can see the rainbows and the rain, the Gaydar screen is 100% clear. No, I'm not shopping for a second wife.

In Soviet Utah, second wife shop for YOU!

:lol::lol::lol: I need to remember that the next time I'm playing BF2 PR mod and get on a Russian map.

...

OKay, that post just ended it for me...hahaha :lol: funny shit.

...

Yes, that is what I believe. 2 Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness".



I appreciate that told me your beliefs and I can see that we have the same thinking on many things. The reason I asked you to do this was not so your beliefs could be put under scrutiny but so that I could know where you are coming from. I like to quote scripture when i talk about my belief so that you know what has caused me to come to the conclusions that I have in my own life.

I also believe this. The bible talks about God as being the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end, the king of eternity, the first and the last. The human mind can't fathom the thought of something that has always been and as having no beginning.

You are defining what is talked about in the bible as a conscience. The word is translated from the Greek sy‧nei′de‧sis, which is drawn from syn (with) and ei′de‧sis (knowledge) and thus means co-knowledge, or knowledge with oneself. Conscience is a capacity to look at oneself and render judgment about oneself, bear witness to oneself. It also can be trained by the thoughts and acts, convictions and rules that are implanted in a person’s mind by study and experience. Based on these things, it makes a comparison with the course of action being taken or contemplated. Then it sounds a warning when the rules and the course conflict, unless the conscience is “seared,” made unfeeling by continued violations of its warnings. Conscience can be a moral safety device, in that it imparts pleasure and inflicts pain for one’s own good and bad conduct. Romans 2:14,15 says, “For whenever people of the nations that do not have law do by nature the things of the law, these people, although not having law, are a law to themselves. They are the very ones who demonstrate the matter of the law to be written in their hearts, while their conscience is bearing witness with them and, between their own thoughts, they are being accused or even excused.” Thus you can see that many laws of the nations are in harmony with a bible trained conscience, yet such nations and lawmakers may not have been influenced by Christianity at all.

The bible doesn't teach that this is something that has evolved in humans but, it has been there from the beginning. Something that God has built only into humans. Which is why my parents dog doesn't feel remorse for chewing up my kids brand new $35 Buzz Lightyear toy and my sisters cat doesn't feel guilty when it takes a dump in the clean clothes.


Couldn't you also argue that we don't need individuals but rather a single individual such as Jesus to take the lead? The bible teaches that Jesus is the King of God's "heavenly Kingdom" or government, that will do away will all of the flawed and ever changing governments of mankind and rule over all the earth. That is what I personally believe to make the most sense.


I agree. The human body and the universe are incredible and we will never understand either completely. I find it amazing when you think about things like the complexity of the human eye or how the earth is positioned perfectly from the sun. There is no other creation on this earth that is as amazing as the human being. The bible talks a great deal about God's creations and how beautifully made they are. Genesis 1:27 "God proceeded to create the man in his image, in God’s image he created him; male and female he created them." I think being created in God's image is a pretty big honor.


The bible teaches that God wants to help us and wants for us to have a relationship with him. Isiah 48:17 says that he is "the One teaching you to benefit [yourself]". James 3:8 says, "Draw close to God, and he will draw close to you."


I find that in actuality; a lot people don't really have a problem so much with what the bibles says. The biggest problem is that few truly understand the bible or have even read it themselves. There are countless religions using the bible to mislead people for their own selfish gain. They have taken things out of the bible, added false information, incorrectly translated it to fit their own bias, and most importantly have misrepresented God as being something unloving, hardhearted, uncaring, faceless, and unknowable.

Many people choose as you said, to blindly follow. I agree that this is wrong and foolish. The bible also agrees. The later part of Acts 17:11 says to be "carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so".
Proverbs 14:15 “Anyone inexperienced puts faith in every word, but the shrewd one considers his steps.”
Romans 12:2 "And quit being fashioned after this system of things, but be transformed by making YOUR mind over, that YOU may prove to yourselves the good and acceptable and perfect will of God." You can see by those scriptures that blind faith does not originate with God and the bible but, from man.

Here are some of the reasons I believe the bible and everything that I have mentioned to be true.

The Bible was written over a 1,600-year period. Its writers lived at different times and came from many walks of life. Some were farmers, fishermen, and shepherds. Others were prophets, judges, and kings. The Gospel writer Luke was a doctor. Despite the varied backgrounds of its writers, the Bible is harmonious from beginning to end.

The Bible is scientifically accurate. It even contains information that was far ahead of its time. For example, the book of Leviticus contained laws for ancient Israel on quarantine and hygiene when surrounding nations knew nothing about such matters.

At a time when there were wrong ideas about the shape of the earth, the Bible referred to it as a circle, or sphere. Isaiah 40:22 "There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth...". The Bible accurately said that the earth ‘hangs on nothing.’ Job 26:7 "He is stretching out the north over the empty place, Hanging the earth upon nothing". Of course, the Bible is not a science textbook. But when it touches on scientific matters, it is accurate.

The Bible is also historically accurate and reliable. Its accounts are specific. They include not only the names but also the ancestry of individuals. In contrast to secular historians, who often do not mention the defeats of their own people, Bible writers were honest, even recording their own failings and those of their nation. In the Bible book of Numbers, for instance, the writer Moses admits his own serious error for which he was severely reproved.

I could keep going but, I need to get some work done today.:lol:

Juice,

If you grew up in Mormon household do you think you would be following the LDS Church?

Scientifically and historically accurate? You're kidding, right? Harmonious from beginning to end? You gotta be f-ing kidding? No time to pick that all that nonsense, so I'll let somebody else do it...

Science and history:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html

Harmoniousness:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.co...a/by_name.html

And of course... homosexuality:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm

Except the part where we were created and didn't evolve, and the part where Earth is the only place in the universe with life on it, and it's accounts of how old the universe is.

I know life hasn't been found yet, but i believe it is just a matter of time. Scientists believe that there could be life just under the surface of Mars that used to be more active a long time ago. A show I was watching on Discovery was basically saying that Mars is our past, and Venus is our future. They were referring to a timeline of millions of years, but they were saying that our orbits are (very slowly) moving in toward the sun. This makes sense conceptually, if you think about it. Although there is no friction in the vacuum of space, there are still particles floating that will eventually slow down the orbit of a planet, causing it to fall in toward the object it is orbiting.

Joel (or anyone, he just seems to be making the majority of the statements on the religious side), do you believe that people and dinosaurs were on the planet at the same time? Do you believe that the earth is only thousands of years old, not billions?

just Curious, have you read that entire site KS ?

More importantly... since this is a "teh ghey" thread, I wanna know... does God (always "He"... and capitalized) have a penis, testicles, and taint... and if so, why?

Most of it, years ago. Just googled it it for this thread. I don't agree with it all - seems kinda extreme, but still it it relatively comprehensive. At worst it is food for thought. I personally haven't studied the Bible from a perspective of faith for almost 30 years, so I am pretty rusty (and very jaded) on it.

Since you and Rob have decided to join in, why don't you guys share your own beliefs. Clearly there is something in the bible that you found that didn't make sense and turned you away 30 years ago. I will continue posting and answering questions about what I believe as long as this thread stays a conversation. Matt, to me it seems that you have already made up your mind and there is nothing that I say to change it. I am very open minded and I will try to answer any direct question that you ask me but I am not going to go down a list on some website of others ideas and interpretations of things in the bible. I am not afraid to research into my own beliefs for the fear I will find out that I am wrong. It would help me out if you would site what contradictions you are talking about or at least the ones you take most issue with. It would be much easier for me to talk about then just dumping some random links for me to crawl through.

Rob, I admire your passion about what you feel but, I don't totally understand your post.

What is your definition of evolve? There are many different views on evolution. Do you believe that man came about by chance from a puddle? If so, where has that been proven as fact? I think they still call this the theory of evolution. Even Darwin himself said this "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." Also, if humans are supposed to be an evolutionary improvement over monkeys, why do humans suffer from emotional problems that do not afflict monkeys?

After more than a century of searching, how much fossil evidence is there of “ape-men”? Richard Leakey stated: “Those working in this field have so little evidence upon which to base their conclusions that it is necessary for them frequently to change their conclusions.” New Scientist commented: “Judged by the amount of evidence upon which it is based, the study of fossil man hardly deserves to be more than a sub-discipline of paleontology or anthropology. . . . the collection is so tantalizingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmentary and inconclusive.”
Similarly, the book Origins admits: “As we move farther along the path of evolution towards humans the going becomes distinctly uncertain, again owing to the paucity of fossil evidence.” Science magazine adds: “The primary scientific evidence is a pitifully small array of bones from which to construct man’s evolutionary history. One anthropologist has compared the task to that of reconstructing the plot of War and Peace with 13 randomly selected pages.”

Just how sparse is the fossil record regarding “ape-men”? Note the following. Newsweek: “‘You could put all the fossils on the top of a single desk,’ said Elwyn Simons of Duke University.” The New York Times: “The known fossil remains of man’s ancestors would fit on a billiard table. That makes a poor platform from which to peer into the mists of the last few million years.” Science Digest: “The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin! . . . Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans—of upright, naked, toolmaking, big-brained beings—is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter.”
Modern-type humans, with the capacity to reason, plan, invent, build on previous knowledge and use complex languages, appear suddenly in the fossil record. Gould, in his book The Mismeasure of Man, notes: “We have no evidence for biological change in brain size or structure since Homo sapiens appeared in the fossil record some fifty thousand years ago.” Thus, the book The Universe Within asks: “What caused evolution . . . to produce, as if overnight, modern humankind with its highly special brain?” Evolution is unable to answer.

Another difficulty for evolution is the fact that nowhere in the fossil record are found partially formed bones or organs that could be taken for the beginning of a new feature. For instance, there are fossils of various types of flying creatures—birds, bats, extinct pterodactyls. According to evolutionary theory, they must have evolved from transitional ancestors. But none of those transitional forms have been found. There is not a hint of them. Are there any fossils of giraffes with necks two thirds or three quarters as long as at present? Are there any fossils of birds evolving a beak from a reptile jaw? Is there any fossil evidence of fish developing an amphibian pelvis, or of fish fins turning into amphibian legs, feet and toes? The fact is, looking for such developing features in the fossil record has proved to be a fruitless quest.






How can you say that the Earth is not the only place with life and then say, "I know life hasn't been found yet"? All the other planets that scientists have probed are devoid of life. But Earth teems with life, sustained by very complex systems that provide light, air, heat, water and food, all in exquisite balance. It shows evidence of having been specially built to accommodate living things comfortably. Imagine that you are in a barren desert, devoid of all life. Suddenly you come upon a beautiful house. The house has air conditioning, heating, plumbing and electricity. Its refrigerator and cupboards are filled with food. Its basement contains fuel and other supplies. Now, suppose you asked someone where all of this came from, in such a barren desert. What would you think if that person answered, “It just happened to appear there by chance”? Would you believe that? Or would you take for granted that it had a designer and builder?

Among the many precise conditions vital to life on the earth is the amount of light and heat received from the sun. The earth gets only a small fraction of the sun’s energy. Yet, it is just the right amount required to sustain life. This is because the earth is just the right distance from the sun—an average 93,000,000 miles. If the earth were much closer to the sun or farther away from it, temperatures would be too hot or too cold for life.
As it orbits the sun once a year the earth travels at a speed of about 66,600 miles an hour. That speed is just right to offset the gravitational pull of the sun and keep the earth at the proper distance. If that speed were decreased, the earth would be pulled toward the sun. In time, Earth could become a scorched wasteland like Mercury, the planet closest to the sun. Mercury’s daytime temperature is over 600 degrees Fahrenheit. However, if Earth’s orbital speed were increased, it would move farther away from the sun and could become an icy waste like Pluto, the planet whose orbit reaches farthest from the sun. Pluto’s temperature is about 300 degrees below zero Fahrenheit.
In addition, the earth consistently makes a complete rotation on its axis every 24 hours. This provides regular periods of light and darkness. But what if the earth rotated on its axis, say, only once a year? It would mean that the same side of the earth would be facing the sun all year long. That side would likely become a furnacelike desert, while the side away from the sun would likely become a sub-zero wasteland. Few, if any, living things could exist in those extreme circumstances.
As Earth rotates on its axis, it is tilted 23.5 degrees in relation to the sun. If the earth were not tilted, there would be no change of seasons. Climate would be the same all the time. While this would not make life impossible, it would make it less interesting and would drastically change the present crop cycles in many places. If the earth were tilted much more, there would be extremely hot summers and extremely cold winters

No. I think you are asking the time period question based on the fact that many people believe that God created the earth in 6 literal 24hr days. The book of Genesis was written in Hebrew. In that language, “day” refers to a period of time. It can be either a lengthy one or a literal day of 24 hours. Even in Genesis all six “days” are spoken of collectively as one lengthy period. The fact is, the Bible reveals that the creative “days,” or ages, encompass thousands of years.
A person can see this from what the Bible says about the seventh “day.” The record of each of the first six “days” ends saying, ‘and there came to be evening and morning, a first day,’ and so on. Yet, you will not find that comment after the record of the seventh “day.” And in the first century C.E., some 4,000 years downstream in history, the Bible referred to the seventh rest “day” as still continuing. (Hebrews 4:4-6) So the seventh “day” was a period spanning thousands of years, and we can logically conclude the same about the first six “days.”

Sir Fred Hoyle explains in The Nature of the Universe: “To avoid the issue of creation it would be necessary for all the material of the Universe to be infinitely old, and this it cannot be. . . . Hydrogen is being steadily converted into helium and the other elements . . . How comes it then that the Universe consists almost entirely of hydrogen? If matter were infinitely old this would be quite impossible. So we see that the Universe being what it is, the creation issue simply cannot be dodged.”

To answer your question, I personally do not know how old the universe is. With what we as humans know today it would make sense that the universe is at least millions of years old. On a clear night, the light of Andromeda galaxy may be visible to the naked eye. Now, knowing how far away that island universe of stars is from the earth and that light travels at 186,282 miles [299,792 km] a second, scientists have determined that the light you see coming from the Andromeda galaxy is 1.5 million years old.

No. The bible says that God is a spirit. Just as assigning human features to God is not to be understood literally, the use of male gender to describe God should not be taken literally. Gender distinction is unique to physical creatures and is a linguistic device that reflects the limitations of human language to capture fully the essence of God.

The Bible’s use of the designation “Father” helps us to understand that our Creator can be compared to a loving, protective, and caring human father. (Matthew 6:9) This does not mean that we are to view God, or even other spirit creatures in heaven, as being male or female. Gender, in the sense of sex, is not a characteristic of their nature.

Wow, there's a lot there. I'm going to have to chip away at that tomorrow.

As for my beliefs: I'd say I'm somewhere between agnostic and atheist. Even in all of the creationism arguments, there are gaps. Gaps I will address tomorrow. But, to boil down into a hopefully short post my beliefs, I don't believe that there is one all-powerful being. At least not the one from the bible. Maybe something played a role in the creation of the universe, but it doesn't give a shit about us. If it does exist, it has made that abundantly clear. And if it does give a shit about us, then it is not powerful enough to stop all of the horrible things that happens to its followers.

One of my favorite quotes on the subject:

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but unable? Then He is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
- Epicurus

That pretty much sums up my views on God. If he does exist, he is apathetic towards us, and I feel the same.

I don't think that following the bible, or any organized religion or religious text is healthy. Using the bible for an example, there are so many stories of miracles happening to God's followers, yet he couldn't do a damn thing to stop the holocaust. People lived to be 700+ years old, according to the bible, yet all evidence we have says that we are living longer now than we ever have. In fact, people used to die from old age in their 20's and 30's. That site KSTech posted has a lot I had never thought of, but for the sake of this conversation, I'll leave those out of it. I can't think of the many others I had a problem with when I used to go to church as a youngster.

The point is, followers of the bible come up with reasons why these exaggerations are okay, but then other parts of the bible need to be taken literally. It's all just so contradictory.

It's late, I feel like I'm babbling, but if you have anything else you want me to touch on in my personal beliefs, let me know. I'm an open book. Hell, conversations like this make me re-examine what I believe, since I rarely challenge it anymore.

Joel, I'm not going to line by line your massive cut and paste for the same reasons that you're not going to tackle Knucklesplitter's links.

But some quick points of contention:

A scientific "theory" is not the same thing as a layman's theory. A scientific theory is a hypothetical prediction, the strength of which is determined by the evidence gathered via experimentation. A theory can be either very strong or very weak... to write off something as "just a theory" simply because it's called a theory is to totally miss the whole point of the scientific method. In science, everything we know is "just" a theory... and every theory can be improved, modified, thrown out, revised, etc as more evidence is discovered. That's the most useful thing about science... it doesn't get bogged down in absolutes because things can change based on our better and better understanding of reality.

More specifically, the theory of evolution is very strong not because there is only X amount of fossils, but because there is zero conflicting evidence. Every challenge at the core of evolution has only resulted in minor changes to the details of the mechanisms of evolution. Nothing has yet been discovered to suggest that evolution is false. That's not saying that we won't eventually find that evidence, but for now, evolution is a fantastically strong scientific theory.

Regarding Rob's comment about life elsewhere, he did in fact state that it appears likely that there is life within our own solar system besides earth, even if it hasn't been confirmed by direct observation yet. He was not just making an assumption as you suggest.

This comment "It shows evidence of having been specially built to accommodate living things comfortably." is patently false. There is no evidence that the earth was designed to accommodate life comfortably. It would be just as likely to assume life on another planet would fit into that planet's ecosystem even if that ecosystem were violently fatal to the life that developed on earth. Life on earth lives comfortably on earth because it evolved here. Life elsewhere would appear just as comfortable there. Your argument is actually a very good argument explaining why life on earth is a result of evolution.

I'm not sure what your point is about the light from Andromeda... but FYI the Hubble telescope has imaged galaxies around 13B light years away, so the universe is at least 13 billion years old... which fits right in with the current estimates of the age of the universe.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...C3-IR-full.jpg

Every spec of light there in that tiny, tiny picture is made up of billions and billions of stars. It's kinda hard to imagine that god made all that just for us fragile humans that are bound to the thin layer of air surrounding a small rock to peak at through our telescope. Not that I can question god's purpose... maybe he's crazy into the details... but it just seems super unlikely that the universe was build as our playground.

So we're not literally made in his image then?