evolution is the change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

Natural selection is the process by which forms of life having traits that better enable them to adapt to specific environmental pressures, as predators, changes in climate, or competition for food or mates, will tend to survive and reproduce in greater numbers than others of their kind, thus ensuring the perpetuation of those favorable traits in succeeding generations. Within a species not changing from one species to another.....a dog has always been a dog....although was originally a wolf in which all dogs came from...but in no way was the wolf ever a cat.

No way does a species change from one thing to another. And if you think so please give me an example of this in the last 200 years. Which of course you can't because it just doesn't happen. When God made animals......They were just that each one of them....When He made Man it was just that MAN....nothing more nothing less. And if the animal or tree did change then it would take the original one away....because if it changed to better that species what would be the purpose of the original one being there. es, the original animals are still here sometimes and sometimes not, natural selection happens to some species.

Krimsa,

If you wish to continue being unreasonable and calling me a liar, then there is absolutely no reason for me to discuss anything with you. Please be aware that following this post, any reply I make to your posts will be purely on accident. I see no reason to have a discussion with someone who assumes the position that I am a liar. Good day.

wouldee, eljay,and spider as well as feral and morning song are steeped in religiosity Krimsa, there are literally millions of theology books and lexicons and concordances they or other's use to prove their 6000 yr old traditions, these debates raised here have been going on for centuries by better minds than mine and Abra's and or the others here. The results? no different than this one. To " argue" or "debate" religion is futile because it is a >>>"FAITH"<<< based belief.

Take away all the >>>extra-biblical<<< propaganda and assumtions,the current inability to understand as clearly as the original hebrews and early aramaic speaking believers of the languages then spoken, and what you have is just words.

A compilation of stories and sayings that only could really be understood by those who were present at the time spoken if you hold the stories true.

If you read and come to the conclusion they are not true (at least for now in this time of your life} then move on.

If you want to search the "faith" of the believers then you really do have to do it from within. you actually have to put aside your >>dis-belief<< - in order find if it is true or not.

Otherwise it is like one trying to explain to another what a piece of fruit or other food taste like that they themselves have not tasted, and that may be the "exact opposite" of what you may find to be true for yourself in tasting the same food(s). I like clams - some others hate clams or are even allergic to them and cant eat them.

I am not reccomending that you do - nor am i saying not to do - I am merely stating that if one really wants to know if >something<, "anything" is really what it says it is - then one has to have >>>"expieriencial"<<<< contact with it or stand away and speak of it only in a hypothetical sense at most.

If that is all you want is Hypothetical answers then continue on "Ad Ifinitum" - but you will find yourself still not knowing whether it is sound or unsound for you - or worthy of putting your >>>>>>>FAITH<<<<<<<<< into it or not.

Faith is the key word here! all else is "mans doing" trying to explain why one should have this faith. read the gospels and all of jesus words - leave out the rest - if they donot move you to believe, then move on, dear lady.

sincerely - tribo

Not as far off as you are in reponding to my post - let alone your assessment of my understanding of reincarnation. Since you apparently are an expert in this field - explain why it is not advantagious to euthanize a severely diabled child in order that they might reincarnate to a better life? I'm not saying that this represents my understanding of reincarnation - I'm asking you to respond to this question as one who claims to know about it.

So, in other words, we are to believe that you didn’t yell at me, nor compare me inappropriately to some lover of yours, or lose your temper? Okay, you never did any of those things Spider. Happy? If you no longer can debate these issues with me, at least be honest and SAY THAT. I won’t hold it against you.

You are right faith is the key word in all religions, there has to be that leap of faith with no footing underneath.

I believe the bible and other religious texts to be the documentation of man's struggle to understand life and his purpose in life. Man has looked outside of himself throughout history for this "great understanding". The natural course for his logic was to imagine a "great being or beings" of greater knowledge than himself that could "guide" him. Whahlaa, you have god or gods. Natural forces became gods or the working of gods, life and death became the working of gods or god, etc.... It is much easier to pass responsibility on to another than to accept that we are personally responsible for all the ugly we see so there you have the devil.

Does any of this make it ultimately true? No. It is a section of the path of man's journey through life and understanding.

Tribo - please, drop me from your list. There's nothing "religiosity" about what I believe. What I DON'T believe is the so called "contradictions" or Subjective logic used to assume to disprove that the bible is a reasonable book, written by men who simply wrote what they were moved to (as in the OT) or what they witnessed (the New). I have no basis in fact to assume they concocted an elaborate hoax - or created some mystical Myth. I've already walked down that futile path - and found it as fruitless as you have your pursuit of christianity.

What makes you any less "religiosity" than I? Because you expect proof to support it's validity and I expect proof to discredit it? These labels do nothing but create a strawman argument and the appeal to emotion to support one's own subjective conclusions of iprovable things in order to win converts to their side of the argument - are they not?

I compared your behavior to the behavior of someone I know. I don't see how that is inappropriate. The fact that we had an intimate relationship had nothing to do with the comparison. You are dishonest to imply that it did. I did not yell at you and it is childish and silly to continue insisting that I did. This is the last response you will get from me. You are playing the victim and it is unbecoming. You are calling me a liar and that is uncivil. You are dishonestly implying that I posted something untoward. I think the whole thing is unfortunate, there is no reason for us to be bantering this back and fourth. Both issues result from your hyper-sensitivity and absolute desire to have been insulted by me. You probably believe that I have insulted you, I am not calling you a liar, just delusional.

I never claimed to be an expert in anything. That is you making an assumption based on what I have shared with you. I am probably the last one to consider myself an expert in anything. I would say the same about your loose understanding of Wicca as it relates to their concept of reincarnation. Wiccans would never euthanize a person unless they chose to be euthanized. Wiccans believe in human dignity and that a person should be in control of their own destiny and make their own decisions. Suicide or assisted suicide in not a sin in the Wiccan tradition. That would be viewed as a choice. My point which you ignored was that Catholics do not make this distinction and instead shun humans to purgatory for ending their own lives, even in the face of extreme suffering and pain. Also, there is no guarantee of a "better life". Where the hell did that come from? It is the Christian belief that your "better life" will only take place once you are dead and up in the clouds someplace. Wiccans do not share that view either.

then you are dropped off my list larry, sorry Maybe the word "religious" was a wrong choice, but i will replace it with "FAITH" once again - how's that?

Okay so you cannot understand it, cool. Gotcha. It is more complicated and more logical than your analogy there but if you cannot see it, there is no point.

Happy trails.

I absolutely agree with Tribo on this one. If I were going to preach Christianity I would preach it as a faith-based religion.

The problem with so many people who try to "debate" religion is that they try to make it into something more than that.

This thread is a perfect example. Spider was trying to debate that the Bible is logically consistent and doesn't contain logical contradictions.

That's a poor debate to begin with. That's trying to claim that the religion can indeed be defended by logic, which it can't.

In fact, Eljay often argues against my assertions that the biblical God would need to be unreasonable in order to be true. His arguement is that God's logic and reason is not the same as man's logic and reason.

In other words, Eljay it truly arguing from a faith-based perspective. Eljay has faith that no matter how illogical the Bible appears to be to men, God knows why it makes sense.

That's pure faith on his part, and that kind of faith cannot be debated. That's entirely the kind of faith that only an individual can choose for themselves they can't rationalize that kind of faith to anyone else because it's not "rational" in man's terms.

However, Spider is trying to claim that God is "rational" in man's term, otherwise why would he start a thread to logically dispell the idea that there are logical contradictions within the Bible.

Clearly Eljay and Spider approach religiousity from two entirely different vantage points. Yet, they try to argue for the religion side-by-side each giving incompatible arguments because they don't even percieve the religion in the same way.

Eljay is arguing from an entirely faith-based perspecting saying that the Bible doesn't need to make sense to us because it makes sense to God. Spider is trying to argue that it is indeed logical and can be argued logically.

I flatly disagree with Spider's view on this. There are a myriad of things in the bible that make no logical sense in practical terms.

It doesn't make logical sense that a God would allow a fallen angel to wreck havoc with his creation if he could control it.

It doesn't make any logical sense that a God would demand blood sacrifices to "pay" for man's disobedience to him.

It doesn't make any sense that God would send his only begotten son to be butchered on a pole to "pay" for the sins of man. Who would be "paid" by that sacrifice anyone other than the God himself who is demanding such payments be made?

It's a totally illogical story. I can only be believe on pure faith because it makes no sense at all in normal human intellectual terms.

The biblical story is a far cry from what humans think of as good parenting skills. A good parent (who can intervene) wouldn't allow their children to argue with each other about who their parent is and what their parent wants. I good parent would see that the children are confused and step in to enlighten them to the truth so that they can all make the correct decisions.

I've said it many times, it is utterly illogical for a supposed "Fatherly Figure" godhead who plays hide & seek to be upset with his children who merely guess wrong. That's totally unreasonable by any human standard.

Yet the mere fact that religions are 'faith-based' means precisely that. They are guesses! Period.

The Gods would need to be condemning people simply because they guessed wrong.

And that is totally unreasonable.

So these kinds of religions that are based on jealous judgmental godheads who play hide & seek are unreasonable religions by their very nature.

You either have faith that God's "reasoning" makes no sense to men, or you reject it because it is indeed unreasonable in human terms and you don't believe that God is unreasonable in human terms.

That's the choice. I choose the latter. I don't believe that God is unreasonable in human terms.

Therefore I reject the religion as being "unreasonable".

Spider, FINE! Just let it go alright. You said you would not respond again to me unless it was by accident and now, inside of a few minutes, you are responding yet again and dragging this on.

A. I didn’t like the comparison that was made. I have a right not to like it. I perceived it as disrespectful. To remedy this, you simply need not do it again. I would never compare you to one of my ex boyfriends. That is wrong. Let’s just move on.

B. I would like it if you would still continue to debate with me. You don’t have to but it would be appreciated. The personal issues can be dropped. I have asked that they be dropped and not brought up again several times now. That’s it.

Ok, I realize I'm really backtracking, but I've been absent awhile, so I need to catch up.

Abra



ME:
Just from the posts up to page 7 – these are the inconsistencies I see.

1. The creation story, part of the scripture that is the attributed infallible word of god is written in tandem and there are many differing reasons for why this was done. In one story Adam was created first and then Eve from his rib. In the other story they were created at the same time. Another inconsistency from the infallible words of god. What is one to believe?

2. Adam and Eve were created perfect but perfect to god included certain flaws. For example the degeneration of the aging human and other genetic mutating factors. Which may or may not include a biophysiological reason for homosexuality. But who really knows. This a HUGE inconsistency because humans are supposed to believe god is perfect but perfect to god includes flaws. Mmmm??

3. The third inconsistency in the Genesis story is about when creations took place. Specifically the idea of light. Spider argues the point like this

BUT – the moon does not create light, the moon simply reflects the light of the sun back to earth. But if the moon was an actual sun, at some point, the earth would have remained in light all the time and would have remained too hot for flora or animals to survive. ???? Now man believes that the moon, at one time, was a living planet, but if that were so, man would have been witness to the death of that planet – but there is NO historicity to bear witness to such an event. How odd, considering that “some” believe that NEW man from all over the globe wrote about a flood that all but destroyed humanity.

4. Now we get to the flood era. It has been mentioned that prior to the flood there were no laws by which man was to live. But we do see in Genesis that man was supposed to follow certain rules, but did not. God did not make correction but merely punished man by casting him out of the protected place. Personally I find it odd that god who was ever vigilant and ever present felt the need to create a ‘protected’ environment for his creation? But it was so and having not listened to god the people in the protected place were cast out. But it seems no new laws followed them. So they did what they were told – be fruitful and multiply.

5. Somewhere along the way there were disobedient angels who mated with the human females (angels must have been hermephodites or at least all male, but who knows). Now we don’t really know for sure, but maybe these interactions cause humans to do things that did not please god. But they were never really told. Anyway, god got ticked off and decided to start over. Now the way I see this inconsistency is that if god decided to start over, why not a clean slate? Destroy that which had gone bad and begin again? No, god decided to use this already flawed and growing imperfections of his first creation. Why allow a handful to survive when it was clear that humans were severely flawed?

6. Next inconsistency: After the flood god shows remorse. WHAT? REMORSE? Why yes and promised Noah and family that he never do such a thing again. Now god already knew that humans stemming from the lineage of Noah could be no better off than those whom he had destroyed. Obviously god reacted too quickly and was sorry but it still took awhile for god to determine what to do next.

7. God created the laws of the Hebrews. Over 600 of them, from what I understand by other Christians. I’ll let them point these out. But the crux of these laws demanded that man be judged by THOUGHT, WORD, AND DEED. And for thousands of years this was the word of god as followed by the people. BUT IT CHANGED. Oh my did it change. Before it changed, however, god would be the reason of humans that would destroy armies and whole cities for the evil that existed against “the word” of god.

8. Now we get to Christianity. Here, friends, is the inconsistency that equals that of the flood story. God determines that his laws were no longer valid. Now REMEMBER god ordered millions of people to their doom for not embracing these laws – but now determines that a new law will take it’s place. The new law will be “the light and the way.” It will be the sacrifice of god himself. And as difficult as it was for thousands of years before for people to TRY to follow god’s law, and for all those who tried and failed and all those who where murdered as punishment, it will be as simple as believing that god would sacrifice himself to prove his love.

In conclusion, it is so much easier to understand the Hebrews and their faith in their laws, because, at least for thousands of years the law seemed stable, unchanging. OK, so god made a mistake with the flood – or maybe they just didn’t believe the flood story the way many do. Maybe to them it was a story with a totally different meaning. But today, it’s an inconsistency. Now suddenly after thousands of years, someone decides that god has blundered again, changed his mind. Maybe it was just too dang hard to be Jewish anymore. So, hey, make it easy, after all, all the other gods in the known world were created and replaced so very often. And they all had the errant qualities of humans, so why not the Jewish god?

BUT NO MATTER, the FACTS ARE that the inconsistencies link god to human qualities and human qualities are said to be perfectly created by a perfect god. In that case, it must all be true because god has certainly proven to be imperfect.

OK - NOW I'LL CONTINUE READING FROM PAGE 7....

Why even bother Di?

Surely you have better things to do with your time.

There were no sound arguements given against anything that you've listed. All arguments against them were nothing more than speculative mumbo jumbo or just attempts to make lame excuses of why God was 'justified' in changing. Thus confessing that he does indeed change.

And then there's the arguments by Eljay that God doesn't need to be 'reasonable' according to man's assessment of what 'reasonable' means.

In other words, either believe in the biblical picture of God on pure faith, or give it up because it's not going to make sense in terms of human reason.

That seems to be the conclusion here.

FC lady. You do not believe in evolution. Fair enough. Can you please explain to me what this is then? I dont understand it. Explain what this is. Her name is "Lucy". Im sure you will have a plausible, non faith based explanation for us all to hear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_%28Australopithecus%29

Here's the answer...

Tel Aviv University anthropologists say they have disproven the theory that "Lucy" - the world-famous 3.2-million-year-old Australopithecus afarensis skeleton found in Ethiopia 33 years ago - is the last ancestor common to humans and another branch of the great apes family known as the "Robust hominids."

The specific structure found in Lucy also appears in a species called Australopithecus robustus. Prof. Yoel Rak and colleagues at the Sackler School of Medicine's department of anatomy and anthropology wrote, "The presence of the morphology in both the latter and Australopithecus afarensis and its absence in modern humans cast doubt on the role of [Lucy] as a common ancestor."



now go back and really read what I said....I said evolution can happen within a species and also look at the reason why this is so......But to believe that a species can come from a another separate species is assanine.....As is reincarnation.

Feral



When scripture is determined to mean one thing and than later changes. What actually changed? Did humans have an epiphany or did the holy spirit change what it was whispering to people? Or maybe those with the power, determined what to believe. Yes TIMES have changed but, what about that, makes it ok to change that which has been relevant to religious law?

ALSO, if so many THINGS can be changed that once affected “the Law”, what purpose is there to uphold any scriptural law? After all, it is apparently all subject to change in accordance with the TIMES.

Feral


Conjecture on your part dear woman. Please, by all means, provide the proof that indicates your superior debating faculties. And just like the bible – no taking a reply out of the context of the thread.

Come on ‘lil lady – rack it up, show us the threads in which you have defended your god and his writing and have clearly come out a winner.

Evolution is nothing to be afriad of. It doesn't disprove the god concept, it merely shows how god did it.

Oh really, because I was confusing her physical characteristics with, oh, man maybe? And she lived, about 3.2 million years ago. Here is more about her. So you do believe in evolution? Because the assertion that some great creatrix is responsible is truly ludicrous. I was afraid that was where you were going based on some other statements you have made. And if you scroll up, I simply explained reincarnation. No need for insults. You are once again behaving like your “jealous god”. Oh, sorry that’s a human characteristic. Oops those keep popping up, don’t you hate em.

Postcranial

One of the most striking characteristics possessed by Lucy was a valgus knee, which indicated that she normally moved by walking upright. Her femoral head was small and her femoral neck was short, both primitive characteristics. Her greater trochanter, however, was clearly derived, being short and human like rather than taller than the femoral head. The length ratio of her humerus to femur was 84.6% compared to 71.8% for modern humans and 97.8% for common chimpanzees, indicating that either the arms of A. afarensis were beginning to shorten, the legs were beginning to lengthen, or that both were occurring simultaneously. Lucy also possessed a lumbar curve, another indicator of habitual bipedalism.


Pelvic girdle

Johanson was able to recover Lucy's left innominate bone and sacrum. Though the sacrum was remarkably well preserved, the innominate was distorted, leading to two different reconstructions. The first reconstruction had little iliac flare and virtually no anterior wrap, creating an ilium that greatly resembled that of an ape. However, this reconstruction proved to be faulty, as the superior pubic rami would not have been able to connect if the right ilium was identical to the left. A later reconstruction by Tim White showed a broad iliac flare and a definite anterior wrap, indicating that Lucy had an unusually broad inner acetabular distance and unusually long superior pubic rami. Her pubic arch was over 90 degrees, similar to modern human females. Her acetabulum, however, was small and primitive, like that of a chimpanzee.


Cranial specimens

The cranial evidence recovered from Lucy are far less derived than her postcranium. Her neurocranium is small and primitive, while she possesses more spatulate canines than apes.

This was due to the earlier belief (1950-1970's) that increasing brain size of apes was the trigger for evolving towards humans. Before Lucy, a fossil called '1470' (Homo rudolfensis) with a brain capacity of about 800 cubic centimetres had been discovered, an ape with a bigger brain. If the older theory was correct, humans most likely evolved from the latter. However, it turned out Lucy was the older fossil, yet Lucy was bipedal (walked upright) and had a brain of only around 375 to 500 cc. These facts provided a basis to challenge the older views.