@Jesus: The misconceptions were at least in large part discussed earlier in this thread. The conclusion that the OP is not very well-informed about evolution. As you see, the discussion shifted a bit.
@hackle577: Hmm, that could be good link to check myself. See if i can post it when in the future i meet a similar situation.
What was there to think about.. And what did we post that was similar to what you typed? We do not quote random stuff from science textbooks without context that gives meaning. Also i am not ill informed about big bang theory.
Saying earlier that you wanted to keep religion out of it but still wanting to include the bible sounds like you consider the bible full of 'facts'.

As for criticising the bible on inconsistantcies, absurdities and vagueness, i guess other people are way more qualified on that. Learning the bible for that reason sounds too cynical to me. (somewhere someone posted a website about that.)

Maybe we should remind ourselves of the definition of 'fact' anyway, is it not something like consensus? Among scientists there is a consensus that evolution in some form caused the different species to be like they are. So, for them, it is a fact. I think there is good reason to consider scientist a authority on the subject, because a lot of the ways we do things could not have been developed without science. For instance, computers.

I have been reading the site and it answers most of the questions published here. For anyone wondering why the Bible is NOT a scientific book in any way and for anyone doubting about Evolution (or science in general). Please, look for your question in that site, most likely you will find a reasonable response, although I'm sure it will not convince you at all.

I hoped you enjoy(ed) reading it, I certainly did! There are some great articles there that are helpful in understanding the mainstream scientific views. If you've never read Talk.Origins, start at the top of this page and work your way down.

Once again, if you don't understand evolution, you probably just haven't read enough. :-)

gee, I don't know....how about a thought, an idea, a theory? That's all you've done anyway.....and people have been quoting text... from somewhere?, probably website?, which is far more ridiculous than a self proclaimed legit text book.
I never said I wanted to keep the bible out of it. If I said religion that would be in the negative, as usual.

@bvc: Sorry, metaphor said that religion was irrelevant for the discussion between creationism and evolution earlier at #52. It is, but his belief about it is not.

Websites can be good sources of information and have a big advantage that you can link to them directly.(most books do not have that.)

It's not wise to propigate lies from websites
Yahoo! Answers - Did you know that the bible is the only book?
w/o first hand knowlege of your own! Stop googling and read it (in context and original languages)!

Put plainly, it ain't over yet!
Acts 7 is Stephen preaching in response to the pharisees and going through the entire history from Abraham to Jesus. They stoned him! Why, because of the same unbelief that lame quote above states. Until it is over it is not unfullfilled prophecy, in fact, the scripture are quite clear that God is not done with Israel, and they will reign over the earth and every nation will bow to them.
Hebrews 11 says what?
afar off? Yes. It ain't over, til it's over!



This one cracks me up. Context, context, context! Never read scripture out of context! Never!
Last days? Guess Saul makes no diff here, does he? No, he doesn't. Has Shiloh come in the physical? Do you see him and his government in the physical earthly reign? Not yet!

Also, when Samuel came to Saul, he said what you did. Why are you chosing a benjamite? The obvious answer is God's timing and misinterpretation. It wasn't the last days!



These two require far more than I am willing to go into and far more than you would be willing or able to understand based on what I say.

Israel did retain all of Cannan, did they not? I can't imagine any historian denying that. It was fulfilled. God gave them specific conditions that they needed to follow for him to fulfill His end of the deal and Israel broke many of them. This is nothing new or strange and is true to this day.

I guess you could list as many as you want but I don't want to waste my time with the blind unbelief of googled websites. If you do have a serious question or concern, I am certainly willing to help those sincerely in search of truth, if I can.

oh, and if I opened the bible right now looking for a contradiction I could find many. But a holistic contextual approach would reveal there's no contradiction at all.

Sounds all open to interpretation then too. And it requires belief to even think the book has any value at all. Hence, in my view introducing the bible can only be inspiration in the creation vs evolution debate, or anything else. In debating with those that do not believe, at least.

On the topic evolution against creationism we have the various yes/no debates about wether it can create what we see around us. I think the answers are yes to the extend that evolution is the process. I think the argument of uniformity of universe-behavior being disturbed by creationism is a huge con of creationism too. Unless the creator is an actual physical being too. Also, the question remains where the creator came from. One that many believers of god seem to avoid. One could ask the same question about the origin of the universe, and i would say i do not know, but that is not the position that people often take.

actually it isn't. The scriptures conclude -no private interpretation of God breathed words. (oh.....that means there's only one truth in scripture)
When it is correctly studied in context and language, an idiot can make perfect sense of scripture.
I know, that says a lot about those that criticize it, doesn't it?
It requires no belief at all to read in context and language. What does require just a very little belief is even picking it up and reading it in context and language.

There is no contradiction between bible and evolution. It simply doesn't exist. Intellectuals waste time arguing with someone that doesn't see any contradiction, when the debate is between the young earthers that err in their attempt to understanding the scripture through the POV of their religion, and those that have wisdom and understanding.

Any more than you do not know the origin of the universe the believer doesn't know the origin of it's creator. Neither know nor understand.
-Welcome to the perfect design of faith!
-Welcome to our universe!

seem like a contradiction? It's not. Everyone has faith in something.

Why does the physicist argue with the theologian and the theologian the physicist? What can one tell the other they don't already wish they knew?

The problem is that some theologians are trying to enter in the scientific field with a theory that is not scientific at all (Intelligent Design) and they are trying to force the biology teachers to teach it in the same ways that they teach Evolution. There is one fundamental difference, Evolution is Science, Intelligent Design is philosophy and so, it belongs to a philosophy or religion class, not a science class.

About prophecies: They have two fundamental advantages:

- They are interpretable. You write some vague words that you interpret once some event has passed, adapting the ambiguous words to the events to make it match.
- Most of times they gives no death line, so as the time passes, the possibility of them being fulfilled in some interpretation tends to 1.

personal attacks on the intelligence of critics are not really constructive,
Most people quite clearly DONT find scripture to mean the same thing as everyone, or there wouldnt be hundreds of different sects of christianity and judaism that all interpret scripture with their own emphasise and variances.

and the "it just hasnt happened yet" arguement doesnt hold water, "im going to be a multi-billionaire and king of the entire world, it just hasnt happened yet" or i could predict that "eventually russia will be taken over by the chinese" it may happen in the next 2000 years, it may not, doesnt make me psychic or a prophet

well one out of seven, not a great record for an all powerful god who can supposedly do anything on a whim.

and as for the yahoo quote about predicting israel, thats still only one out of however many countries it predicts the fate of,

i.e. the bible predicts Arabia will exist in te state it was at biblical times, well the area that as arabia back then is now 4 countries.

and as a result, the bible cannot be regarded as an accurate and valid scientific text unless you already accept it as unquestionable truth, which requires a subjective viewpoint.

Now that hairy_Palms has quoted you:

You mean that to correctly understand the Bible I have to learn Hebrew (I mean, Hebrew as it was talked 3000 years ago) and find the original first book edition? Well, pretty hard for a book full of "Facts" given that I can get any science book translated from English to Spanish and get the same understanding from it as an English person.

I just watched a show about 3-4 days ago that tried saying the Hebrew bible predicted 9/11, ya right.

So it is consistent because it says so? In most clear books have sections that can be clearly been seen seperately, and not holisticly. Also, some of the inconstentcies in the bible given in this thread can not really be explaned away with context.

How are your emperors clothes?

For all those people that dont believe in god

1 when is the last time you saw a rock get up and walk?
what is the benifit for an immortal rock to turn into a mortal creature? and die?

2. some may say that evolution is just "natural selection" and has nothing to do with the origin of life, just change since then

others would say that parts of the single cell came together(DNA, cell wall, etc.) to become alive(life)

do you seriously believe that all the astonishingly complex cell came together by chance? and if evolution doesn't explain the origins of life then what is your belief?

3. do you really believe that any man or theory made my man can remotely interpert what happened a billion years ago, let alone creation/big bang(what ever)because i am apparently blinded by this when it comes to seeing evolution

any man who makes this claim is obviously a fool
some creationist use reverse extraplolation based on the rate of decay of the sun to determine that the earth must be less than 10000 years old, or moon dust or whatever(i assume you've heard these claims on the internet)

and aethists claim that they have now way of knowing if sun decay/moondust is linear in fashion

yet scientists can accuratley predict the age of the universe, how it started, what time light came into existence for example

do you believe all science, it only as true as it is today


If physical laws/nature can produce life so easily why do we have such a hard time telling a robot to do a simple instruction?

one wrong code and the robot is useless
yet life works based on DNA and intricatly complex algorithms that function tremendously better than any computer/robot?

Do you really honestly believe that this happened by chance

"God does not play dice" Einstein

1) Assuming the universe values life at all, that is our perception. I do not want to die, but if someone shoots at me, i am pretty sure the bullets wont be dodging me. Nor will an asteroid going for the earth. Also, the universe is pretty devoid of life as far as we can see, so why would it want life.

2)Evolution is not chance, saying that the first start of life is not dodging the question. We do dodge the question by saying we do not know, though. You hopelessly and miserably dodge the question by assuming a god, a part of reasoning that jumps from no-where. Also according to your view some kind of intervention to create life is necessary, something no-one has ever seen.

3)Yes, we can actually directly see the stuff that was there multiple billions of years ago. And we have a lot of information about our universe.

Science goes with what it knows, yes the theories are not true in all cases, but we have tested them in many cases. Some of those cases include your monitor, your car, your cpu, your hard-drive.
It is foolish to perceive these things working and then think the things people of much similar learning conceive are without merit. Dont be deceived by crappy science-news science reporters very often are idiots.(a lot of discovery stuff idem)

Ye, why cant robots walk decently yet, it just took evolution a million years... /sarcasm Humans still have development cycles more then a factor thousand faster. Why dont you whine about flying cars too?

Your quote of Albert Einstein is misplaced, he believed in a deterministic world. It does allow for chances in a limited-knowledge sense. (While Quantum has intrinsic propensity chances)

do you believe that evolution started life?

if not, then what is your belief?
want to hear aethiest opinion

do you have utmost faith in science?
when it keeps changing
plum pudding for example "the atom"
why then rely on it for your determiniation to disprove God



Einstein believed in god, whatever he ment by it i dont know,

if there is no God as you believe
and you see a child in the hospital suffering after all possible treatments have been tried

would you rather end his suffering(kill) or leave him be?

assume no laws/reprecussions
which is better?

Are you that morally corrupt to leave a child in pain his whole life

I know you can't cuz laws and society
just which is better and why

Yup, as light can only travel as fast as the speed of light. In a year light travels one light year - hence the name. We can see objects BILLIONS of light years away. But seeing its so far away it took billions of years to reach us. hence we are seeing into the past. And many of the things we see from the distant past, if we could teleport right now to them, likely no longer exist. Interestingly, if the nearest star disappeared, just puff gone, (assuming that could happen - it cant), we wouldnt even know for ~4 years.

For the big bang, we can actually see the cosmic background radiation from it. And it has been mapped by several satellites.

Do you really beleive that all the components of a cell were seperate and combined to become a living cell?

What came first the chicken or the egg or DNA or protien strands or protien or what ever is smaller?

What does an aethiest believe?


What if DNA evolved in africa and a cell membrane evolved in Asia
would they meet
So i would assume that all components of a cell must have been able to meet, so they must have been close together

isn't that pretty lucky

Noone beleives evolution started life, evolution doesnt even intend to explain that, evolution merely explains the diversity of life we see today and in fossil records. Abiogenesis is the study of how life is created, and while there are many different and great theories, none are at the point we can say THAT is the one. Id dare say mainly because its impossible to conduct an experiment for it (contamination and size issues mainly). But because dont conclusively know how it happened does not mean god did it, it means we dont know yet.

Its impossible to have faith in something that works on empirical observation. There is speculation into whats unknown of course. But they still arent counted as truths until someone finds evidence.



Science changes, but generally not in the way you think, it just gets more accurate. Though yes occasionally there is a big breakthrough no longer able to be modelled by teh old theory. That doesnt mean the old theory was outright wrong, it had worked fine up until the point of change. Its just less right now. Hell older theories are often taught in schools as its easier to understand for example Newton's Theory of Gravity is able to approximate most situations just fine, though Einstein's General Relativity, is more accurate, its also harder to understand.




Einstein beleived in Spinoza's God, or a pantheistic deity, this is very unlike the Christian god, and some considered it a step towards modern atheism.

Pantheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If the child wanted to die, and there wasnt any hope for him to get better, then I beleive it would be fine to euthanase him