Just a little thing that has been bugging me for a while... I have always believed in the big bang because I am not too religious and then I heard that in some American schools, they were teaching the whole Adam and Eve thing. I wasn't too sure about this because how do you fit in the whole dinosaur and all that really early stuff? So yeah... what do you think?

Evolutionism is scientific and should be taught in schools.

Creationism is all well and good, but is not scientific, and has no place in schools unless the school is private.

Public schools teaching creationism is not church/state separation. Public schools teaching creationism=unconstitutional.

It goes like this: Everything in the Bible is true and some of it actually happened. Do I think God created everything? Hell yeah. Do I think ancient man was smart enough to comprehend exactly how? No. So God gives us some metaphors and eventually the technology and ideas to figure everything out. There you go. SImple as that. God works on technical levels and lets us figure out the specifics.

But then.. if Adam and Eve came first... what happened to them when the dinosaurs came?

I think that both Creationism and the Big Bang/Evolution theories, as they are, are a load of twaddle.

There is a happy medium.

I don't believe we evolved from primordial goo or even from apes but I do believe that we have evolved from less developed( ?) humans.

I'm not going to go into it all but that is what I believe.

Teaching creationism in schools originated because parents objected to the teaching of evolution......so, what about the evolutionist parents? My school is currently not allowed to teach either, although the occasional teacher will tell students who object to leave the room for a few moments while they teach evolution. I like these teachers.

I do believe in evolution quite strongly, but as i've stated a few times over the boards, I am a science geek.. and therefore research and read up on things a lot. To me evolution makes so much sense, and the fact that it still occurs within our life time (albeit on a more subtle level), just makes it impossible for me to not believe.. not even that but to apply it in my mind to so many situations.

I think it's quite a beutiful theory myself.. not technical and cold. I'll explain...
We as people through our own individual life time, grow both mentally and physically, we're born we live our lives, have our impact on everyone else, and then we die. Now regardless of what you believe happens to our mind after our death. We all knows what happens to our body, and we have minimal affect on the physical world from that day on.

Well if you think like I do.. then the same thing can be said for our whole race.. our race grows physically, as in traits which help us survive become more and more prominent through our species... so it's literally like.. your individual strengths are being passed on for everyone to share. The knowledge we learn in life is also passed on. (Although there's the arguement as to whether we've actually learnt anything despite the amount of knowledge we possess.. but that's another topic). All in all it's like some weird form of the keeping our body alive through others.

For me that's a rather nice image.. makes me feel more connected to other people anyhow!

Theres holes in both camps, creationists and evolution. The difference is evolution is just a working theory, but one that seems to work on many many levels.
I'm on the side of evolution, but it's still got some way to go.

Check out this site for some good arguments for and against. Warning, it will take ages to look through it all.

I disagree. Evolution is cold and technical - hence survival of the fittest. If you're too weak to survive, then you are 'deleted' by natural selection. Only the strongest can survive and to paraphrase yourself, pass a little bit of us on. Its the ultimate form of elitism really, and if that isn't cold and harsh, I don't know what is.

Well, I certainly wouldn't say that evolutionism is cold and harsh. And survival of the fittest isn't evolutionism, that is Darwinism. In this day and age can we really believe in creationism? I mean, Adam took his rib and then made Eve, she had 7 sons and that's how the world was populated. I mean you can call that a theory all you like, but you make someone out of your rib without any science. It is proven that it cannot happen, end of. It's not like the Church hasn't been wrong before guys, like that whole slavery thing they thought was so cool. Oh, not to mention all women being evil sinners just because they were women and that goddamned Eve eating the apple. Let's raise up people and not just go along what is being told to us by an organization that rules by fear and seeks control (and molests little boys for that matter and tries to cover it up, can you believe the nerve of these people...). "Help! Help! I'm being repressed!" if you know what I mean.

Um, whether it's "cold and harsh" or not is kind of irrelevent, neh? I mean, the point of education isn't to teach kids about sunshine and rainbows and flowers and kittens, but about what's true.

I agree completely, I really don't care about the warm fuzzies when I'm learning about stuff, I was just responding.

I'm interested to know why people in the United States are so often highly opposed to the introduction of education about religion into State schools. In the UK children are (in theory) taught about a variety of religions and their beliefs, which (again, in theory) gives them a better understanding of all peoples. All the religions are given equal treatment (well, in the way that they are presented; Christianity tends to get a lot more airing-time than any other) and none are presented as being superior to any others. Non-theistic beliefs are taught as well. There's still a lot lacking (the syllabus is limited until GCSE, by which time the subject is entirely optional, so a lot of students don't get a full enough education), but I think the general idea is sound. Would that not work in America?

Just a little note to this question, I've heard vague theories on this one from Christian clergy-men/women who accept both the Bible's version of events AND scientific views. Basically the theory goes that the age of dinosaurs was part of another, earlier age of creation but things didn't work out for the perfect world God had imagined and so he orchestrated the end of the dinosaurs and allowed to (at the time) less important mammalian life-forms take over and evolve into the person-centred world we have today. As far as I can make out these Christian groups believe that the Bibe begins at the point where humanity had reached a certain point of sophistication whereby God could make Himself known and be more or less understood through the accepted metaphor stylee writings in the Bible.

Sorry I can't remember where I've seen these theories written down but both my grandparents minister and my highschool RE teacher have referred me to articles someplace so I'll go have a trawl about and see if I can find the one I'm thinking of.

If that's what they're saying then thats highly 'convenient' for them.

How "convenient" an answer is is utterly irrelevent to its truth.

I would say I believe in a happy medium between the two. 'Natural Selection' is perfectly logical, species change a little over time thanks to creatures with minor differences having an advantage and living longer, breeding more etc. Genetics gives plenty of evidence for this and it can be seen in the wild.

Evolution on the other hand makes little sense, the difference between species are too huge for one species to slowly turn into another by natural selection, since mutation rates are low and the chance of a useful change in one step is miniscule.
A creature with a half formed eye has little advantage.
Semi-developed fins? Useless again.

The only way these changes work effectively is minor tweaks or the removal of features that were once useful but now slow us down (human tailbones but lack of a tail for instance, where the tail gradually shortened by natural selection as our changing way of life turned it from a useful balancing tool into something that gets in the way of movement).

How can you say evolution makes no sense? Does the Adam and Eve thing make sense to you? Did you know that as humans have been documenting things we have been changing? Most people are born with an appendice for instance. Thousands of years ago we needed this organ to help digest raw/undercooked meat. Today, more and more people are being born without appendices or appendices that are smaller and such. That isn't natural selection, it's evolution. We have also found skeletons of early giraffes, they had short necks. The ones with longer necks were able to eat more vegetation on trees or the ground and thus were able to survive better, so giraffes have long necks. That is pure evolution. Evolution is basically just genetic logic and common sense. The species that don't evolve will die off. Very rarely does genetic mutation cause the change of a species because these are often negative things like you say, but there are positive genetic changes that could happen too. What about the eyes getting bigger of an animal or the animal has more rods and cones (the things that make you see) in the eyes? That would make that animal better at hunting or watching out for predetors or any number of things. That makes this one animal live longer, so then that animal can have more children that might also have the same genetic trait and thus on and on so that eventually ALL the animals in that species have it because it helps them to survive better and longer.

sooo... survival of the fittest species?

Umm... yeah. That's why humans are still around, because we evolved and make tools. We are pretty weak in comparison to anything else.


EDIT: Actually, on second thought. No, not survival of the fittest as was put, but survival of the fittest QUALITY, not species. Survival of everyone, but different rankings. Hmm... I still need to think more on this.

Evolution is the theory that over the generations individual species evolve from one form into another. There is no issue of survival of the fittest, just evolution. There is no issue of strength or weakness, instead it is down to random genetic changes that work in whatever environment the organism finds itself. If it was about the strongest evolving then there wouldn't be any of the things we evolved from - ie all the single celled organisms, amoeba, fish, monkeys etc... but they are there, so that's all right. True some species have died out whereas others live on, but that isn't evolutionary change, that's just the environment being unkind to some species and not others.

As to the concept - genetic change can be very fast, though almost always unpredictable. Even in it's slower form - we as humans have had several million years to develop from apes (pleanty of time to lose the all over body fur, enlarge our brains and start walkin on two legs), and a few million more from reptiles before that etc... Evolution is usually a slow matter, but that shouldn't preclude the facts as defined within the fossil record and the human genome that quite clearly establish our heritage.

In my opinion - as a Catholic, I feel that the bible is there as a guide and not an absolute truth. The important bits deal with how we should lead our lives (being essentially good people), the whole issue of Genesis is not important, and should be read in the context it was written in. The people of the time were given a neat little story that helped them understtand who and what they are, and where they came from. Great from them, not important - Leviticus was more important, and ultimately just a guide.

The theory of evolution is a good one, which works well with the scientific data that is available. I'm sure that given time and better research our understanding of where we came from will be better explained, but until then - I'm happy with the Big Bang theory.

"Fittest" in this case doesn't mean "strongest", it means "most appropriate to its surroundings".

As I said earlier:

True some species have died out whereas others live on, but that isn't evolutionary change, that's just the environment being unkind to some species and not others.

Evolution isn't dependent on the altered product being appropriate to its surroundings. This is an issue that is utilised to explain why some speicies have died out, whereas others live on. Evolution is just about change - it is random and genetic, and has nothing to do with older variations surviving or dieing out. The issue of survival is how we come to terms with species that don't survive the environment, not the evolutionary process - unless each and every lifeform of the specie exhibits the same evolutionary change at the same time - which is possible though statistically too remote a chance to ever occur in nature.

Sure, some species evolve mutations that are ultimately harmful and evenutally kill off that specie - though this is extremely rare...

White winged moths and brown winged moths:

Before the industrial revolution there were high numbers of mottled white winged moths in forrests near Manchester. The forrests were predominantly of silver birch which has a mottled white bark. Then came the industrial revolution and the coal burning that fuelled it. Thanks to smog polution the trees went black due to soot deposits. The mottle white winged moths were disadvantaged due to their natural camoflage being rendered useless and were erradicated in that area by their bird predators - except for a few moths that had developed dark brown wings that could hide on the soot covered trees.

These moths did not force the change. It was a simple matter of pure luck. It had happened many times in the past - but these brown winged moths had been unable to hide in the silver birch forrests and were locally eaten into extinction. When (due to human interference) the trees became black they thrived whilst the white wings died out (again this was only a local phenomina). So the brown wings continued (with the occasional white wing mutation poping up and then getting eaten off), until the massive industries switched to clean burning high quality coal, and the trees became white again... then it was a reversal of this tale, and the white winged moths are now the dominant specie in the silver birch forrests.

Care to read my post again? This time maybe pay attention to the 'or's and don't make so many assumptions.

I stated that I felt evolution (by the definition by which I understand it - one species undergoes major changes and becomes a new species, reproductively isolated from the ancestor species) was illogical. At no point did I say Adam and Eve made sense.

I never said that _only_ removal of features occured, I said it was mainly subtle changes, height, larger eyes etc. _OR_ removal of features. Giraffes growing longer necks (as you said in your post) makes sense, a few tweaks and suddenly the creature is able to reach more leaves and has a competitive advantage. On the otherhand changes such as bacteria suddenly becoming multicellular, blind creatures growing eyes, creatures growing wings are far less likely. The chances of a fully functional eye or wing appearing in one step are miniscule, and even then the creature with the mutation must find a mate with similar mutations or the changes are likely to be lost again due to genetics.

I'm sorry if I've confused people with my definitions, in my understanding natural selection refers to the subtle small changes that have been proven to occur and are clearly obvious in the world whereas evolution refers to the major changes and to species turning into others by natural selection.
By your definition evolution seems to cover both of these, and you even reiterated some of the statements in my post in your own, even while arguing against my point.

[edit]


Once again natural selection, we didn't evolve to make tools, the humans with larger brains were merely favoured due to their increased intelligence - including the ability to use tools and the ability to pass knowledge on to our young via language and cave art.

This is a big part of why humans are dominant today and are so advanced in terms of civilisation, once communication comes along the species can pass knowledge down and the offspring no longer have to start from scratch but can build upon the acheivements of their ancestors.
[/edit]

[more editing]
gnah! Should probably highlight my point better, the point being that evolution is not a bad theory but has been extrapolated too far by scientists. It makes sense in the case of minor changes but when it is used to explain that all species evolved from one initial species it falls over in many places.
Therefore I believe that there were many species to begin with, some have died out, many have changed over time due to changes in climate and environment and some have changed enough or been geographically seperated and changed to become different subspecies but few have turned into completely new and different species.
[/editing]

Actually, there is a lot of that here. In our History class, as we have come upon a civilization, we have learned a good chunk about their religion - and spent as much time, maybe a little more, on Christianity.

That could just be my experience, though - I am in agreement of education of other religions and more emphasis on other religions in the curriculum. UK children are probably taught more extensively about other religions than those in the U.S.

moop, to clear up confusion: microevolution is minor changes within a species (proven); macroevolution is major changes sufficient to (over time) differentiate a new species (unproven).

hm. I'm sure there's some other Christians that would disagree, but not everyone even wants religion taught in schools. I would be happy if teachers showcased evolution as a theory instead of gospel and respected other viewpoints. Some do, but a lot of my personal issue comes from people getting either nasty or disrespectful that I believe in the Bible and creation as the Bible says. Ie, the people that make nasty remarks, want to obliterate any mention of Creationism or other beliefs, ect. A lot of the response, I think, comes from hearing stories of hostility on either side. Ie extremists being extremists. I would just like it mentioned or known that other viewpoints exist. I don't need my religion taught.

However, although it hasn't been observed, logically and because of fossil evidence, we can conclude that one inevitably leads to another. The accumulation of microevolutionary changes over time eventually separates one group of animals from another one (to the point at which they can no longer successfully mate), and if that group of animals has an advantage over the first, then they will continue to diversify. Given that life has existed for 3 billion years, its no big surprise that the diversity of species exists today.

If I were to believe in magic, I would believe in creationism. As far as I can see, it relies on the acceptance of God's omnipotence, which, as far as I'm concerned, is indistinguishable from good old 'magic'. God waved His Hand, and Lo, there were people, and snakes, and marbles, and Guatamala. Hmm.

Evolution on the other hand, has a butt load of (admittedly circumstantial) evidence to back up it's claims.

Now if some bright theologian somewhere came up with the simple idea that God created evolution, then wouldn't everyone be happy?

I do believe in evolution. Just not that I descended from Apes or that it made the world with it. I definitely believe in exists in species and things.

Nope. They wouldn't. That's what I believe, personally, but when I've tried to explain my beliefs in numerous religious debates with "peers" I've usually gotten back "but you can't believe in both, it's impossible". Idiots.

That's pretty much what the Catholic church says these days, actually. It's usually called something like theistic evolution.

I wasn't aware of that. Is that anything similar to the 'scientific creationism' of Intelligent Design?

Spooky. I was just about to make a post of a quote from Gibson about this and the topic was already at the top... Anyway:



That's a view that I'd not heard of or thought about before. William Gibson was born in the southern states of the US. He later moved to Canada and has remained there pretty much ever since.

Thats.. quite scary when I go back and reread. I didn't realize the rural South was so amazingly alien and that could be anyone's issue with it all. o_O Meep.

I'm not religeous, but I'm pretty sure that man came last in the whole... God created everything thing...

Maybe Adam and Lilith were made before the dinosaurs. Lilith would run around in a furry bikini and every day a tricerotops would fight a purple t-rex near the cave. Of course, Lilith was eaten, so God had to make Eve and killed all the dinosaurs while he was at it.

Anyway...

Gibson was writing about the south 40 years ago, I really don't know if things have changed much. It's probable that people have learnt attitudes from their parents, so I'm guessing that that idea might still survive, although it's equally likely that over the past few decades the blame for disliking Darwin has moved onto the more politically correct reasons from Genesis.

I do find this debate interesting though. Sometimes when I get into discussions with Christians I raise points to them about common social habits that break the rules of the Bible (such as sharing a bed with a woman while she is having her period) to which I am told that that is from the old testament which is not as important as the new testament, and that some things do have to be updated to move with the times. Things then get very sticky when topics about creationism, or the strongest condemnation of homosexuality occur. After all, those are old testament...

What is it that makes one part of the Bible suitable for updating with modern standards and not another? It appears to an outsider such as myself that this is done in an arbitrary fashion to suit the prejudices of believers.

I really do find the debate between the views very interesting, but I still have trouble accepting the Bible's creation myth as anything other than a nice story.

Maybe we need to come at this from another direction. Instead of us Darwinists saying why people should believe in evolution, how about creationists give us the arguments that have convinced them of their beliefs?

Again, I think I should emphasise here that I am genuinely interested, and that my tone when writing this is not intended to sound dismissive of religous views. It's a subject that I am very curious about, especially where I see people are overcoming what appear to me to be be paradoxes.

I do not believe in evolution - I agree with the theory. Belief requires faith, which doesn't require evidence. I have read too much evidence in favor of evolution to dismiss it, and I've read absolutly no evidence in favor of creationism. I've seen arguments against evolution, but just because theory A might be wrong doesn't mean that theory B must be right.

Something to remember, Mata, is that the laws were given to the Jews. Jesus reinforced some of them, but never asked gentiles (ie not jewish) to become Jews. So me following the Jewish laws given in part to define Jewish people as Jewish and guide their culture, makes little sense. Also, it was made very clear that Jesus didn't want people following the law (ie old way) as the way to get to Heaven. That was especially preached to Jews, as some of had been taught all their lives that they needed the now replaced convenant to be saved by the sacrifices, circumsion and such. Some of the laws were reinforced, but in the Biblical view they were summed up as loving God and then doing to your neighbor as you would have them do unto you. Those were what the laws were meant to enforce, at their heart, though God gave them a moral code as well. And I'm going to stop, because I enjoy the topic and could get going. >.> Debate is fun.

I'm all for creationists giving evidence to things. There is at times, a definite prejudice against people that believe in things based on religion, when it comes to scientists/the scientific community. Obviously, this doesn't apply to everyone, but I've seen enough to make me suspect that fairly debating the evidence might take cutting through some through some bias.

The other thing, is I'm not sure creationism can be fully proven, at least in the age sense. If, for the purpose of debate, we say God created the world fully formed at the end of the 'week', how would we ever be sure of an age? The earth had mountains in the time of Noah, was made with them, I think. Could have been anyway. So things we use as signs of age, such as the layers of rock, fossil deposits and such, could be inaccurate as proofs of age. I forget the date carbon dating stops at, but I know its before the time earth was estimated to have started at. Anyway, just something I've wondered about.

Carbon dating only applies to living creatures, so wouldn't be of any use with mountains, for those we use geological evidence.

I freely admit that I have a bias towards evolution over creationism, but equally I am happy to admit that I agree with the sentiments expressed by Jesus. I get into real problems when it comes down to specifics of interpretation of the Bible. Given that the words of Christ have been corrupted by vested interests over a two thousand year game of 'chinese whispers', I find it hard to believe that many of the extra rules that seem to conveniently reinforce Church power and domination were actually part of the orginal teachings.

To put it another way, I sincerely believe that Jesus lived, taught, and then was put on the cross. His resurrection the jury is out on for me, personally I'm not sure he died up there, but that's a whole other issue.

Anyway, so Jesus lived, and his teachings I believe do point the way towards living a spiritual life that is closer to the divine. He may even have been perfect. I don't think he was, because what would be the point of being incarnate if you're going to be perfect; living as a human at that time would be associated with a lot of suffering and disease, being perfect doesn't really let him get the human experience does it?

I'm digressing again... So, we have Jesus, a spiritual man who is clearly enlightened (probably from studying in India, but that is yet another issue!), and so he had a true desire to raise the spiritual level of humanity. Great. He had pure motives.

Unfortunately, not everyone who has reached power has had such divine principles, and the text of the Bible has been altered massively over time. This is why I say that I agree with the sentiment of Jesus, but I have difficulty with the specfics. Given that the gospels can't agree whether the sermon on the mount actually happened on a mount or a plain, I have trouble believing that it is accurate on more difficult things to remember, such as specific attitudes or phrases.

The gospel of St Thomas (one of the gnostic texts, and thought to have been written only thirty years after the death of Christ) quotes Jesus as saying that he is everywhere and therefore you don't need a church in which to worship him. Not very surprisingly, that one didn't find its way into the modern versions of the Bible.

I do find it interesting that God would have created a world that has a precise and consistent geological record, suggesting that in fact it was really a cooling blob of mass that had the right mix of chemicals, gravity, and distance from a star, that could easily suggest to many people that there was enough evidence to support a scientific theory of creation. I know that God is supposed to test people's faith, but surely giving them masses of evidence suggesting one circumstance and none for the other is pushing most people's faith too far?

I agree, God could have done all these things, being all-powerful gives you a lot of scope for complexity, but it is equally likely that it happened in the way that geologists believe. It's a choice, and I recognise that. I choose to believe that a god exists, but also that that god watched as we evolved. If I wanted to, I could believe that god created the big bang. The jury is out on that one, but I suspect that there is a scientific reason for that happening too. I see no problem with there being a god and science being right. God for me is in the fabric of the universe, it is energy that cannot be created or destroyed, it is the very thing that makes evolution true, because god is a miraculous thing that plays a part in everything in the universe and spurs the desire of life to survive and develop.

I think more than anything else, god is extremely elegant. E=MCsquared, DNA, the hydrogen atom... All are incredible in their simplicity and their hidden complexity. I believe that the very elegance of Darwin's proposed 'survival of the fittest', the simplicity of its application, and the vast reaching implications if it is correct is all evidence that it is excessively probable to be true _and_ part of god's will.

Many will wonder why I see god in these things, given that to most people they are evidence that there is no god... And there we come to philosophy. I don't believe that god has a will that I can comprehend, if I could understand it then how is it God's will? Even the tiniest decision made by such a being would have such universal implications that I could not begin to divine meaning from it (pun intended). So, I have a faith in a paradox, I could never understand the complexity of god so I can never prove that god exists, but my lack of ability to comprehend god is evidence in itself.

Or, to put it in terms closer to that of Taoism, we don't stand a chance of working out what god is doing, so why bother? Let's just be nice to each-other instead and marvel in the world around us.

Saying that god could have made it true is not a logical argument even if it is true. I do believe in god, but to ignore evidence and say that it is more important to believe in the bible than to examine facts is not a good way to live life. The truth is that the bible does contain factual discrepancies, especially when one examines all the different translations, and thus cannot be used entirely as a factual source. Assuming there is a god (which I am), would he not want us to study the marvel that is his creation, the universe, and understand it's beautiful logic, especially at the quantum level, where physics allows for randomness, and even embraces it? I find the numinous in science.

That some people have abused it, I've no doubt. People abuse -everything-. Food, money, power, books, freedom and more. That some people have abused Biblical teachings is to be expected.

Not sure why perfection would inhibit suffering. Jesus, whatever you personally believe of him, lived in the era without anesthesia. Any broken bones or just the usual aches and pains was without the basic medications accessible to most of us today. Good people suffer horribly all the time, as do children and babies. If a person was perfect and above all that, I would guess the same thing applies to them. Having loved ones die, having people be cruel to them or hurt them physically, all of which is mentioned for Jesus. Jesus, teaching countrary to the Jewish clerics of that time also risked stoning at the least, well before the crucifiction. Also not sure where/how a Jewish carpenter found the money and permission to travel to India, study and come back, but I might be missing something from the theory?

Before I posted, I did some research. I was guessing I might need to go to liberal sites, but was pleasantly surprised to find religious ones mentioning the discrepencies freely. Much info is mentioned, but too much to list for this post, so I'm quoting the part relevant to my opinion. "This must be understood before examining the different versions. Of all ancient documents, the Bible has been preserved best. No other ancient document can boast of such textual certainty, especially considering the vast amount of copies we possess. For with the greater amount of copying, there always arises more room for error, but the Bible has proven to be, for the most part, textually certain."

That is enough for me. It won't be for some people or they'll disagree. Essentially, it comes down to faith. Whether that in the Bible, any religion or moral belief based on philosophy is enough for you. Any ancient belief or philosophy based on texts/teachings would carry the same risks or more. The Bible itself says it comes down to faith, not the mistakes man will make. Which is why I haven't called for religion to be taught in science class, suggested the Bible be used as a scientific argument against evolution (it isn't a science book) and 3) I use it to guide my beliefs, not try to control yours. Whether its the Bible or the theory of evolution, there will be holes. Its what holes or exceptions you personally are willing to accept and feel are valid.

As for evidence of creation, I'm not sure why evidence of interspecies evolution would necessarily rule out Creationism or other theories. The theory of species to species hasn't been proven to rule it out, either. As for the Bible, it doesn't give dates and times to compare to our estimate on the world or tell us in scientific detail what the earth was like when first made to compare to our guesses. There is evidence that suggests some events in the Bible have happened like it, enough to be debated or studied, though people obviously disagree on how far that extends. I found geology fascinating and not something that proved my faith was false to me, but thats just my experience. Like you said, everyone chooses what to believe.

Dave- I don't think that believing in the Bible and ignorance necessarily go together. Nor does beliving God created the universe mean you're ignoring all science. I agree about education for anyone of whatever belief and that it doesn't dishonor God.

And one more link, because its interesting and relevant:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/a...cepalaeontology

There is a lot of very interesting evidence to suggest that Jesus and his family travelled to India after his birth to escape from persecution by Herod.

Like most 2000 year old history, it's just a theory, but it certainly does have some very intriguing factual points. A summary of it can be found here:

http://www.sol.com.au/kor/7_01.htm

Such a theory doesn't make him any less divine, but it certainly does cast an interesting light on his teachings! There is a fantastic book by Rev. Mabrey called 'God as nature sees God' which compares Taoism to the teachings of Christ and finds massive correlations, and is written from a Christian perspective.

I've got to go out, so I haven't got long to type this, but I have to say that I do disagree with your conclusions about the accuracy of our current Bible when compared to texts from over 1500 years ago.

The missing books of the Bible, the Apocrypha, give very different versions of the teachings of Christ and have been removed at times during history due to their disagreement with the powers of the established church. They make for some interesting reading. I suggest starting with Thomas:

http://www.comparative-religion.com/christianity/apocrypha/

In particular, the figure of Emperor Constantine stands out as having instituted a great deal of changes to the Bible and what were considered to be the 'true' texts:


(from http://www.bibleufo.com/anomlostbooks.htm )

As you say yourself, power corrupts people, and if absolute power corrupts absolutely then the power of God has had a grave affect on the Bible.

As I said before, I see no reason that the number of changes should remove people's faith in the divinity of Christ, but I do see that it gives reason to doubt that the teachings of the church are always accurate to the will of Jesus.

Thanks for the link about the fossil bird! It doesn't counter anything to do with evolution, it just means that it may have happened at a different pace from that which we believed.

I think that the Bible's version of creation is interesting. If a day for God could last billions of years then there the majority of the text is approximately correct. While I think that sentience is divine, I also think that we evolved to get it.

You're welcome. I didn't think that one link alone would have you converting and saying 'wow, you are so right! ' If anything, I consider it evidence that we have a lot more to learn about our world and how it was made.

hm, interesting about the similarity of names. I don't see how it would work, unless you completely deny the Bible as an account of his life altogether though. Jesus' family flight from Herod according to the Bible was as a very young child. The wiseman's trip from the East took two years? or more. A long time, making him a toddler, if I remember correctly. The trip to India would have taken money and 2? (or whatever)years. He would have been a young boy on arrival 4 to.. I don't know, six years old?, had to study as a child and then come back. Even in Biblical accounts, Jesus didn't go to the the temple until he was 12 (need to recheck age) or so. Then he'd have had to his message formed in India well before his teenage years. Putting a four trip to India in that timeframe and having him had to miracles doesn't work if you consider the Bible to have accurate information about his life before the crucifiction.

Personally, I don't believe in the gnostic scriptures, but thats a content issue, not to do wtih the age. I'm not sure people will ever agree whether its accurate, really.

http://www.equip.org/free/DG040-2.htm

That suggests that whatever the ultimate decision of accuracy is, that the gnostic gospels fall prey to some or more of the concerns that lead people to doubt the Bible's veracity. Based on that, I'd have to go by what the Bible says about such other scriptures. And yes, thats in part a faith based decision. On sort of the same topic (removing the Bible) I think its one of those things. I've read a bunch of opposite (and sometimes for) things, we weren't there to confirm or deny. I've done and will do more study, I suspect people find what they're looking for. If want it as truth such as unusual accuracy/connection, there's some legit arguments that way. If you want to believe there's more options, there's people that believed differently, there's evidence that humans have made mistakes in translating. You could find evidence of viable collection of books here, old scrolls from something else there. Ect.

I agree that I don't think the Church always follows the teachings of Jesus accurately, if for different reasons.

Jesus's life has no bearing on creation vs. evolution - these are both theories of how the diversity of life came about, and both can be studied, and accepted. Does anybody know of any evidence in favor of creationism? I haven't looked much, simply because evolution is more logical in my mind.

Wasn't using it as an scientific argument of such. 'Twas a side debate Mata and I were having about the Bible and how its interpreted.

And I'll do some research later and post what I find. I want to see what there is for myself as well.

Figured as much, maybe we should start a new topic - interpretations of the biblical account of Jesus's life?

Hey there, sounds like a good new topic, fancy starting it yourself? (Welcome to my forums!)

What about atomic theory, do they have to teach that only as a "theory"? Or gravitational theory, or the theory of orbiting planets, or any of the more recent physics, is Relativity just a theory, or QM? Science uses the word theory only because it is understood that they will be refined with furthur experiments. There are actually very few "laws" that exist, the most notable being the "laws" of thermodynamics, which Quantum Theory debunks, or the "law" of gravity, which Relativity denies.

pgrmdave makes a good point - why should evolution be the only one that is identified as 'only a theory'. The nature of science and scientific theory needs to be explained, with reference to all areas of science.

Having said that, I think that, where relevant, this is already the case. Certainly at GCSE level in the UK, the scientific method is taught in a very basic form.