That is an interesting question. There are some refrences to the people in the land of Nod who will kill him for killing Abel. Maybe Cain married one of them?
That then raises the question of did God make more people than Adam and Eve?
But here is an interesting point: Why would he fear people for taking revenge on someone who killed a person who they potentially had no knowledge of, and had no relation to?
Well then for him to fear their revenge, they must have had some relation to Abel.
And, Cain got a wife from among one of his sisters. Genesis later says that Adam had sons and daughters before he died.
Wait lemme quote:
Genesis 5:4 "Then the days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years, and he had other sons and daughters."
Josephus says the number of children, according to the old tradition, was thirty three sons and twenty three daughters.
So, I hope that answers you question on Cains wife.
Well, the burden of proof always lies with one who alleges error.
What's in question is whether the things described in the NT actually happened
Read my reply to the post by Gr8apes elsewhere on this thread, no wait, this is too much fun, lemme get it for ya.
I bet you are referring to at least some of the following:
1 Supposed irregularities between the Gospels. One leppar here, two over there etc...
2 Then, did Jesus really exist?
3 The supposed gospel of Judas Iskariot.
4 Was many of the characters mentioned in the Gospels really there, for instance Herod, John the baptist, Jesus, Annanias, and James the brother of Jesus.
5 The eclipse of the sun at the Crucifiction.
Now, this could turn into a lenghty post dont you think? So let me just shortly show you some things:
1 Irregularities in the Gospels: There are no irregularities in the Gospels that have been proven. Many accounts from different viewpoints etc, but nothing in one Gospel that makes something in another Gospel impossible.
2 Jesus actually did exist. There are several writings outside the Gospels that mentioned him, often by name!
3 Ah, the Gospel of Judas. It has been proven to be written about ad 180(? it will check that date if you want.) but has been credited to a religious sect that tried to discredit Jesus teachings and glorify Bible villains. The Cainites methinks.
4 Many writers of that time mentioned many New Testament Biblical characters,
for instance:
Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?, a Jewish historian) mentions John the Baptist and Herod - Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 5, par. 2
Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions Jesus - Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 3, par. 3.
Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions James, the brother of Jesus - Antiquities, Book 20, ch. 19.
Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions Ananias the High Priest who was mentioned in Acts 23:2
Tacitus (A.D. c.55-A.D. c.117, Roman historian) mentions "christus" who is Jesus - Annals
(I got that from www.carm.org if you where wondering, theres no way I am as educated as you guys to remember stuff like that off the top of my head.)
5 The eclipse, yep a biggie lol: Thallus Circa AD 52, eclipse of the sun. Thallus wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean world from the Trojan War to his own time. His writings are only found as citations by others. Julius Africanus who wrote about AD 221 mentioned Thallus' account of an eclipse of the sun
BURN IN HELL HETHEN SCU... eep. sorry, us relegious freaks are extremely sensitive. Lol, no seriously I am only joking...
no, really.
from what I remember on Isiah 7:14, the hebrew word used there doesn't mean virgin. It simply means a young woman.
I looked that up, quite interesting, I could give you a long version, (three pages) or a short version, Ill give you a short version for now. If you want the long one lemme know, I'll post it gladly if you want to do the reading...
Heres the verse with strongs numbers for you to look up:
Isa 7:14 Therefore3651 the Lord136 himself1931 shall give5414 you a sign;226 Behold,2009 a virgin5959 shall conceive,2029 and bear3205 a son,1121 and shall call7121 his name8034 Immanuel.6005
And the verse without: (easier to read methinks)
Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
And the strongs reference to "virgin":
H5959
almah al-maw' Feminine of H5958; a lass (as veiled or private): - damsel, maid, virgin.
Lol, stoning my neighbour, not necesary, I saw them offering a cow at the tent of atonement sometime last week...
But seriously now, believing the Bible as literaly true means I belive Jesus died for my sins and that I am no longer under the law given by God through Moses.
I believe the Bible is historically true, correct and ESPECIALLY the new testament! So lets start...
I bet you are referring to at least some of the following:
1 Supposed irregularities between the Gospels. One leppar here, two over there etc...
2 Then, did Jesus really exist?
3 The supposed gospel of Judas Iskariot.
4 Was many of the characters mentioned in the Gospels really there, for instance Herod, John the baptist, Jesus, Annanias, and James the brother of Jesus.
5 The eclipse of the sun at the Crucifiction.
Now, this could turn into a lenghty post dont you think? So let me just shortly show you some things:
1 Irregularities in the Gospels: There are no irregularities in the Gospels that have been proven. Many accounts from different viewpoints etc, but nothing in one Gospel that makes something in another that makes that event impossible.
2 Jesus actually did exist. There are several writings outside the Gospels that mentioned him, often by name!
3 Ah, the Gospel of Judas. It has been proven to be written about ad 180(? it will check that date if you want.) but has been credited to a religious sect that tried to discredit Jesus teachings and glorify Bible villains. The Cainites methinks.
4 Many writers of that time mentioned many New Testament Biblical characters,
for instance:
Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?, a Jewish historian) mentions John the Baptist and Herod - Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 5, par. 2
Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions Jesus - Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 3, par. 3.
Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions James, the brother of Jesus - Antiquities, Book 20, ch. 19.
Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions Ananias the High Priest who was mentioned in Acts 23:2
Tacitus (A.D. c.55-A.D. c.117, Roman historian) mentions "christus" who is Jesus - Annals
(I got that from www.carm.org if you where wondering, theres no way I am as educated as you guys to remember stuff like that off the top of my head.)
5 The eclipse, yep a biggie lol: Thallus Circa AD 52, eclipse of the sun. Thallus wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean world from the Trojan War to his own time. His writings are only found as citations by others. Julius Africanus who wrote about AD 221 mentioned Thallus' account of an eclipse of the sun
I know you can probably mention many more supposed irregularities in the Bible, and ignore the things I have, but the Bible has a verse just for you okes:
2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
You can read the rest if you please.
Have fun!
If I have angered you, so sorry though, I enjoy debate like this too much sumtimes.
There is not a single prophecy in the bible that can be convincingly demonstrated to be both written before the event and interpreted unambiguously.
Come on, you actually believe that?
Look. Have you ever read the Bible? Wait I bet you have. You are educated and smart and look down on anyone who would try and believe the Bible. Let me ask you then to prove that none of the Bible can be convincingly demonstrated to to be written before the event.
Even the Old testament only!
There are many prophecies in the Old Testament regarding Jesus, His coming, His crucifixion etc. Are you willing to concede that the Old Testament was written before the New Testament? If so, then your quoted statement is incorrect!
But please, my challenge stands.
Oh, and if you wonder what prophecies: Here are some:
1: He would be born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:23) 2: He would live in Nazareth of Galilee (Isaiah 9:1-2; Matthew 2:22-23, 4:15) 3: He would occasion the massacre of Bethlehems children (Jeremiah 31:15; Matthew 2:16-18) 4: His mission would unexpectedly include the Gentiles (Isiah 42:1-3,6; Matthew 12:18-21), and he would unexpectedly be rejected by the Jews, His own people (Psalm 118:22; 1 Peter 2:7)
Ah, now you believe that something you cannot explain proves the Bible wrong and you right.
Well then, if the Bible is not historically accurate, as some of you educated folks believe, consider the following:
Historian Dr. John Montgomery wrote, and I quote: "Modern archeological research has confirmed again and again the reliability of New Testament geography, chronology, and general history"
Then, in the Old Testament we not only find (*gasp* he isnt...) prophecy that is also Historically accurate!
In Isaiah a king of the Persians, namely Cyrus, is prophesied to allow the Jews to return to their homeland after the Babylonian captivity (you can read the whole Isaiah 44:24 -45:26 if you want to) but I quote the following:
Isa 44:28 He says to Cyrus, "My shepherd-- everything I want, you'll do it." He says to Jerusalem, "Be built," and to the Temple, "Be established."
Now Cyrus and his actions is documented by the Persians, independant of the Bible, and the Bible later confirms that this happened.
So dont be so quick to dismiss the Bible as a combination of fairy tailes.
The discovery of the snake is very interesting though.
First it is belived that snakes evolved in water, then land, then water, then land...
Hmm, maybe we believe what we want to believe from science to easy though eh?
It's my wife and myselfs third anneversary, so been pretty hectic, also been working on my blog.
Very sorry for taking so long!
Anyhow...
I agree that evolution is not proof that God doesnt exist, in fack I find it exiting to think God might still be involved in the process!
As to the Bible not being historical... I am afraid I'll have to respectfully disagree. I believe that the Bible is one of the most Historically accurate texts available today, but here and now is not the place to discuss or argue a point that really would need a whole forum of its own...
What I am interested in are the comments you made regarding science, hey I am no scientist, but I am excited by the following comments:
Science has no opinion on God.
I find that view refreshing. Everytime something vaguely evolution connected gets discussed on/., everyone jumps on the anti Creator(and for lack of any other creators lets assume God then) wagon. If scientists just realise what you say, that science does not have an opinion on God, science will be far more objectively studied! I think that many scientists try and disprove that God exists, and then mace false assumtions, hypothesis or interpretations. Please note that I am not alluring to what those false or wrong assumptions may be for the sake of this argument.
If science is studied from the background of no opinions to be proven, thus no biased position on the evidence given before such evidence is studied, science will be even more fresh and relevant to the world we live in today dont you think?
I think that theist, atheist, creationist, anti creationist or whatever should by this time be so sure of their particular position that they HAVE to have the confidence to view the evidence objectively, unafraid of what a particular discovery might prove or disprove.
I believe: Interpret the evidence, not the bias.
Like you say, someone should not pervert science to support his or her own views.
Proof is not necesseraly the enemy of faith, but lack of faith often prevents people from perservering on a particular challenge, and there is a conundrum.
Faith is often seen as the sole domain of the religious, I am talking about faith in the sense of what views you ascribe to, not faith in ones ability.
But faith in your beliefs, whether scientific or religious, often stops you from studying a particular subject objectively, yet to decide to NOT try and prove your viewpoint is correct makes one hesitate and think "Hey, will I accept it if the facts prove I believed in a lie?"
I think pure scientists of the highest credibility believe scientific proof regardless, but there are those for whom unquestionable proof either way is just to scary to not try and interpret the facts to suit their beliefs.
I agree, science tells us how God designed this world, I am a fan of ID but understand that's not a point I am trying to make here, but the constant scrumming of the online and scientific community to try and prove or disprove and ideology is making science a scary place for the layman.
Everyone should be encouraged to take part in the wonder that is science regardless of their background!
Now finally, allow me to note something a little tongue in cheek;)
You said that proof is the enemy of faith, but I disagree. Jesus said: "Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."
And from the Hebrews: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." I think Paul wrote that one.
What does the scientifice community hope for eh? Lol.
The issue is not the proof, but if you have the courage to believe what has not yet been proven...
But I digress...
I find it refreshing to discuss these matters with you who I know is objective and thanks for helping me understand certain things that were unclear to me.
True.
Maybe all we are doing is fishing for responses to create an opening where you can slip in and HAMMER YOUR POINT HOME and everyone else into submission.
I find these discussions very interesting. I am an avid aquarist and read the news story even before slashdot had it.
I enjoy reading about science stuff, but I am astonished that every new discovery about evolution and adaptation or new species degrades into God bashing.
Half the comments on this story are anti deistic, and anti creation and no one has anything much to say about a very interesting fish!
As for the catfish getting drawn into this, I dont know either, he was just eating lunch for crying out loud!
And this disproves ID how? And proves MACRO evolution how? It is sure interesting if you look at it from the viewpoint of MICRO evolution, which has been proven.
And the only grasp you have of religion is from watching simpsons?
Okay then, but arent everyone referring to micro evolution/adaptation? Or am I missing something. Can you use the proof that micro evolution exists and induce that macro evolution exists?
Isn't wat the article refers to micro evolution? I mean, both skeletons are from the same species, or arent they?
As to proof about things taken for granted in our daily lives, I agree, but Macro Evolution has no proof AFAIK that cannot be refuted. Micro evolution has plenty proof, its observable and documented.
Seeing as you are a philosophy prof (I assume that from reeding your previous posts)may I ask the following questions? Isn't the whole point of the debate around evolution the following:
If evolution is true, completely true, it is also true that God is not necessary for life to have *ahem* evolved, and for mankind to have gotten where we are today?
If evolution is not true, then life by definition could not have evolved, thus the existence of life is unexplainable except for divine creation, untill at least another theory arises that tries to answer the question of life.
If evolution becomes law, if it is fact etc., are we as good as it gets? Will a more "evolved" species take over from us a few generations onwards, are we just on the top of the food chain through evolving the best and is that our sole right to the position we hold in the world?
If evolution is proven false, does this challenge our view of life to the point that it actually proves a divine creator? Where will it leave mankind, divided at the moment between theists and atheists? If it is proven that life could not evolve as of itself, must we then believe in a creator by default?
And lastly, if evolution is true, who are we accountable to? Only to ourselves and the laws we have divised to keep society in check? Where does this leave the arguments around racism, and the statement that "everyone is created equal", does this leave the door open for a group to prove that they are currently the most evolved species in the human race and are therefore above all others and privy to certain rights that others are not privy to? I believe that in the case that evolution of life is proven true, some nut will try and prove he is more evolved than others, and since the evolution argument is so far along as you said, it must be proveable that some human species is more evolved than the others...
I think Hitler tried this, aryans versus jews etc...
And if Evolution is not proven true, are we accountable to God, under His laws, awaiting His judgement? Is it wrong to take sides either way, us living in an era where evolution has not been proven, but induced like you said.
If we apply the same amount of study to the Bible, for instance, that we have to evolution, will we arrive at the same position that we currently are with evolution theory, that of induced proving.
Hmm... Its always interesting to look at a discussion about a new clue found about evolution and seeing how it degenerates into religion bashing.
We found *proof* of evolution! Whoohoo! I think not...
I know, I know, you will say you have and call me dumb for not believing what you do and sticking my head in the sand because I cannot understand that you have found absolute proof of evolution...
But heres the thing.
You okes believe that evolution cannot be disproven, therefore you believe it to be the truth, like puppy sez in his sig, hey I am no Philosopher, but if you believe something to be the truth although it has not been proven, you have a belief system...
argumentum ad ignorantiam Fallacy of taking a statement not provably false and implying that it is therefore true
That is a fallacy, if I read the above statement correctly.
Has evolution been proven beyond a doubt? Macroevolution, I mean, is macroevolution observable, has it been tested, is it testable?
Well I guess that time is one of the biggest barriers, no one can observe frogs in a lab for a million years and see if they evolve feathers and wings and fly and then evolve into something else.
Is there confidence that this will happen?
OH! and then there is the young earth vs old earth debate, sheesh, that'l get sum1 right angered up for me even mentioning it.
BTW, isnt following one belief system (proven or unproven mind you) at the exclusion of another akin to religion?
Maybe sum philosopher can clear that up...
Any takers?
ps: I cannot seem to make paragraphs on this thing, any help?
AFAIK there are severral definitions of evolution. You are describing micro evolution. That is observed daily in things like flu virus, flies etc.
Everybody knows of the finches described on galapagos Island, where they got bigger beaks when there was a shortage of suitable seeds, and the ones with bigger beaks had a better survival rate. Proof of evolution, I am not so sure, since when the drought ended the finches beaks returned to normal size.
Flu virus also adapts (evolves if you like) but a flu virus won't necceserally evolve into cancer for instance, and definitely it won't evolve into a fly ect.
Therefore I think that the MICRO evolution observed today does not disprove creation. It cannot be proven that micro organisms evolved into fish, fish evolved into amphibians and amphibians into reptiles, reptiles into land mammals, these into primates and primates into humans.
The human/primate connection is the easyest one to try and prove since we are so similar to great apes, but the great apes had to come from somewhere, and just like there are missing links between primates and humans, there has to be missing links between primates and rodents, or canines, or felines that must be observable.
An organism as afaik never been observed to evolve into a different KIND, fish to frog, or bird to rodent, or algae to amoeba...
just a thought
Slashdot Mirror
That is an interesting question. There are some refrences to the people in the land of Nod who will kill him for killing Abel. Maybe Cain married one of them?
That then raises the question of did God make more people than Adam and Eve?
But here is an interesting point: Why would he fear people for taking revenge on someone who killed a person who they potentially had no knowledge of, and had no relation to?
Well then for him to fear their revenge, they must have had some relation to Abel.
And, Cain got a wife from among one of his sisters. Genesis later says that Adam had sons and daughters before he died.
Wait lemme quote:
Genesis 5:4 "Then the days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years, and he had other sons and daughters."
Josephus says the number of children, according to the old tradition, was thirty three sons and twenty three daughters.
So, I hope that answers you question on Cains wife.
I'm not just trying to fuel a flame war
Go to this link. Quite funny.
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/
Flame war? What flame war?
Why is the ball in my court?,
Well, the burden of proof always lies with one who alleges error.
What's in question is whether the things described in the NT actually happened
Read my reply to the post by Gr8apes elsewhere on this thread, no wait, this is too much fun, lemme get it for ya.
I bet you are referring to at least some of the following:
1 Supposed irregularities between the Gospels. One leppar here, two over there etc...
2 Then, did Jesus really exist?
3 The supposed gospel of Judas Iskariot.
4 Was many of the characters mentioned in the Gospels really there, for instance Herod, John the baptist, Jesus, Annanias, and James the brother of Jesus.
5 The eclipse of the sun at the Crucifiction.
Now, this could turn into a lenghty post dont you think? So let me just shortly show you some things:
1 Irregularities in the Gospels: There are no irregularities in the Gospels that have been proven. Many accounts from different viewpoints etc, but nothing in one Gospel that makes something in another Gospel impossible.
2 Jesus actually did exist. There are several writings outside the Gospels that mentioned him, often by name!
3 Ah, the Gospel of Judas. It has been proven to be written about ad 180(? it will check that date if you want.) but has been credited to a religious sect that tried to discredit Jesus teachings and glorify Bible villains. The Cainites methinks.
4 Many writers of that time mentioned many New Testament Biblical characters,
for instance:
Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?, a Jewish historian) mentions John the Baptist and Herod - Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 5, par. 2
Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions Jesus - Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 3, par. 3.
Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions James, the brother of Jesus - Antiquities, Book 20, ch. 19.
Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions Ananias the High Priest who was mentioned in Acts 23:2
Tacitus (A.D. c.55-A.D. c.117, Roman historian) mentions "christus" who is Jesus - Annals
(I got that from www.carm.org if you where wondering, theres no way I am as educated as you guys to remember stuff like that off the top of my head.)
5 The eclipse, yep a biggie lol: Thallus Circa AD 52, eclipse of the sun. Thallus wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean world from the Trojan War to his own time. His writings are only found as citations by others. Julius Africanus who wrote about AD 221 mentioned Thallus' account of an eclipse of the sun
Have fun!
Regards
This will probably blacklist me
BURN IN HELL HETHEN SCU... eep. sorry, us relegious freaks are extremely sensitive. Lol, no seriously I am only joking...
no, really.
from what I remember on Isiah 7:14, the hebrew word used there doesn't mean virgin. It simply means a young woman.
I looked that up, quite interesting, I could give you a long version, (three pages) or a short version, Ill give you a short version for now. If you want the long one lemme know, I'll post it gladly if you want to do the reading...
Heres the verse with strongs numbers for you to look up:
Isa 7:14 Therefore3651 the Lord136 himself1931 shall give5414 you a sign;226 Behold,2009 a virgin5959 shall conceive,2029 and bear3205 a son,1121 and shall call7121 his name8034 Immanuel.6005
And the verse without: (easier to read methinks)
Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
And the strongs reference to "virgin":
H5959
almah
al-maw'
Feminine of H5958; a lass (as veiled or private): - damsel, maid, virgin.
Hope this helps!
Regards
Eep! I went and wrote the whole thing in Italics! Whoops!
Lol, stoning my neighbour, not necesary, I saw them offering a cow at the tent of atonement sometime last week...
But seriously now, believing the Bible as literaly true means I belive Jesus died for my sins and that I am no longer under the law given by God through Moses.
I believe the Bible is historically true, correct and ESPECIALLY the new testament! So lets start...
I bet you are referring to at least some of the following:
1 Supposed irregularities between the Gospels. One leppar here, two over there etc...
2 Then, did Jesus really exist?
3 The supposed gospel of Judas Iskariot.
4 Was many of the characters mentioned in the Gospels really there, for instance Herod, John the baptist, Jesus, Annanias, and James the brother of Jesus.
5 The eclipse of the sun at the Crucifiction.
Now, this could turn into a lenghty post dont you think? So let me just shortly show you some things:
1 Irregularities in the Gospels: There are no irregularities in the Gospels that have been proven. Many accounts from different viewpoints etc, but nothing in one Gospel that makes something in another that makes that event impossible.
2 Jesus actually did exist. There are several writings outside the Gospels that mentioned him, often by name!
3 Ah, the Gospel of Judas. It has been proven to be written about ad 180(? it will check that date if you want.) but has been credited to a religious sect that tried to discredit Jesus teachings and glorify Bible villains. The Cainites methinks.
4 Many writers of that time mentioned many New Testament Biblical characters,
for instance:
Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?, a Jewish historian) mentions John the Baptist and Herod - Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 5, par. 2
Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions Jesus - Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 3, par. 3.
Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions James, the brother of Jesus - Antiquities, Book 20, ch. 19.
Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions Ananias the High Priest who was mentioned in Acts 23:2
Tacitus (A.D. c.55-A.D. c.117, Roman historian) mentions "christus" who is Jesus - Annals
(I got that from www.carm.org if you where wondering, theres no way I am as educated as you guys to remember stuff like that off the top of my head.)
5 The eclipse, yep a biggie lol: Thallus Circa AD 52, eclipse of the sun. Thallus wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean world from the Trojan War to his own time. His writings are only found as citations by others. Julius Africanus who wrote about AD 221 mentioned Thallus' account of an eclipse of the sun
I know you can probably mention many more supposed irregularities in the Bible, and ignore the things I have, but the Bible has a verse just for you okes:
2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
You can read the rest if you please.
Have fun!
If I have angered you, so sorry though, I enjoy debate like this too much sumtimes.
regards!
There is not a single prophecy in the bible that can be convincingly demonstrated to be both written before the event and interpreted unambiguously.
Come on, you actually believe that?
Look. Have you ever read the Bible? Wait I bet you have. You are educated and smart and look down on anyone who would try and believe the Bible. Let me ask you then to prove that none of the Bible can be convincingly demonstrated to to be written before the event.
Even the Old testament only!
There are many prophecies in the Old Testament regarding Jesus, His coming, His crucifixion etc. Are you willing to concede that the Old Testament was written before the New Testament? If so, then your quoted statement is incorrect!
But please, my challenge stands.
Oh, and if you wonder what prophecies: Here are some:
1: He would be born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:23)
2: He would live in Nazareth of Galilee (Isaiah 9:1-2; Matthew 2:22-23, 4:15)
3: He would occasion the massacre of Bethlehems children (Jeremiah 31:15; Matthew 2:16-18)
4: His mission would unexpectedly include the Gentiles (Isiah 42:1-3,6; Matthew 12:18-21), and he would unexpectedly be rejected by the Jews, His own people (Psalm 118:22; 1 Peter 2:7)
But I digress, I could go on forever.
Ah, now you believe that something you cannot explain proves the Bible wrong and you right.
Well then, if the Bible is not historically accurate, as some of you educated folks believe, consider the following:
Historian Dr. John Montgomery wrote, and I quote: "Modern archeological research has confirmed again and again the reliability of New Testament geography, chronology, and general history"
Then, in the Old Testament we not only find (*gasp* he isnt...) prophecy that is also Historically accurate!
In Isaiah a king of the Persians, namely Cyrus, is prophesied to allow the Jews to return to their homeland after the Babylonian captivity (you can read the whole Isaiah 44:24 -45:26 if you want to) but I quote the following:
Isa 44:28 He says to Cyrus, "My shepherd-- everything I want, you'll do it." He says to Jerusalem, "Be built," and to the Temple, "Be established."
Now Cyrus and his actions is documented by the Persians, independant of the Bible, and the Bible later confirms that this happened.
So dont be so quick to dismiss the Bible as a combination of fairy tailes.
The discovery of the snake is very interesting though.
First it is belived that snakes evolved in water, then land, then water, then land...
Hmm, maybe we believe what we want to believe from science to easy though eh?
AT LAST!
/., everyone jumps on the anti Creator(and for lack of any other creators lets assume God then) wagon. If scientists just realise what you say, that science does not have an opinion on God, science will be far more objectively studied! I think that many scientists try and disprove that God exists, and then mace false assumtions, hypothesis or interpretations. Please note that I am not alluring to what those false or wrong assumptions may be for the sake of this argument.
It's my wife and myselfs third anneversary, so been pretty hectic, also been working on my blog.
Very sorry for taking so long!
Anyhow...
I agree that evolution is not proof that God doesnt exist, in fack I find it exiting to think God might still be involved in the process!
As to the Bible not being historical... I am afraid I'll have to respectfully disagree. I believe that the Bible is one of the most Historically accurate texts available today, but here and now is not the place to discuss or argue a point that really would need a whole forum of its own...
What I am interested in are the comments you made regarding science, hey I am no scientist, but I am excited by the following comments:
Science has no opinion on God.
I find that view refreshing. Everytime something vaguely evolution connected gets discussed on
If science is studied from the background of no opinions to be proven, thus no biased position on the evidence given before such evidence is studied, science will be even more fresh and relevant to the world we live in today dont you think?
I think that theist, atheist, creationist, anti creationist or whatever should by this time be so sure of their particular position that they HAVE to have the confidence to view the evidence objectively, unafraid of what a particular discovery might prove or disprove.
I believe: Interpret the evidence, not the bias.
Like you say, someone should not pervert science to support his or her own views.
Proof is not necesseraly the enemy of faith, but lack of faith often prevents people from perservering on a particular challenge, and there is a conundrum.
Faith is often seen as the sole domain of the religious, I am talking about faith in the sense of what views you ascribe to, not faith in ones ability.
But faith in your beliefs, whether scientific or religious, often stops you from studying a particular subject objectively, yet to decide to NOT try and prove your viewpoint is correct makes one hesitate and think "Hey, will I accept it if the facts prove I believed in a lie?"
I think pure scientists of the highest credibility believe scientific proof regardless, but there are those for whom unquestionable proof either way is just to scary to not try and interpret the facts to suit their beliefs.
I agree, science tells us how God designed this world, I am a fan of ID but understand that's not a point I am trying to make here, but the constant scrumming of the online and scientific community to try and prove or disprove and ideology is making science a scary place for the layman.
Everyone should be encouraged to take part in the wonder that is science regardless of their background!
Now finally, allow me to note something a little tongue in cheek;)
You said that proof is the enemy of faith, but I disagree. Jesus said: "Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."
And from the Hebrews: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." I think Paul wrote that one.
What does the scientifice community hope for eh? Lol.
The issue is not the proof, but if you have the courage to believe what has not yet been proven...
But I digress...
I find it refreshing to discuss these matters with you who I know is objective and thanks for helping me understand certain things that were unclear to me.
Regards
Hi. Been searching the web for articles on the current topic of The Feature Article and found this link:
o pian.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0417ethi
I thought you might find it an interesting read.
I will reply to your comments above a little later.
Regards.
True. Maybe all we are doing is fishing for responses to create an opening where you can slip in and HAMMER YOUR POINT HOME and everyone else into submission.
I find these discussions very interesting. I am an avid aquarist and read the news story even before slashdot had it.
I enjoy reading about science stuff, but I am astonished that every new discovery about evolution and adaptation or new species degrades into God bashing.
Half the comments on this story are anti deistic, and anti creation and no one has anything much to say about a very interesting fish!
As for the catfish getting drawn into this, I dont know either, he was just eating lunch for crying out loud!
And this disproves ID how? And proves MACRO evolution how? It is sure interesting if you look at it from the viewpoint of MICRO evolution, which has been proven.
And the only grasp you have of religion is from watching simpsons?
sad.
Excuse me for taking so long to reply.
Okay then, but arent everyone referring to micro evolution/adaptation? Or am I missing something. Can you use the proof that micro evolution exists and induce that macro evolution exists?
Isn't wat the article refers to micro evolution? I mean, both skeletons are from the same species, or arent they?
As to proof about things taken for granted in our daily lives, I agree, but Macro Evolution has no proof AFAIK that cannot be refuted. Micro evolution has plenty proof, its observable and documented.
Seeing as you are a philosophy prof (I assume that from reeding your previous posts)may I ask the following questions? Isn't the whole point of the debate around evolution the following:
If evolution is true, completely true, it is also true that God is not necessary for life to have *ahem* evolved, and for mankind to have gotten where we are today?
If evolution is not true, then life by definition could not have evolved, thus the existence of life is unexplainable except for divine creation, untill at least another theory arises that tries to answer the question of life.
If evolution becomes law, if it is fact etc., are we as good as it gets? Will a more "evolved" species take over from us a few generations onwards, are we just on the top of the food chain through evolving the best and is that our sole right to the position we hold in the world?
If evolution is proven false, does this challenge our view of life to the point that it actually proves a divine creator? Where will it leave mankind, divided at the moment between theists and atheists? If it is proven that life could not evolve as of itself, must we then believe in a creator by default?
And lastly, if evolution is true, who are we accountable to? Only to ourselves and the laws we have divised to keep society in check? Where does this leave the arguments around racism, and the statement that "everyone is created equal", does this leave the door open for a group to prove that they are currently the most evolved species in the human race and are therefore above all others and privy to certain rights that others are not privy to? I believe that in the case that evolution of life is proven true, some nut will try and prove he is more evolved than others, and since the evolution argument is so far along as you said, it must be proveable that some human species is more evolved than the others...
I think Hitler tried this, aryans versus jews etc...
And if Evolution is not proven true, are we accountable to God, under His laws, awaiting His judgement? Is it wrong to take sides either way, us living in an era where evolution has not been proven, but induced like you said.
If we apply the same amount of study to the Bible, for instance, that we have to evolution, will we arrive at the same position that we currently are with evolution theory, that of induced proving.
Where will that leave us?
Hmm... Its always interesting to look at a discussion about a new clue found about evolution and seeing how it degenerates into religion bashing. We found *proof* of evolution! Whoohoo! I think not... I know, I know, you will say you have and call me dumb for not believing what you do and sticking my head in the sand because I cannot understand that you have found absolute proof of evolution... But heres the thing. You okes believe that evolution cannot be disproven, therefore you believe it to be the truth, like puppy sez in his sig, hey I am no Philosopher, but if you believe something to be the truth although it has not been proven, you have a belief system... argumentum ad ignorantiam Fallacy of taking a statement not provably false and implying that it is therefore true That is a fallacy, if I read the above statement correctly. Has evolution been proven beyond a doubt? Macroevolution, I mean, is macroevolution observable, has it been tested, is it testable? Well I guess that time is one of the biggest barriers, no one can observe frogs in a lab for a million years and see if they evolve feathers and wings and fly and then evolve into something else. Is there confidence that this will happen? OH! and then there is the young earth vs old earth debate, sheesh, that'l get sum1 right angered up for me even mentioning it. BTW, isnt following one belief system (proven or unproven mind you) at the exclusion of another akin to religion? Maybe sum philosopher can clear that up... Any takers? ps: I cannot seem to make paragraphs on this thing, any help?
AFAIK there are severral definitions of evolution. You are describing micro evolution. That is observed daily in things like flu virus, flies etc. Everybody knows of the finches described on galapagos Island, where they got bigger beaks when there was a shortage of suitable seeds, and the ones with bigger beaks had a better survival rate. Proof of evolution, I am not so sure, since when the drought ended the finches beaks returned to normal size. Flu virus also adapts (evolves if you like) but a flu virus won't necceserally evolve into cancer for instance, and definitely it won't evolve into a fly ect. Therefore I think that the MICRO evolution observed today does not disprove creation. It cannot be proven that micro organisms evolved into fish, fish evolved into amphibians and amphibians into reptiles, reptiles into land mammals, these into primates and primates into humans. The human/primate connection is the easyest one to try and prove since we are so similar to great apes, but the great apes had to come from somewhere, and just like there are missing links between primates and humans, there has to be missing links between primates and rodents, or canines, or felines that must be observable. An organism as afaik never been observed to evolve into a different KIND, fish to frog, or bird to rodent, or algae to amoeba... just a thought