Should I be a Christian?

[Master~Plan]

Quote[/b] ]The bible has not been proven by archaeology... ...The OT is the oral tradition of the hebrew people - of course it's going to be roughly correct as it pertains to the world around them.

Well all the towns the Bible say existed are collaborated by archaeology. If you think it makes sense that it would, being the "oral tradition" of the Hebrews, many other religions have towns and rivers in thier book that never existed. All the rulers have been accurate, and much prophesy has been fulfilled.

As far as the theory of evolution, that relies solely on a carbon 14 dating meathod which "can date things billions of years old", but when it comes to dating something onehundred years old, it simply fails.

 

[Eon]

There are MANY dating methods apart from Carbon 14, and though we don't have a reliably accurate one, we do have ones of varying accuracy. Apart from THAT argument, however, is the fact that Evolution does not rely on any dating method - Evolution could be perfectly right even if the whole of time was packed into a 5 minute period.

As for other religions with imaginary places - which ones are you referring to? How do you know that the places that don't exist aren't either metaphorical or simply undiscovered?

 

[Mahfrot]

so you're willing to accept that a monkey is your great great (x100000 etc.) grandfather? how does that make you feel? seems to me that means you're pretty worthless compared to the rest of the world.

Praise God that we are created special and unique for a purpose, set apart from the animals on earth.

But if you wanna be a monkey, fine by me.

 

[Whitestone]

Quote[/b] (Eon @ Feb. 13 2004,6:24)]There are MANY dating methods apart from Carbon 14, and though we don't have a reliably accurate one, we do have ones of varying accuracy. Apart from THAT argument, however, is the fact that Evolution does not rely on any dating method - Evolution could be perfectly right even if the whole of time was packed into a 5 minute period.

True, evolution does exist in animals and plants that we have seen.

Humans will also adapt to surroundings and lifestyle.

The problem is using evolution against the theory of Creation, is that in order for us to have evolved from primates there would have to be sequence of changes through evolution. There is not, hence why the missing link is still missing.

 

[Eon]

Mahfrot, I may be a Monkey's nephew - but at least I'm man enough to admit it. Does that make me worthless compared to everyone else? Depends on whether I'm right and they're forced into an outmoded and false belief system on the basis of racial pride, doesn't it?

60 years ago you had people pushing the theory that Jews and Gypsies weren't actually human beings at all, and were no relation of ours (by ours I mean us Aryan types - if you're not one then substitute the word mine for ours).

The fact is that evidence thus far points towards the theory of evolution being largely correct. We don't have all the pieces yet - but then we're not doing the 12months and above jigsaw that only has three pieces, we're doing the 15+ version with 18,000 pieces.

 

[Grand Master]

Evolution is one of the best theories science has ever come up with. You don't find human bones in the same strata as those of dinosaurs or trilobites as creationism would suggest you would. There is a good reason for that. Creationsim has absolutely NO empirical support, but, nonetheless, you believe in it because of a book written by unsophisticated people who simply didn't know any better.

 

[Kidan]

of course you don't find human bones in the same strata as those of dinosuars. They base which strata they're in by what bones they find.

and if they do find them mixed, they blame an external factor.

 

[CCGR]

dinosaurs found on ancient inca burial stones...doesn't look like bones, looks like they saw the creatures  http://www.creationists.org/livedinos01.html

Here is a link with human foot prints found with dinosaurs ones http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/giants.htm

 

[Atown]

hehehe from reasons.org heres an article about all that.

Humans and Chimps Differ
By Fazale R. Rana, Ph.D.

Humans and chimps share 99 percent gene similarity. So goes one of the most common and seemingly convincing arguments that humans and chimpanzees arose from a common ancestor.1 The fact that chimpanzees and humans possess proteins with similar immunological properties may seem to offer further support, but the striking genetic similarity may be less striking than these particular facts suggest. Nor does genetic similarity necessarily argue for natural-process evolution.

A genome-wide comparison of humans’ and chimps’ DNA has never been made and is currently impossible. While the human genome has been sequenced, work on the chimpanzee genome has yet to begin in any real sense.2 Until a global comparison of all DNA sequences can be made, the declaration of 99 percent similarity must be considered unwarranted. Whole-genome analysis will undoubtedly identify additional similarities between the great apes and humans, but will doubtless uncover important biochemical differences, as well.

Recent separate studies by scientists from the Max Plank Institute in Germany and the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) foreshadow the anticipated discovery of these meaningful differences. These researchers found subtle but significant distinctions between the brain biochemistry of humans and that of chimpanzees.

The German group recently determined that gene expression3 in the brain tissue of humans differs markedly from that in chimpanzees and rhesus monkeys, whereas nearly identical gene expression occurs in the brain tissue of chimpanzees and rhesus monkeys.4 In contrast, gene expression in the liver and blood of chimpanzees, rhesus monkeys and humans show much similarity. According to the team’s head scientist, “Among these three tissues, it seems that the brain is really special in that humans have accelerated patterns of gene activity.”5

Scientists from UCSD identified another important difference in brain chemistry between humans and chimps. Sugars found on the surface of tissue cells vary between the two. 6-10

Chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and other mammals produce N-glycolylneuraminic acid (GC-neur), a sialic sugar associated with cell surfaces. Humans, however, do not produce this sugar. GC-neur serves as a binding site for certain pathogens. The absence of GC-neur makes humans immunologically distinct from great apes and other mammals.

In great apes and other mammals GC-neur is plentiful in all body tissues but occurs at its lowest levels in the brain and central nervous system. The lack of GC-neur in humans, specifically in brain tissue and its tissue distribution, signals the intriguing possibility of a relationship between the absence of GC-neur and advanced brain capacity. Experiments are underway to test this hypothesis.11

For those who view life as the work of a Creator, genetic similarity presents no problematic implications. In fact, it would be expected since humans and great apes share so many anatomical and physiological characteristics. The proteins coded by genes are the building blocks used to construct organisms. Why wouldn’t a Creator designing organisms to share physical similarities build them from similar raw materials? Biochemistry’s uniformity throughout the living realm argues against randomness and for design. It is not the building blocks (genes) themselves, but rather the amount and combination of gene products that determine differences among organisms (at least to a first approximation), as the case of chimpanzees and humans demonstrates. As more becomes known about human and chimpanzee comparative biochemistry, scientists will undoubtedly find more subtle, but significant, indicators of divine design and of designed distinctions between humans and the rest of God’s creatures.

References:
Mary-Claire King and A. C. Wilson, “Evolution at Two Levels in Humans and Chimpanzees,” Science 188 (1975): 107-16.
Dennis Normile, “Genomics: Chimp Sequencing Crawls Forward,” Science 291 (2001): 2297.
Gene expression refers to the overall gene activity of the cells making up a specific tissue, organ, etc. Gene expression can be thought of as an inventory of the genes that are “turned on”¾directing the production of proteins¾and the genes that are “turned off.” Gene expression also describes the quantity of different proteins produced as a result of gene activity.
Dennis Normile, “Comparative Genomics: Gene Expression Differs in Human and Chimp Brains,” Science 292 (2001): 44-45.
Normile, “Comparative Genomics,” 44-45.
Normile, “Comparative Genomics,” 44-45.
Joseph Alper, “Sugar Separates Humans from Apes,” Science 291 (2001): 2340.
Elaine A. Muchmore, Sandra Diaz, and Ajit Varki, “A Structural Difference between the Cell Surfaces of Humans and the Great Apes,” American Journal of Physical Anthropology 107 (1998): 187-98.
Hsun-Hua Chou et al., “A Mutation in Human CMP-Sialic Acid Hydroxylase Occurred after the Homo-Pan Divergence,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 95 (1998): 11751-56.
Els C. M. Brinkman-Vander Linden et al., “Loss of N-Glycolylneuraminic Acid in Human Evolution,” Journal of Biological Chemistry 275 (2000): 8633-40.
Joseph Alper, 2340.

 

[Mahfrot]

check out Ken Hamm...he's a Christian who completely blows evolution out of the water...

and I think I read in a science textbook in high school that we also share the same amount of gene similarity with elephants or something like that...

 

[TastyWheat]

Quote[/b] (Eon @ Feb. 12 2004,7:51)]As for the bible being confirmed by logic? That's plainly ridiculous. Science disproves the literal word of the bible time and again - whether it be the theory of evolution, or other laws.

You know, I have a huge problem with this whole "creation science" gobbledegook. No offense to anyone in particular, but I mostly agree with Eon here. But, I firmly believe that you can't disprove anything like that any bit as much as you can prove it.

People consistently look for stuff in the Bible that isn't there. The book of Genesis, in fact the entire Bible is ascientific. The Jewish writers didn't have to contend with Charles Darwin or Stephen Hawking or even Ken Hamm. Do you think Moses cared about 7 literal days? If he did, he probably would have written a nice discource about it. Do you think it matters that science can't prove that the 10 plagues happened as literally as they appear in Exodus? Why is it that in Psalms and Proverbs alternate accounts of the plagues are given, some where there aren't even ten?

Scripture tells things (especially in Genesis) in a way that gives glory to God. It's foolish to look at Genesis and and creation and try to extrapolate "science" from it.

We can't scientifically prove that the universe was created in seven spans of 24 hours anymore than Eon can prove the existence of Valhalla. When are people going to learn and stop missing the point of Scripture...

 

[Eon]

That's the difference between Science and Religion. Religion just has to describe a journey to the Moon and explain the importance of striving for new horizons. Science actually has to land the damn thing intact and get it home again.

That's why physicists and geologists and palentologists care about whether it was 7 days, or was it 7 days, 2 hours, 34 minutes and 26.245 seconds. Of course, in their quest to push light into the dark corners of the universe they've uncovered some truths that must have been unpleasant to them. Do you think the first scientist to come up with a conclusion that differed from biblical scripture didn't panic? Didn't assume the error was his? It was only when the scientific method started to group scientists together and provide a framework for repeating experiments and writing up conclusions that the errors began to be published.

 

[Whitestone]

Who has found scientific proof to disagree with the Bible?

 

[Eon]

You mean apart from the whole earth forming in a day? The fact that the entire earth has NOT been deluged with salt water recently? The fact that whole issue of evolution. The impossibility of the ark (never mind the flood).

Need I go on, and on and on?

 

[Chaoswraith]

Evolution?

Quote[/b] ]Man's practical existence in this world is thus evidently dependent upon his knowledge of and obedience to certain fixed principles. Now fixed principles are compatible with biblical creation, but not with the fundamental flux and change of any and all evolutionist models. Evolutionist belief in perennial flux and change at the root of all phenomena cannot account for the fact that poison does not heal but kills, that oaks always grow from acorns, or any other fixity of nature. To the evolutionist, the common truth of gardening and agriculture which provides his physical sustenance, "as you sow, so shall you reap", must be false, as for him genetic and environmental change takes place continually, either gradually(Darwinism) or by "mega-leaps" (Gould-Eldredge's punctuated equilibrium). Because of their denial of creation and its fixed kinds and laws, evolutionists could not produce and really cannot account for the rise of modern science, Instead, modern scientific advances had to await the coming and expansion of biblical creation-based Christianity (see Stanley Jaki, Science and Creation).

What all this amounts to is that evolutionism militates against survival of any and all natural entities. Darwinist evolutionism with its gradual transmutation of species amounts to continual dying out of species as they are transformed. Punctuated equilibrium evolutionism is really an accommodation to the fundamentally creationist "appearances" of the fossil record and the world we observe, that is, "stasis" or absence of change and flux. The very "mega-leaps" it postulates require genetic changes of a kind (mutation) which almost always instantly kills. Furthermore, the strange new entity suddenly arising through an alleged genetic "mega-leap" requires not flux, but fixity both of its own kind and in the world around it if it is to survive. This is really the error of evolutionism, and the proof for creation, in a nutshell: survival requires fixity of inheritance, environment, and behavior. Evolution, as evolution, denies fixity Creation, as creation, establishes fixity. The god of theistic evolution cannot be a true God because he is the author of flux and death rather than fixed creation and thus survival-life.

Quote[/b] ]Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world."

And we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

Why would you find evolution easier to believe in than creation?  With the circular reasoning and the amount of guessing and ignoring that they do, it seems to me that evolution requires more faith than creation does.

The ark?

http://www.noahs--ark.com/

Not quite as impossible as you may think. . .

And I'm not quite sure where you were going with the salt-water thing. . . could you expand on that a little bit?

 

[Malohaut]

Archaeology has confirmed many accounts in the Old and New Testament, for example, the discovery of the Hittite civilization, the Black Stele, David's conquest of Jerusalem, evidence from the Elba tablets, the Mari tablets, the Nuzi tablets, the Armarna tablets, the Lachish Letters, the Gedaliah Seal, the Cyrus cylinder, the Dead Sea scrolls, among a host of other discoveries, have given historical credibility to many accounts of the Old Testament. Here is a list detailing many of these discoveries:

a. Hittite civilization (Genesis 15:20) discovered in 1906
b. Quirinius Governor of Syria (Luke 2:1-3) confirmed as a double duty by coin
c. Correct titles of government praetor, proconsul, first man, politarchs (Luke’s writings)
d. John alone mentions The Pool of Bethesda (John 5:1-15), it was found as described
e. The walls of Jericho (Joshua 6) with the exception of part of the Northern wall - Rahab’s house??? (Heb. 11:30-31) - found in 1950. They were burned and fallen from the inside out.
f. Census taking in first century (Gospels) method of family counting used is accurate
g. Pilate the Governor’s (John 19) existence confirmed by inscription found in 1961
h. Jesus’ direction of travel (Mark 7:31) probable route through mountains makes sense
i. Daniel accurately recorded Belshazzar’s position (5:16) as co-regent
j. Nazareth’s existence (John 1:46) confirmed by family lists and tombs in vicinity 1962
k. Method of crucifixion confirmed in 1968
l. The method and fact of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19) verified
m. Lysanius the Tetrarch (Luke 3:1) confirmed as correct name for that time period
n. John alone mentions the Pool of Siloam (John 9:7) found as described
o. Jacob’s Well (John 4:12) found as described
p. Cities of Lycaonia included Iconium (Acts 14:6) confirmed as correct
q. Erastus the city treasurer (Romans 16:23) inscription found in Corinth in 1929
r. Ecclessia meeting in theater (Acts 19:23) found
s. The proper title “meris” used of Philippi of Macedonia
t. Jesus’ probable home unearthed in Capernaum (Mark 1:29-34)
u. Millstones (Luke 17:2) unearthed in Capernaum
v. First century Galilean boat found to hold crew of 13 1986
w. John (3:23) correctly identifies John the Baptist as being in Aeno
x. John (2:1) distinguishes the two Canas, and the two Bethanys (1:28; 11:18)
y. John (4:5-6) specifies the city of Sychar in Samaria where Jacob’s well is found.
z. Evidence has also been found for the Tower of Babel and the confusion of languages

a. The method and destruction of the city of Tyre is 100% accurate (Ezekial 26)
b. Christ was tried by Pilate in the "Gabbatha" (or pavement) found (John 19:13)
c. Personal and place names in the Patriarchal accounts are genuine "Canaan" "tehom” (Ebla)
d. In 1977 an inscription mentioning Dan was found near the high place (1 Kings 12:28-29)
e. The Mesha Inscription found in Jordan mentions the tribe of Gad (Joshua 13:24-28)
f. The Babylonians recorded the fall of the "city of JUDAH" to Nebuchadnezzar in 597 BC
g. The palace at Jericho where Eglon, king of Moab, was assassinated by Ehud .
h. The east gate of Shechem where the forces of Abimelech approached the city found
i. The Temple of Baal/El-Berith in Shechem,
j. The pool of Gibeon where the forces of David and Ishbosheth fought found
k. The royal palace at Samaria where the kings of Israel lived
l. The Pool of Samaria where King Ahab's chariot was washed after his death found
m. The water tunnel beneath Jerusalem dug by King Hezekiah during the Assyrian siege found
n. The royal palace in Babylon where King Belshazzar held the feast
o. The royal palace in Susa where Esther was queen of the Persian king Xerxes found
p. The royal gate at Susa where Mordecai, Esther's cousin, sat found
q. The Square in front of the royal gate at Susa where Mordecai met with Halthach found
r. The foundation of the synagogue at Capernaum where Jesus cured a man with an unclean spirit and delivered the sermon on the bread of life .
s. The house of Peter where Jesus healed Peter's mother-in-law and others found
t. The tribunal at Corinth where Paul was tried found
u. The theater at Ephesus where the riot of silversmiths occurred found
v. Herod's palace at Caesarea where Paul was kept under guard found
w. Graves of Caiaphas the High Priest (John 18:13), Caesar Augustus (Luke 2:1-7), Cyrus the Great (Isaiah 45), Darius-I the Great (Ezra 6) known
x. The cave of the Patriarchs (Sarah, Abraham, Isaac, Rebekah, Leah and Jacob) known
y. Grave of David and Solomon known
z. Grave of Uzziah (an inscription was found on the Mount of Olives in 1931 which reads, "Here were brought the bones of Uzziah, King of Judah - do not open."...evidently because of leprosy)


Events, cities, and people have been confirmed by sources external to the bible and should add validity to this book's content.

 

[Grand Master]

Quote[/b] ]dinosaurs found on ancient inca burial stones...doesn't look like bones, looks like they saw the creatures http://www.creationists.org/livedinos01.html

I like how those engravings portray humans and dinosaurs having friendly interactions. Humans must have had a good relationship with the dinosaurs back then.

Here is one thing that CAN be proven to be incorrect in the Bible: God supposedly limited man to 120 years of age, but there have in fact been documented cases of people living longer than that.

 

[Malohaut]

In Genesis 6, God does limit mankind to 120 years. Notice how it was right after this that God found Noah righteous and told Noah to construct the ark.

So intead of limiting man's lifespan to 120 years, perhaps what God was really saying was that he would limit man's time on earth to 120 more years before destroying them.

I'm still researching to see what other biblical scholars and historians say regarding this, but it would validate the scripture.

Many times we misquote scripture and immediatly attack them if they seem false. That's why we need to carefully read what it says and the context it is talking about before jumping to any conclusions. That's how a lot of people attack the bible. They take a verse out of context and immediatly claim it as false. One verse that many people do this is when Jesus called to buy up swords if you have none, but that verse had nothing to do with rebelling and going to war.

 

[Chaoswraith]

You're referring to Genesis 6:3, a commonly misunderstood verse that is actually speaking of the time before the wicked inhabitants of the earth were destroyed by flood.

Quote[/b] ]And the Lord said, my Spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh; yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

Quote[/b] ]The word here translated strive, signifies also to litigate a point, or reason in a cause; before it is ripe for judgment, or the execution of it. Now the Spirit of God had been litigating and reasoning with these men in the court and at the bar of their own consciences, about their sins, by one providence or another, and by one minister or another; particularly by Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and that to no purpose; hence he determines to go on no longer in this way, but to proceed to pass and execute the sentence of condemnation on them, since they were so very corrupt, being nothing else but flesh. However, to show his clemency and forbearance, he grants them a reprieve for one hundred and twenty years; which is that longsuffering of God the apostle speaks of, that waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was preparing. (1 Pet. 3:20). Hence it appears, that the strivings of the Spirit of God with these men, were only by the external ministry of the word, and in a way of moral suasion, which came to nothing. This may lead us to observe the insufficiency of moral suasion and the external ministry of the word, without the powerful and efficacious grace of the Spirit.

The 120 years was the time that God gave the wicked men of the earth to repent, before destroying them in the flood and sparing Noah's family in the Ark.

 

[Eon]

Chaos, I know you didn't write that, so I hope you won't take offense when I point out that it is unadulterted sophistry. It knocks certain views without advancing anything new of its own, and it trots out all the tired old creationist saws without bothering to notice that they're barely able to stand unassisted.

The eye HAS evolved - we have proof of this as we have eyes ranging in complexity from the very simple up to the incredibly complex. We also know of similar early stage digestive systems (There's a syphon filter organism that has adapted what is so almost a mouth) and also other systems - such as the brain (if it was designed in one hit, why does it appear so modular, almost as if it evolved from something older!).

Malohaut - if the bible is the book of all knowledge then why is it so limited in geographic scope. To say that God created the whole world he seems to have been interested in so tiny a part of it!