As a bible believing Christian and a studier of the bible for over 30 years now reading it almost daily, I can absolutely say without a shadow of a doubt that much of what you said here is false.  In order for me to prove it to you would be to quote scripture which I could do easily enough but wish not to turn this into a biblical debate.  Let's just suffice it to say, you are NOT an expert on scripture.

like you have?  Is this the kettle calling the pot black? 

Yes, all science is lies.  You have uncovered our horrible conspiracy, KFC.

~Zoo

This is typically how creationists think:

Oh...and by the way, that is a real quote...

"I wasn't here 2 million years ago," Fanti said. "If evolution is so slow, why don't we see anything evolving now?"

Not from that pleasant fellow in the picture, but from some jackass on a school board pushing for its teaching.  I have doubts it'll happen, creationism is solely religion based and that's a big no-no...thank God. (heh, heh)

~Zoo 

Hey Zoo, how many times have I said I have NO PROBLEM WITH SCIENCE?  It's the subjective opinion of SOME of the evidence when it comes to origins I have trouble with. 

Did I tell you back along my son was collaborating on a TBI (traumatic brain injury) with a very liberal but seasoned Scientist in the field of neuro Science?  They had quite a conversation one day (pretty much one sided tho because my son kept his mouth shut for the most part). 

It was about a year ago and the press was going crazy about the new Creation Museum.  The Liberal Scientist went on and on about the stupid Christian people who don't understand Science one whit.  What he didn't know was he was conversing with one right at that moment and he just happened to be a Scientist to boot.   This guy didn't think my son was a Christian because he not only received a 4.0 in the very strenuous Ph.D program but he's being touted as one of the brightest up and coming research Scientists on the horizon.....and he's (gasp) a Christian.    So who's the stupid one? 

How can that be? 

Widely accepted scientific views are anything but subjective.  When you interpret data and evidence in science, there's only one right way to do it....it's not like in literature where there are infinite possibilities.

Evolution is not an origin story...it's a process of development.

You can be Christian and be a scientist.  I don't see why that's not possible.  However, to ignore the piles and piles of evidence for something(see: evolution, 4.54 billion year old earth) in favor of belief is not being honest to the field...frankly, it's being delusional.

Religion and science are pretty much polar opposites.  Where one has faith with little to no evidence, the other has faith because of evidence.

Religion can answer the why where science cannot.  It gives you a feeling of purpose and a sense of importance in the world.

Science can answer the how where religion cannot.  It shows you how the world works in a consistent and organized way.

But you cannot honestly tell me that a person who says this:

"I wasn't here 2 million years ago," Fanti said. "If evolution is so slow, why don't we see anything evolving now?" (bolding and italics are mine)

Knows anything about science at all...or how to properly dress themselves without help.

~Zoo

but that's just it Zoo...there is NO ignoring of any evidence on the Christian side....sure there are some wackos that don't have a clue that the earth revolves around the sun but that's not ALL Christians who are Science minded.  The interpretation of the evidence is just that...interpretation.  We look at the evidence, as Christians and say...wow look what God did.  You look at the evidence and see what developed over a period of time sans God. 

but there is some attempt to include origins as part of the evolutionary theory and when it does that's when Christians like me object. 

and I disagree. They can fit together quite nicely actually.    Some of our best and brightest Scientists of old would contradict your statement.  Many of the brightest in their fields were very comfortable in their Christian walk as they developed some pretty awesome scientific finds along the way. 

and this isn't true either.  As a bible teacher, one of my (many) mantras is we don't know the "whys" to scripture. We know God made man but we don't know "why" he made Satan to tempt man the way he did.   We know God allows suffering, trials and death in our world but we don't know "why" he's taking so long to make it right like it once was.  We know he has a purpose and a plan for his own but we don't know "why" he doesn't open the eyes of our loved ones to see him.  

Again, I'd have to respectfully disagree.  Religion can answer the how and it does if you ever read it.  Read the Psalms or the end of Job sometime and look for the Science you'll see there.   How did this world come to be?  God.  How did man first originate?  God.  How does one come to faith in God?  God.  How does one become separated from God?  Sin.  How did God reconcile himself to the world?  By His Son.  How do we know where we will spend eternity?  God tells us not only in his word but also his Holy Spirit makes it known to us as believers. 

So based on reading some english translation of a translation of a translation... claiming to be the absolute truth and accuracy, you deduce that it must be true, because it says it is? Go go circular logic. (and not even the 3+ steps common circular logic but a direct self affirmation... the bible is truth because the bible itself says so...)

Also, I am pretty sure the scriptures don't contradict me on that one... god gave the 10 commandments, jesus did not write the bible, etc...

Here is one for you..

AND THE LORD JESUS SAID LET TALTAMIR BE MY VOICE AND HE HATH WRITTEN THE TRUTH ON YE OLDE JOEUSER.COM,

AND THE WRITS OF TALTAMIR ON JOEUSER.COM SAID THAT IT IS THE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH AND MUST BE OBEYED.

there we go, solid proof (since you consider ciruclar logic as proof) that I am correct.

OH, PS. If you want to study the bible... READING it is very inadequate, you should try thinking about it, reading about it, and reading the various translations and looking for the most ancient editions you can find and reading them in their original language. So atheists told you they know ancient hebrew and read the originals, and you respond with "i have been reading/studying the bible for 30 years"... i guess 30 years isn't enough time to learn hebrew.

TALTAMIR POSTS:

It's not circular logic, but a lawful sprial argument of which the ends do not meet.

You are correct, various texts in the Holy BIble say that it was written or spoken with the authority of God. Christ Himself refers to Old Testament writings as certain proof that His mission was divine and the clearest statement of inspiration is found in the New Testament in St.Paul's second Epistle to Timothy...."All Scripture, inspired of God..." So besides Scripture itself, the Catholic Church has supplied the evidence that it is inspired of God and therefore every word is truth and free from error.

If this is true, then atheists should know the fact is the Jews always accepted the Old Testament as inspired.

While I don't deny the Holy Bible's inspiration , let's abstract from that and make no use of it for the sake of this argument.  Let's take the Gospels and subject them as books to the same historical criticism as we apply to other books. They all prove to be reliable historical documents.

These historical documents tell us of a certain historical Person who declared He was God, justified that claim by His works  which no ordinary man could do and said He would establish an infallible Church--- a Church that began at the time of Christ and is still here today.  We can prove Christ's life and works by historical documents. We prove His Divinity from His life and works. We prove the infallible Church from the promise of this Divine Person. My rational grounds for my  belief that the Scripture is inspired and comes from God comes from the infallible Catholic Chruch which not only told us which books comprise the Holy Bible, but also guarantees it is the Word of God.

So, indeed it is a lawful spiral argument...taking the Scriptures as historical documents only, the Church proves the historical fact of Christ, endowed her with infallibility...then using that infallibility she throws new light on the historical books by assuring me they are inspired. I begin with merely historical books and finish with inspired historical books...it's not a circular argument becasue I didn't use inspiration as the basis of my first premise.

I agree with  Saint Augustine who wrote, "I would not accept the Gospels unless the authority of the Catholic impelled me."

So, atheists have only their fallible human opinion as proof that Scriputre is not inspired....while I hold up the infallible and consistent teaching of the Catholic Chruch...disprove her authority to decide which books are inspired and which are not inspired, and you will have made some headway. But until you have done so, your idea is nothing more than your opinion with a value proportionate only to your limited knowledge and mental capacity.

just as fervently and hopefully as some of you pray to be around for the end of days, i want to be here when other life forms are discovered elsewhere in the universe, 

99.9% of that is rooted in what i'd describe as rational native curiosity; the other .01% is, i gotta admit, is hating to think id miss witnessing something as potentially hilarious as the inevitable attempts at on-the-fly scriptural reconciliation.

DAIWA,

We know now though modern genetics that Darwin, from observing all the vaiety on the Galapagos Island, mistakenly concluded that all species, from amoeba to man, had evolved from common ancestry. As for natural selection, we know in fact that he actually observed something called "adaption through reduction of genetic variation" referred more simply as variety within kind, or genetic variation.

Instead of adding new information to the gene pool, natural selection can result in loss of info and at best only acts to conserve the existing types, rather than facilitate Evolution, the emergence of a 'higher' species form from a lower one.

In contrast to Evolutionary view, which suggests that the environment (nature) forces each species to adapt and somehow acquire new and higher information to its gene pool in order to survive, natural selection only works within the existing gene pool of each species and has a stabilizing effects, since novelties tend to be eliminated.

So, therefore , we know that natural selection occurs, but it doesn't explain, support or result in Evolution.

DAIWA,

Again, here is not my definition of Evolution Theory, but the one I googled....

You are here: Science >> Darwin's Theory Of Evolution

Darwin's Theory of Evolution - The Premise
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers -- all related. Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent with modification". That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time.

As to the first part of your assertion, it's plain to see that there is nothing here that includes Almighty Creator God and that's precisely why, even though there has been no substantial scientific data to sustain it, atheists, agnostics and secular humanists gleefully accept and argue it as fact.

As to the second part of your assertion, Catholics believe God created man and our distinctive character centers primarily on our eternal soul which did not and could not evolve from a lower species, or brute ape-like being.  Catholics cannot consistently accept Evolution Theory that denies belief in God as the direct Creator of three things set forth in Genesis....

1:1, "In the beginning, God created Heaven and earth..

1:21, "And God created the great whales, and every living thing and moving creature..."

1:27, "And God created man in His own image...."

For Taltamir and all you other Atheist buffs he claims are so who are so well versed in Hebrew, it's interesting to note that the word "created" only appears 3 times in Genesis 1. It utterly contradicts mechanistic evolution which attempts to deny Special Creation.

Zoo,

I'm convinced Evolution didn't produce a gnat, let alone a human person. Explain the evidence of how Evolution did that would you?

Could you provide empirical evidence for Evolution Theory? There isn't any, so anything you cite must be taken on Evolutionary faith...if you believe it's true then you are believing a false system based upon Satan's lie that man is sufficient in himself and does not need the Creator God.  

I understand the small body changes, the variations within kind, like moths coloring, the shape of birds beaks, all the varieties of birds, dogs, etc.,and yes, we have clear evidence of how that happens, but Evolution theory postulates change from ape to man, .....do you believe that? if so , could you provide the evidence...describe the process ....show the human ancestry that goes back to apes.

If material (natural causes) only are admitted, and somehow the first primitive molecule got into motion and whirled itself in a more complex being...if this happened as many science and biology books claim....could you give any empirical evidence of this?

OR .....are Evolutionists using science as a front to support their Godless philosophy?

Lula -

You are not receptive to scientific logic or evidence.  You have a view and find a way to force everything to conform to that view, despite evidence to the contrary.  I repeat, there is nothing mutually exclusive about the theory of evolution and the existence of God.  Evolution, as science currently understands it, contradicts a literal interpretation of the Bible, prompting many, apparently you as well, to conclude that evolution is not compatible with a belief in your God as described in your Bible - literal interpretation forces you to reject 'non-conforming' evidence without any consideration of its validity since its validity is irrelevant.

You are free to believe as you wish, and you deserve respect for standing by your religious beliefs, but a literal interpretation of the Bible does not 'disprove' the theory of evolution.  Accept your religious beliefs, live by them, but please don't try to force them on others or use them as scientific argument.

no originals of which exist and none can be reliably authenticated as to authorship.  nor are there any civil records--something one might reasonably expect from the romans, if not the jews.  no physical evidence whatsoever.  there's no concensus--far from it in fact--as to where or when he was born or placed into a tomb.  

it boils down to this: for those who truly believe, none of the above is required to sustain faith.  those who don't might wanna spend their time more constructively, perhaps meditating on thomas.    

There is nothing "godless" about evolution. Just because Christian (and Muslim!) fundamentalists don't believe in science doesn't mean that those who do are "godless".

Your attempt to make the conflict between scientific and stupid a conflict between atheism and religion is yet another Creationist lie. I know about evolution and understand it, and I believe in G-d and prophecy; plus I happen to invest a lot of time into studying religion, certainly more than most Creationists.

Fact is that G-d rewards those who teach evolution. If G-d even cares... Countries that teach Creationism are doomed to being uncivilised barbaric places. Just compare the US and Saudi Arabia. One teaches evolution, the other teaches Creationism. Any attempt to make the US more like Saudi Arabia (in that respect or any other) has certainly nothing to do with promoting true religion.

Note that Lula, like most fundamentalists refer to an English translation of the Bible. The original Hebrew text often doesn't support her views. Both Bible research and biology require studying; and most Creationists are not willing to invest time in studying either subject, let alone both subjects.

The surprising thing about Lula is that she claims to be Catholic and a follower of the one true Church, yet she dismisses Catholic principles and the Pope's views on evolution (and interpretation of Biblical texts).

Here's the Catholic Church position on evolution:

"In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points....Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies -- which was neither planned nor sought -- constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory."


(Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope John Paul II)

And about creation:

According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5 - 4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.


(International Theological Commission July 2004 statement, Cardinal Ratzinger)

This is not a battle between religion and atheism, it's a battle between Lula and Muslim fundamentalists on the one side against scientists (atheist and Christian/Muslim/Jewish/Hindu/whatever) and the Catholic Church on the other.

_I_ am firmly on the side of the Catholic Church in this conflict. Lula is not.