[Deepblue]

What?

It's suddenly provocative to say "meh" to the whole subject?

[Mefustae]

No, it's somewhat provocative to say 'Genesis and Evolution can merge quite well'.

Still waiting on that explanation...

[Black Wolf]

Can you explain how humans will know how life came into existence since they weren't there at the beginning? Enlighten me, please.

Because we have something that were there when life came into existence, taking down records. It's called the Earth. When you know how to read it, it tells you more about life (and by that I mean the biological kind of life, not your own individual life) than any book, even your Bible ever could.

[Mefustae]

Because we have something that were there when life came into existence, taking down records. It's called the Earth. When you know how to read it, it tells you more about life (and by that I mean the biological kind of life, not your own individual life) than any book, even your Bible ever could.

No, no, don't get on the defensive, it serves no purpose, take the arguement to his side, the side that is actually the agressor.

[Black Wolf]

It's not a defence, it's a statement of fact. The earth really does have most of what we need to know about the origins of life written into some part of it, either the rocks or the organisms on it.

[Deepblue]

No, it's somewhat provocative to say 'Genesis and Evolution can merge quite well'.

Still waiting on that explanation...

I said why couldn't they?

I have no idea on genesis, but I'm really sick of everyone arguing about something so trivial.

[Kamikaze]

Well of course it's trivial. The scientists couldn't care less; there's a consensus about evolution in science. It's the fundamentalists who constantly bring up this issue of Evolution vs. Intelligent Design by trying to legislate their crap into schools. Not our (the scientifically minded people's) fault.

[AlphaOne]

Umm actualy scientists ,at least those with ana open mind, never said that the Bible was wrong..i mean the whole cration stuff.

But there are some very important aspects of the whole evolution theory that actualy dont make sence. Dont ask me now to tell them to you cuz well mi brain is shot to pieces...!

[Mars]

Translation of Deepblue's and AlphaOne's argument: Eveloution seeks to explain how life came to be, physically, not why life exists.

[Kosh]

After looking at the textbook (at all of its bull****), I have a question. The style looks similair to a typical high school textbook. So, where do you use it?

[aldo_14]

Umm actualy scientists ,at least those with ana open mind, never said that the Bible was wrong..i mean the whole cration stuff.

But there are some very important aspects of the whole evolution theory that actualy dont make sence. Dont ask me now to tell them to you cuz well mi brain is shot to pieces...!

Proper scientists don't even look at the bible when studying either evolution or abiogenesis; it's of no more value or relevance than the latest Tom Clancy novel.

NB:  I shall give a short critique of the great wad o' pish later when I'm done with work.  I expect much hilarity.

[AlphaOne]

soo the fact that some scienists have actualy confirmed some of the dates and writings and facts as are mentioned  in the bible is of ne consequence right??

[aldo_14]

soo the fact that some scienists have actualy confirmed some of the dates and writings and facts as are mentioned  in the bible is of ne consequence right??

It would only be of consequence in verifying the validity of biblical events against history.

It's pretty simple.  From a rational i.e. scientific perspective, the bible is simply a mythological record (partly altered, granted, by years of translation by various vested interests).  Parts of it are historical, parts of it fictional, and parts are a combination of both.  For example, the flood myth is probably a reference to the epic of Gilgamesh, which in turn is probably a record of a great but-not-cataclysmic flood or series of floods.  so you can verify the bibles' authenticity (or try and see which parts allude to what) against the observable historical record, and other mythologies (for example, the Biblical story of Genesis is very much in tandem with the myths of surrounding cultures IIRC), but you can't use the bible as any sort of guide or textbook.

[Colonol Dekker]

To be honest in my opinion as a fairly unreligious person, in fact an athiest (sp?), I say the Bible has no more historical scientific merit as a cave painting or fossilised T-Rex $h1t, Bloody DAN BROWN and his Da Vinci Ho' have stirred fundies up all over the place.

[Mefustae]

To be honest in my opinion as a fairly unreligious person, in fact an athiest (sp?), I say the Bible has no more historical scientific merit as a cave painting or fossilised T-Rex $h1t, Bloody DAN BROWN and his Da Vinci Ho' have stirred fundies up all over the place.

Actually, cave paintings and Tyrannosaurus Rex coprolites both hold considerable scientific value. A more apt comparison would be saying the Bible holds as much histo-scientific merit as that hotdog tree I planted when I was a kid.

[AlphaOne]

Umm as a matter of fact historians and archeologist actualy confirmed that the writings about the jewish built cities in egipt as depicted in the bible ahead of time several hundreds of years in fact actualy did happen. Also There is ample proof that the writings actualy were written not in the same time frame or after but rather as stated above before those things actualy happened. And there are scrolls that actualy offer proof of that. They were discovered in the late 20th centuri i think and carbon dated and confirmed as beeing form a specific time frame.


Look i'm not here to argue about the whole religeus vs science thing i'm just here to say that nighter of them can actualy exclude the other. and that maibe in a way they are both right and wrong in regards to certain aspects.

[Colonol Dekker]

It means nothing Carthatge had cities 800 years before Christ, and Babylonians centuries before them, Indians from a civilisation i cant even remember the name of had sewage /drainage 1600 years before romans and they invented the number 0. -source That speccy bloke from "what the romans did for us" source was from a show of a different title, on BBC2, some time back.

[AlphaOne]

Umm I dont I follow you!

[aldo_14]

Umm as a matter of fact historians and archeologist actualy confirmed that the writings about the jewish built cities in egipt as depicted in the bible ahead of time several hundreds of years in fact actualy did happen. Also There is ample proof that the writings actualy were written not in the same time frame or after but rather as stated above before those things actualy happened. And there are scrolls that actualy offer proof of that. They were discovered in the late 20th centuri i think and carbon dated and confirmed as beeing form a specific time frame.


Look i'm not here to argue about the whole religeus vs science thing i'm just here to say that nighter of them can actualy exclude the other. and that maibe in a way they are both right and wrong in regards to certain aspects.

Um.... Can you cite any source for this?

I'm pretty sure what you'd find is that, if they're claiming the bible predicted the future, then they are probably liberally interpreting it to fit their results.  It's quite frequent, sadly, that you get purported scientists or studies that are really funded by fundamentalist christian groups solely to 'discover' things that 'prove' the bible; like the claims of finding Noahs Ark that essentially revolved around some satellite photos of rock strata (proven to be such through simple analysis) on Mount Ararat.

[Colonol Dekker]

Apologies Alphaone, I misread the start of your post.