Did Jesus exist? Italian court to decide

[jayman]

coaster kid, i hate to point this out, but NO scientist, not even darwin himself, contrary to the beliefs of some, believe that humans evolved from apes, sorry but you shot yourself in the foot there, but i too believe that all the stuff in this world, more or less has evolved, but not from a species different than it.. that indeed would be ludicrous, there would be a ton of half ape half human "things" walking around.. and, (i'm positive that tj has this in his arsenal and used it) we'd be evolving into something different.
i'm convinced that the "humans come from monkeys" thing came from people's reaction to darwin's theory when it was released to a very ignorant public..sure it's very likely that we evolved from something SIMULAR to apes, at least to the best of our knowledge, but not from apes , the species...
but again evolution has a lot of scientific facts backing it up BUT it cannot be proven any more than any of the creation myths... while i certainly think it's horribly wrong to teach"intelligent design " to kids as a substitute or a companion to evolution, i see no reason to be intolerant of people who believe this...

Sorry Jayman but you are mistaken when you say Darwin never believed humans evolved from apes, he in fact did claim that humans evolved from apes through the well-known process of natural selection.

"In a subsequent book, The Descent of Man, published in 1871, Darwin finally presented his ideas on evolution as applied to us humans. He proposed that we evolved from apes through a series of gradual steps. Even uniquely human attributes, he suggested, such as intelligence and emotion could come about through natural selection."

Whole article: http://www.abc.net.au/science/descent/darwin.htm

Originally posted by jayman

coaster kid, i hate to point this out, but NO scientist, not even darwin himself, contrary to the beliefs of some, believe that humans evolved from apes, sorry but you shot yourself in the foot there, but i too believe that all the stuff in this world, more or less has evolved, but not from a species different than it.. that indeed would be ludicrous, there would be a ton of half ape half human "things" walking around.. and, (i'm positive that tj has this in his arsenal and used it) we'd be evolving into something different.
i'm convinced that the "humans come from monkeys" thing came from people's reaction to darwin's theory when it was released to a very ignorant public..sure it's very likely that we evolved from something SIMULAR to apes, at least to the best of our knowledge, but not from apes , the species...

Actually ... one thing begs to be noticed. (Let me just throw my explanation out there) We have apes, we have monkeys, we have all sorts of breeds of "apes", and of course we have humans. Where are the half breeds? If we evolved, why would we have BOTH SIDES of the spectrum, and nothing in between? And, before anyone cranks off the stupid catch phrase "missing link"; that is nothing more than a scientist not able to explain this concept, so they created an explanation to be able to sleep at night. I find it odd, that we would have millions of humans and million of apes, but not even ONE connection of evolution.

Arsenal of info needed my friend? Nah, just common sense.

Real, very well explained on the different books, that about covers it -- most especialy the Torah. Interestingly enough, Exodus and Leviticus are loaded with laws about not killing people, and yet extremists hold it near and dear that murder in the name of "god" gets you into paradise. Nice comprehension skills, eh?

In the evolutionism versus creationism debate, here are my thoughts. Look at the order of events in Genesis versus the events as described by science. Eliminating the '7 days to create' and 'earth is only 20,000 years old' arguments, they are surprisingly similar. This is where the argument is, however. most people assume that Genesis is a literal history, and that earth was absolutely created in 7 days, and is about 20,000 years old. I am a christian, and not even I believe that. Suppose, however, that '7 days' refers rather to 7 periods of the development of the planet. that is where it gets very interesting.

Genesis:
1. Sky and Earth are created ('earth is empty and had no form')
2. Light and darkness begin on Earth
3. Air created
4. Dry land created
5. Plants created
6. Sun and moon shine on Earth
7. Sea creatures created
8. Birds created
9. Land animals created
10. Humans created

Science:
1. Universe created (including the stars in the sky, and planets including Earth)
2. volcanic gases produce atmosphere
3. shifting tectonic plates give form to the dry land
4. simple micro-organisms develop in the seas, including early plants
5. fish evolve from simpler life forms
6. sea creatures move on to dry land, gradually evolving into reptiles and amphibians
7. evolution produces warm-blooded animals
8. evolution produces mammals
9. evolution produces humans

Genesis with the scientific parallel:
1. no explaination needed... the two agree completely
2. 'light and darkness begin'... so, scientifically, the earth now has a solid form to it, and is spinning.
3. 'air created'... this sounds an awful lot like what happened when 'volcanic gases produced the atmosphere'.
4. 'dry land created'... similarly, the action of colliding tectonic plates and volcanoes pushed up mountains and land forms.
5. 'plants created'... the simplest form of life was first to develop
6. 'sun and moon shine'... okay, I'll admit it, this is the only one that doesn't necessarily agree timing wise. It is possible that vocanic gases and dust from celestial impacts had blocked out the visibility of the sun and moon from Earth's surface until a certain point, however.
7. 'sea creatures created'... yep, that's what came next after simple plants and single-celled organisms.
8. 'birds created'... it seems at first that the timing is off here, but suppose that dinosaurs and the other reptiles that ruled the earth 200,000,000 years ago were still considered 'sea creatures', since reptiles and amphibians were the first animals to take to the land? then, yes, birds would come up next.
9. 'land animals created'... if it's mammals that Genesis is talking about, then that is absolutely correct.
10. 'humans created'... according to science, humans are less than 1 million years old, which indeed means that we came last.

If you ask me, the ancient Hebrews who wrote the book of Genesis were pretty darn accurate. Considering that they had only a microscopic fraction of the knowledge we have today, I'd say that it seems unlikely that some random ancient writers knew so closely what the fossil record now shows about the progression of life on Earth. It's just a hunch, but I think it bears some thought.

[coolbeans326]

Originally posted by IntaminFan397

Originally posted by Real

So I pose this question:

What makes data recorded today on events that happen different from events that were recorded in the past?

We have tons of official records that are nothing more than words on a page. No pictures (some predate photography and werent painted though painting isnt a sure thing either - artistic element), no audio, nothing but words. We will take that as evidence which was written probably someone primary or secondary.

Yet, the Bible, which was recorded mostly by Primary sources (the NT that is) we dismiss as fake or made up? I just dont see how that translates. If I were to believe like you guys believe, then when I open a text book if there is NO picture and NO audio or video to back up whats written, it must be false.


See, that theory doesnt work. What most people do is they switch their own theology on the subject of sources. Because the book has the obvious religious and spiritual attachment to it, it has no weight but it was written void of that, it would be a historical document. Which makes no sense to me at all.

What makes the Bible a more credible source than the holy books of other religions?

And for people who think this post is an indirect attack on the Bible or Christianity, please note that I'm asking this question seriously, because I have a lack of knowledge about history of holy books (Koran, Torah, etc.)

Other holy books have just as much fact to them as the bible. WHere the debate relies, though, is in the spiritual aspect, and this is where faith kicks in. Obviously there was a man named Muhammad who had a vision of some sort. But was his vision from a higher being? That is for you to decide, but I say no.

Also, going along with what CjD is saying, Creationism and scientific theories on how it was created can coincide perfectly. All creationism is stating is that God was the being in charge that said do this, and it happened, but science is what explains in what way did it happen.

i'm convinced that the "humans come from monkeys" thing came from people's reaction to darwin's theory when it was released to a very ignorant public..sure it's very likely that we evolved from something SIMULAR to apes, at least to the best of our knowledge, but not from apes , the species...

Also the evolved from apes thing is really an excuse for racism, because some one obviously must have evolved better out of the human race. And this is where Social Darwinism comes in, this is what Hitler and people of his type believed, meaning that we evolved, and there fore there must be a dominant species, when in fact there really ins't, so we must have not evolved from apes.
There is some evolution that goes on, but nothing dramatic like ape into man, but more like white man into black man would be more of a comparison, as they are the same species, but because of locations on the earth, and climate and everything one has adapted to the sun better, and in result has a much darker tan than a white man.(P.S I'm not being racist if anyone thinks that, I'm just taking 2 distinctively different branches of human's and comparing how they are different mostly because of where thier ancestor grew up at, and how they evolved to better suit thier enviornment)

Sorry, i don't have much to add atm, i just wanted to say thank you to Real for putting my point into a much more coherent paragraph. When i have more time i'll come back and put something in. There is a lot of good stuff in this forum.

[hyyyper]

To every catholic in the world:

Cliiick Here

[Oscar]

Originally posted by hyyyper

To every catholic in the world:

Cliiick Here

wasn't expecting the ending, cool editing

If my sister saw the video she would be petrified(SP?) I wouldn't post that video cause I'm sure there are strong believers out there who would find it offending(I didn't get offended BTW) but just wanted to let you know..

and i want to know, how the hell does a forum about religion turn into a conversation over apes?


I guess it could just be explaining how Jesus and all people came to be.

[hyyyper]

Originally posted by italianpnoy112

If my sister saw the video she would be petrified(SP?) I wouldn't post that video cause I'm sure there are strong believers out there who would find it offending(I didn't get offended BTW) but just wanted to let you know..

like



i



care


seriously, if ppl got offended by that movie, i'm not the one who wrong, they should have themselves checked, ppl being religios, fine with me, but being religious and not having humor....

its the peoples choice to hit the link. I personally chose not to.

No offense by the video here -- three seconds into it the back key was physically abused (hit) for failing to capture my attention ...

[coolbeans326]

Ripping good laugh!

[hyyyper]

Originally posted by TConwell

No offense by the video here -- three seconds into it the back key was physically abused (hit) for failing to capture my attention ...

can't you ever talk normal and just admit the vid was funny..[;)]

Originally posted by hyyyper

Originally posted by TConwell

No offense by the video here -- three seconds into it the back key was physically abused (hit) for failing to capture my attention ...

can't you ever talk normal and just admit the vid was funny..[;)]

Actually numb-skull, that was normal talking. The beginning of the movie did not interest me, thus the back button was hit. Pay attention more often and you MIGHT make less of a donkey's feces out of yourself.

Originally posted by hyyyper

Originally posted by TConwell

No offense by the video here -- three seconds into it the back key was physically abused (hit) for failing to capture my attention ...

can't you ever talk normal and just admit the vid was funny..[;)]

You know hyyyper, not everyone in the world talks like an idiot like you. Some of us, know how to speak.

[coolbeans326]

Originally posted by TConwell

No offense by the video here -- three seconds into it the back key was physically abused (hit) for failing to capture my attention ...

The begginning was kind of lame but once he started dancing around, it gets pretty funny.

[hyyyper]

geesh man, why do you guys always take everthing that heavy, the vid is just a joke, it's not even my vid, i just had the link and thought it would fit into this tread, and tcon, watching the whole movie can only corfirm it's 'boringness', at least watch the entire thing

hyyyper, you Sir, are an idiot.

[jayman]

sorry i gotta agree with cool beans, the dancing was funny, but the ending was like a fart joke... only slightly more clever, only slightly.. i appreiciate hyumorous blasphemy when it's done well, i just thought it was crude

Originally posted by TConwell

Originally posted by jayman

coaster kid, i hate to point this out, but NO scientist, not even darwin himself, contrary to the beliefs of some, believe that humans evolved from apes, sorry but you shot yourself in the foot there, but i too believe that all the stuff in this world, more or less has evolved, but not from a species different than it.. that indeed would be ludicrous, there would be a ton of half ape half human "things" walking around.. and, (i'm positive that tj has this in his arsenal and used it) we'd be evolving into something different.
i'm convinced that the "humans come from monkeys" thing came from people's reaction to darwin's theory when it was released to a very ignorant public..sure it's very likely that we evolved from something SIMULAR to apes, at least to the best of our knowledge, but not from apes , the species...

Actually ... one thing begs to be noticed. (Let me just throw my explanation out there) We have apes, we have monkeys, we have all sorts of breeds of "apes", and of course we have humans. Where are the half breeds? If we evolved, why would we have BOTH SIDES of the spectrum, and nothing in between? And, before anyone cranks off the stupid catch phrase "missing link"; that is nothing more than a scientist not able to explain this concept, so they created an explanation to be able to sleep at night. I find it odd, that we would have millions of humans and million of apes, but not even ONE connection of evolution.

Arsenal of info needed my friend? Nah, just common sense.

Real, very well explained on the different books, that about covers it -- most especialy the Torah. Interestingly enough, Exodus and Leviticus are loaded with laws about not killing people, and yet extremists hold it near and dear that murder in the name of "god" gets you into paradise. Nice comprehension skills, eh?

I've always thought this was a very weak argument for creationism, the "why aren't there any animals in mid-evolution" argument. The reason you don't see any other species of humans walking around is because they are extinct. There were, at one time, several different species of humans walking this planet and even ocassionally interacting with each other. Im sure you've all seen the shows on the discovery channel or at least have taken a biology class, so you would know that humans didn't evolve in a straight line from a single species of ape, there were different branches. The ape that our species evolved from started in Africa, lets say one group of the apes migrated north to Europe, another group migrated east to Asia, and the last group stayed in Africa. After thousands of years of living in a new environment and adapting, the three groups have evolved into a slightly different species ( you know like cro magnum, homo erectus, homo habilus, and all of the other ones). Obviously there were more than three branches, I am no scientist so I can only explain this very generally. Scientists also think that many of the species could have interacted with each other and competed with each other. Eventually the species with the most favorable traits, homo sapien, out lived the others that had less favorable traits. So you would not find an animal that is in "mid-evolution," all organisms are constantly evolving, you don't just stop when you think you have adapted perfectly to your environment. Did you know that the average height of humans today is a lot higher than the average height was for humans during the Roman Empire? I've heard someone say "If animals made the jump from the ocean to land, why don't we see the fossils of a fish that was sprouting legs or something?" you don't see that because a fish with stubby legs would go extinct in a heart beat, have you ever seen a seal, or an aligator? That is most likely how life made the jump to land, with subtle changes like flippers on a seal that enable it to swim very well and wadle on land.

I also saw a very intersting show on the national geographic channel a while back about a species of very small species of human( I don't remember the scientific name) living in the Indonesian and South Pacific area. They found a cave full of bones from this species and they only date back to 700 years ago. Also they talked to some villagers in Indonesia and there are some stories that have been passed down from their ancestors about these small humans. So they think that while we were in the middle ages in Europe, there was an entirley different species of humans living on this planet with us that we didn't know about.

I's sorry for writing so much, Im just really intersted in this kind of stuff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Human_evolution


Heres a site that can explain it a lot better than I can. Just for the people who still question evolution.

Originally posted by cjd

Evolution or not, the realism of Christianity does not lie in the truth or non-truth of the book of Genesis. This part of the Bible is a story. It was written many thousands of years ago, and simply tries to explain why we are here. Whether God created us and put us in a garden, or engineered us through the years, it does not matter. The truth of Christianity lies in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, not in the credentiability of Genesis. And no matter how hard people may try, they can not disprove the existance of God or the divinity of Jesus. What truly matters is the belief that Jesus is the son of God, that he died for us, and that he was resurrected from the grave. Even if Genesis is wrong about all life beginning with 2 people in a garden, Christianity will have lost no credibility whatsoever. Argue all you want, but proving Evolution will not truly discredit anything.

I do not think that evolution conflicts with the christian beliefs, but if the book that the religion is based off of is losing credibility, then the religion would lose credibilty wouldn't it? You say that genesis is a story, how can you be so sure that the rest isn't a story? How do you know it was meant to be a story and that it wasn't how the author really thought? I know a lot of it is not supposed to be taken literally and it can be interpreted in so many different ways, but there are still some major problems regardless of that.

No, god cannot be disproven, and science is in no way meant to disprove god. The burden of proof lies on the person who makes the claim, which means it is not up to the atheist to disprove god, it is up the to theist to provide evidence to back up their claim. Now I realize it just takes faith, but I and many others just cannot put that amount of faith into something without a shred of evidence.

As much as I think conservative Christians are idiots for believing what they do, their idiocy isn't as great as all those half-assed liberal Christian love out there. I cannot understand why someone would say "I am a Christian, and I believe that Jesus is the son of God and died for my sins, but I also think the book that "taught" me this is full of false stories".

"All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness..." (2 Timothy 3:16 NAB)