Do you accept the theory of evolution?

[childeroland]

Before I start I just want to say that 'm not trying to convert anybody; I just want to point out that Ii's not true that there's no way to prove the Bible is true.

First Of all I would like offer evidence that the Pentateuch was written all at once c. 1200 BCE, instead of the whole Jewish Bible being written around 500 BCE.

Imagine for a second you're a Jew living in Babylon/Persia around 500 BCE. Somebody comes out with a new book called the Bible.; It claims to have been written in parts for the past 700 years. A part of it claims to have been written around 1200 BCE. (This is directly in the Bible "Moses finished writing the words of this Pentateuch in a scroll to the very end" Deut 31:24)

Would you accept it?

And if he claimed it was lost, wouldn't the fact that the book was lost and rediscovered have been written in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, which is the story of the period of Jewish History around 500 BCE?

Now Imagine you're an Israelite living around 1200 BCE. A guy named Moses brings this book that he claims is from God. The Book states that your people were in Egypt, and oppressed. Your Opressesors were punished by God in a plague that only effected the Firstborn, after a pretty public prediction of this plague by this Moses fellow. Then it states that your people crossed a sea which split. Then you saw God revealed in fire and smoke on Mt. Sinai. Now, if that never happened who would accept the book?

Nobody.

And furthermore, who in an agrarian society would accept a book that required you to rest the land for a year, once every seven years, and for two years in a row every 50 years if they weren't sure it was from God. Such customs could have really never have developed among the Israelites unless the were told to do it by God.

That's my proof. Even if you don't accept it you can't say we didn't try to prove it.

But how do we know Jews around 1200 BCE were offered any proof that we today could believe, particularly since 1200 BCE is generally considered such a long time after the Exodus took place if it did--Albright's late-dating of the Exodus (1200-1250) is largely out of favor with scholars. And the earliest non-Biblical account of the Exodus dates around the 4th century BC. It's currently thought that the J strand was probably written in the 6th century BCE during the exile and that the Priestly source was added to ithttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_exile at the very end of the 6th century or during the next.

 

[Shemtov]

But how do we know Jews around 1200 BCE were offered any proof that we today could believe, particularly since 1200 BCE is generally considered such a long time after the Exodus took place if it did--Albright's late-dating of the Exodus (1200-1250) is largely out of favor with scholars. And the earliest non-Biblical account of the Exodus dates around the 4th century BC. It's currently thought that the J strand was probably written in the 6th century BCE during the exile and that the Priestly source was added to it at the very end of the 6th century or during the next.

Read what I said before I brought up the part beginning "Imagine you're an Israelite living around 1200 BCE."

First Of all I would like offer evidence that the Pentateuch was written all at once c. 1200 BCE, instead of the whole Jewish Bible being written around 500 BCE. -In other words, before anything else, I'm offering evidence that the Pentateuch was written around the time of the exodus, instead of the 6th century BCE.

Imagine for a second you're a Jew living in Babylon/Persia around 500 BCE. Somebody comes out with a new book called the Bible.; It claims to have been written in parts for the past 700 years. A part of it claims to have been written around 1200 BCE. (This is directly in the Bible "Moses finished writing the words of this Pentateuch in a scroll to the very end" Deut 31:24)
If it was written in the 6th century BCE, it would be known that it was new, because they never heard of this exact book before.
Would you accept it?

And if he -or they-the people who wrote the J-strand or the Priestly Source claimed it-the Pentateuch- was lost, -which is why nobody knew about it- wouldn't the fact that the book was lost and rediscovered have been written in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, which is the story of the period of Jewish History around 500 BCE? -because the loss and rediscovery of the Pentateuch would be a big deal.

 

[8wid]

Here's a good question for creationists, especially Christians. Why did God only create one planet of humans underneath a glass dome? Why didn't he create an infinite number of Earths and simply destroy the ones that sinned and kept going?

Why didn't God simply destroy Adam and Eve after they first sinned or simply create other humans that didn't get tempted by the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil? Why didn't he create one more place other than the Garden of Eden for humans to come from?

Why did Jesus wait until the time of the Roman Empire to come down to sacrifice himself and forgive mankind for its sins when he could have come down in the Garden of Eden, done the same thing and forgiven Adam and Eve right after they ate from the Tree of Good and Evil instead of kicking them out on their own. Why wait thousands of years to imprison Satan in Hell for all eternity when he could have done that before he tempted Even in the Garden? Why was Lucifer even allowed into the Garden of Eden?

 

[Thundercrack85]

There is so much wrong with creationism, it is hard to know where to start. Scientifically, and ethically. Just look at the underhanded tactics the so-called intelligent design movement uses.

 

[childeroland]

Read what I said before I brought up the part beginning "Imagine you're an Israelite living around 1200 BCE."

But that isn't really evidence, is it? The Exodus story was probably first drafted during the Babylonian exile (around 600 BCE), not around 1200 BCE, and the latest dating (a dating not accepted by most biblical scholars, I think) for the Exodus itself is almost 600 years earlier, around 1200 BCE. Why would Jews of the Babylonian period, around 600 BCE, have any reason we would accept today for accepting a relatively new account as historical just because the account itself claims in part to have been written six centuries earlier, around 1200 BCE? Is there any credible extra-Biblical evidence of an Exodus account dating around 1200 BCE or any other time before 600 BCE?

 

[Thundercrack85]

What's this "BCE" stuff? It's BC.

 

[Shemtov]

What's this "BCE" stuff? It's BC.

BCE/CE is a form of notation used by non-Christians because it does not explicitly refer to Jesus , or the Christian creed that he is the lord and savior.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I know, and it's PC nonsense. Either use AD / BC properly, or don't use the Gregorian Calendar at all.

For the record, I'd be all for using a new calendar. Since we can't even agree on when Jesus was born.

 

[Shemtov]

I know, and it's PC nonsense. Either use AD / BC properly, or don't use the Gregorian Calendar at all.

I don't like PC either, but this has nothing to do with PC. It's my own choice as a Non-Christian. PC would be saying to somebody who did use BC/AD :"Oh, you can't use that because I don't."

 

[Thundercrack85]

I'm a blasphemous, hell-bound atheist. But if you're going to use the Gregorian Calendar, use it properly. CE / BCE is nonsense. What does it even mean? What is the common era? And how do you determine what came before it?

 

[childeroland]

It means Before Common Era, (or Before Christian Era) common (or Christian) era being what we're living in now, the year 1 being roughly when Jesus was thought to be born. It's just a commonly accepted term becoming more and more widespread. It makes no difference to me personally, I just go with it because it's common usage.

 

[Thundercrack85]

"Irregardless" is commonly accepted as well. The very phrase "common era" is meaningless. And it becomes downright pointless, if you're calling it the Christian Era anyway. By all means, feel free to use CE / BCE, but I will call it what it is, a perversion.

 

[BillPardy]

"Its not like evolution says! It wasn't just like 'poof' and we were here! God created us!"
-Fanatical Religious group Corner of Young and Dundas Toronto Ontario.

I'm all for people having their religions, I'm even okay with the fact that this group sits with mega phones every weekend telling us all we're going to hell for not being in their church... But anyone that thinks that Evolution states, "Poof we were there", clearly hasn't even tried to understand it.

 

[Godsfireworks]

Call me a cheater, but I believe in Evolution because I believe that God set it in motion.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Call me a cheater, but I believe in Evolution because I believe that God set it in motion.

Please elaborate. Why would God set evolution into motion?

 

[BillPardy]

Call me a cheater, but I believe in Evolution because I believe that God set it in motion.

I'm fine with that answer. I don't see the need for people to discredit something completely, you can easily work it into your beliefs. It wouldn't be the first time people have tooled their beliefs to suit their needs.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Ah religious evolution. Oh the irony.

 

[8wid]

Sorry, but I have to say that anyone who believes evolution was started by a divine being, especially the Abrahamic God, is ignoring the literal description of creation in the Book of Genesis that has the planet created under a glass dome with the water becoming the sky, the Earth being created before the stars, sun, and moon, and light appears before there is any matter described. This is not physically possible. Anyone not realizing the two cannot coexist together is not looking at the Bible, but just leaving it up in the air.

 

[Dr.]

I know, and it's PC nonsense. Either use AD / BC properly, or don't use the Gregorian Calendar at all.

Undeniably, there’s a PC aspect to the BCE/CE designation (though the term “common era” goes back centuries). But I would suggest that a similar PC also applies to BC/AD - to the extent that the initials, themselves, seem innocuous whereas the full phrases are “loaded.”

Within Christianity, “Christ” has morphed beyond a mere political title (divinely sanctioned king or messiah). It now means “Son of God.” But this is a theological conclusion. And so usage of the BC term rather connotes agreement with the theology. (“BJ” - “before [an allegedly historical Jew called] Jesus” - might have been more neutral. )

Likewise, AD stands for Anno Domini, the year of our Lord. So it seems to me that anyone who argues for AD over CE should feel entirely comfortable using “In the year of Our Lord 2012” in a sentence. If not, then that’s a kind of PC fudging too.

 

[Shemtov]

Undeniably, there’s a PC aspect to the BCE/CE designation (though the term “common era” goes back centuries). But I would suggest that a similar PC also applies to BC/AD - to the extent that the initials, themselves, seem innocuous whereas the full phrases are “loaded.”

Within Christianity, “Christ” has morphed beyond a mere political title (divinely sanctioned king or messiah). It now means “Son of God.” But this is a theological conclusion. And so usage of the BC term rather connotes agreement with the theology. (“BJ” - “before [an allegedly historical Jew called] Jesus” - might have been more neutral. )

Likewise, AD stands for Anno Domini, the year of our Lord. So it seems to me that anyone who argues for AD over CE should feel entirely comfortable using “In the year of Our Lord 2012” in a sentence. If not, then that’s a kind of PC fudging too.

Chr*st is a Greek Translation of the Hebrew Word "Mashiach" -Messiah.
In Judiasm, which Christianity evolved from the Messiah is not a "mere political title". It, in itself, is theological (even though in Judaism the Messiah will be a mere mortal). The Identity of the Messiah is also a theological conclusion. Thus, BC also has the connotation that Jessus is the Messiah.

 

[Duke]

I do not accept evolution because I like to hold onto my faith.

 

[dnno1]

I can answer the natural selection 'who is making the selection' question in more detail later but the simple answer is, we make the selection. Nature makes the selection.

Animals, humans, we pick our mates for a variety of reasons. If you want to understand natural selection, look at dog breeding. That's the simplified version of what happens throughout nature.

When we (being humans) make the selection that is called artificial selection. Natural selection is where biological traits become more or less common through a gradual non-random non process and has more to do with the survival of the fittest organism than with some outside observers idea of what is best.

 

[Dr.]

Chr*st is a Greek Translation of the Hebrew Word "Mashiach" -Messiah.
In Judiasm, which Christianity evolved from the Messiah is not a "mere political title". It, in itself, is theological (even though in Judaism the Messiah will be a mere mortal). The Identity of the Messiah is also a theological conclusion. Thus, BC also has the connotation that Jessus is the Messiah.

Political in the sense that, originally, messiah meant a leader - a duly anointed king or high priest (albeit, divinely sanctioned). Thus, by some interpretations, David (among others) was a christ (a messiah) - a temporal position of leadership, not identified with a specific individual. In later traditions, the term did come to refer to a specific, future king. Now, obviously, Jews don’t identify Jesus as this messiah (and they certainly dispute that “messiah” is a synonym for “god” or “the son of god”). So to use “BC” (rather than “BCE”) rather implies that one places a unique theological significance on Jesus the (one and only) Christ.

 

[Dr.]

I do not accept evolution because I like to hold onto my faith.

That's fine. But would you agree that holding on to your faith (a personal matter) is rather irrelevant to the curriculum of a high school biology class?

 

[8wid]

I don't think creationism museums should be protected as public charities unless their exhibits show an artistic interpretation of a mythological scene, they should not be allowed to be perceived as a scientific, educational, or historical organization under protected status from the IRS. Churches really should pay taxes just like fortune tellers and mediums have to and be registered with state governments just like these are too. Both are just as manipulative as the other.