Evolution or Creationism

[The New Gaula Reich]

Noah's ark actually isn't religiously important as most people think. It's just a dope story. The reason we cannot find clear evidence of the tribes of Isreal is because records were lost in exile. Duh. Jesus was real, don't try to deny that one, buddy. And for the Red Sea...I can't explain. But God could.

I can explain the red sea, it did not part, they in fact did not cross the red sea, they crossed the Sea of Reeds. The whole "red sea" thing was an error in translation. They crossed at the Bitter Lakes, a reedy marshland, during low tide, and when the Egyptians got there the water level increase a bit, and their chariots were bogged down and couldn't move, like that tank in CoD 4.

Source: here, also a show on the History Channel a few years back.

[Beldonia]

Noah's ark actually isn't religiously important as most people think. It's just a dope story. The reason we cannot find clear evidence of the tribes of Isreal is because records were lost in exile. Duh. Jesus was real, don't try to deny that one, buddy. And for the Red Sea...I can't explain. But God could.

I can explain the red sea, it did not part, they in fact did not cross the red sea, they crossed the Sea of Reeds. The whole "red sea" thing was an error in translation. They crossed at the Bitter Lakes, a reedy marshland, during low tide, and when the Egyptians got there the water level increase a bit, and their chariots were bogged down and couldn't move, like that tank in CoD 4.

Source: here, also a show on the History Channel a few years back.

I believe you, makes good sense.

[Farnhamia]

I can explain the red sea, it did not part, they in fact did not cross the red sea, they crossed the Sea of Reeds. The whole "red sea" thing was an error in translation. They crossed at the Bitter Lakes, a reedy marshland, during low tide, and when the Egyptians got there the water level increase a bit, and their chariots were bogged down and couldn't move, like that tank in CoD 4.

Source: here, also a show on the History Channel a few years back.

I believe you, makes good sense.

Yes, if you assume there were Hebrew slaves in Egypt en masse to begin with. That's not been established. There were the Hyksos in the 2nd millennium BCE, but they were conquerors who we expelled by military force, not turned into slaves who then escapes.

[Sociobiology]

I can explain the red sea, it did not part, they in fact did not cross the red sea, they crossed the Sea of Reeds. The whole "red sea" thing was an error in translation. They crossed at the Bitter Lakes, a reedy marshland, during low tide, and when the Egyptians got there the water level increase a bit, and their chariots were bogged down and couldn't move, like that tank in CoD 4.

Source: here, also a show on the History Channel a few years back.

I believe you, makes good sense.

Egyptians were very big into record keeping especially census , royal family, and crops, none of which match any of the bible stories, including moses. who since the bible claims was a member of the royal family he would have been recorded in stone a lot. also don't go for the they erased the record bit, the Egyptians carved royal family information into the stone walls of temples, palaces, and pyramid chambers, and when they struck someone from the record they literally did just carved off their name leaving a glaring blank spot in the text. even if they had struck his name we would have;
born on x day of year Y ---------- brother of Ramesses, ect ect. they recorded adopted children, heck they included third cousins we should see these blacks all over histories of that time. but we don't.

they recorded the crop intake and height of the Nile (which floods yearly) every year in pain taking detail, during the time of the supposed biblical flood, even it was just a "no record this year big flood"

on a side note it turns out the people who built the pyramids were paid to do it, and even went on strike one year when the cities ran out of sunblock.

[Sociobiology]

sssh, I'm getting closer to a bingo than I have in ages, I still haven't gotten one yet.
http://vampiraldi.deviantart.com/art/Cr ... ettik&qo=3

I believe Carbon dating is inaccurate. (does that help?)

I only count them if they actually believe it or at least honestly profess to believe it.
I once got one dot from bingo and then the thread got locked, I was sad.

[The New Gaula Reich]

Egyptians were very big into record keeping especially census , royal family, and crops, none of which match any of the bible stories, including moses. who since the bible claims was a member of the royal family he would have been recorded in stone a lot. also don't go for the they erased the record bit, the Egyptians carved royal family information into the stone walls of temples, palaces, and pyramid chambers, and when they struck someone from the record they literally did just carved off their name leaving a glaring blank spot in the text. even if they had struck his name we would have;
born on x day of year Y ---------- brother of Ramesses, ect ect. they recorded adopted children, heck they included third cousins we should see these blacks all over histories of that time. but we don't.

they recorded the crop intake and height of the Nile (which floods yearly) every year in pain taking detail, during the time of the supposed biblical flood, even it was just a "no record this year big flood"

on a side note it turns out the people who built the pyramids were paid to do it, and even went on strike one year when the cities ran out of sunblock.

That was just an explanation for how the exodus might have happened, nonetheless that is beside the point of the thread.

[Mosasauria]

I believe you, makes good sense.

Yes, if you assume there were Hebrew slaves in Egypt en masse to begin with. That's not been established. There were the Hyksos in the 2nd millennium BCE, but they were conquerors who we expelled by military force, not turned into slaves who then escapes.

I believe the Hittites also tried 300 years after.

[Ifreann]

Have you ever looked at nature ?
As in REALLY looked - and not just gazed at the pretty reflection of sunlight on a raindrop ?

It is brutal. Harsh. Cruel. Indifferent. NOT loving.

If it evolved that way without a guide- so be it.

But if someone deliberately set out to make things so... *shudder*. That would be one SICK being.

Albeit with a great sense of humor.

I mean, have you ever really LOOKED at a cow? Weird, weird animals.

Great big bodies. Tiny feet. No loving god would ever allow such a thing to be.

---

the thing is gravity is a "law" of science it cannot be proven wrong
evolution still has holes in the evidence to support it

also i believe in evolution

Wanna hear something scary? I haven't checked this thread in a few days. On a whim, I clicked on the last page and said to myself, "I bet someone on this page will be fucking up what 'theory' and 'law' mean yet again."

Stop proving me right, NSG. It makes me sad.

Let me know if you ever find someone who'll take bets like that.

[Whole Conviction]

Noah's ark actually isn't religiously important as most people think. It's just a dope story. The reason we cannot find clear evidence of the tribes of Isreal is because records were lost in exile. Duh. Jesus was real, don't try to deny that one, buddy. And for the Red Sea...I can't explain. But God could.

I can explain the red sea, it did not part, they in fact did not cross the red sea, they crossed the Sea of Reeds. The whole "red sea" thing was an error in translation. They crossed at the Bitter Lakes, a reedy marshland, during low tide, and when the Egyptians got there the water level increase a bit, and their chariots were bogged down and couldn't move, like that tank in CoD 4.

Source: here, also a show on the History Channel a few years back.

This explanation has always puzzled me. It's based on the similarity that 'reed' and 'red' have in English... but most mistranslations depend on words being similar in the SOURCE language, not the DESTINATION language. Furthermore, the Jews I know say that they were taught in Yeshiva that Moses part the Red Sea, not any Sea of Reeds.

I don't buy this explanation one bit.

[The Alma Mater]

I don't buy this explanation one bit.

Do you buy the "it never happened" explanation ?

[Farnhamia]

Yes, if you assume there were Hebrew slaves in Egypt en masse to begin with. That's not been established. There were the Hyksos in the 2nd millennium BCE, but they were conquerors who we expelled by military force, not turned into slaves who then escapes.

I believe the Hittites also tried 300 years after.

There were several wars between the Egyptians and the Hittites but the latter never got very close to the borders of Egypt proper. The Hyksos, on the other hand, account for three whole dynasties in the Egyptian pharaoh lists (I think it's three).

But as some said, this is not really relevant to a discussion of evolution versus creationism, except peripherally as it touches on the believability of the Bible.

[Xsyne]

I can explain the red sea, it did not part, they in fact did not cross the red sea, they crossed the Sea of Reeds. The whole "red sea" thing was an error in translation. They crossed at the Bitter Lakes, a reedy marshland, during low tide, and when the Egyptians got there the water level increase a bit, and their chariots were bogged down and couldn't move, like that tank in CoD 4.

Source: here, also a show on the History Channel a few years back.

This explanation has always puzzled me. It's based on the similarity that 'reed' and 'red' have in English... but most mistranslations depend on words being similar in the SOURCE language, not the DESTINATION language. Furthermore, the Jews I know say that they were taught in Yeshiva that Moses part the Red Sea, not any Sea of Reeds.

I don't buy this explanation one bit.

It's not based on the similarity that "reed" and "red" have in English. It's based on "yam suph" translating as "sea of reeds". Red Sea comes from Erytha Thalassa, the Greek name for the Red Sea, which is how "yam suph" was translated in the Septuagint. Why, no one knows, possibly because he wanted to identify a specific body of water and that was the closest one he knew about. The similarity in English between "red" and "reed" is nothing more than a freak coincidence.

[Khyrta]

I personally prefer Evolution over Creationism (though my family begs to differ).

However, I am willing to accept both as they are: theories. I believe that they BOTH play a part in the world.

[Beldonia]

I personally prefer Evolution over Creationism (though my family begs to differ).

However, I am willing to accept both as they are: theories. I believe that they BOTH play a part in the world.

That's a lot more rational than most other things I've heard on this thread.

[Farnhamia]

I personally prefer Evolution over Creationism (though my family begs to differ).

However, I am willing to accept both as they are: theories. I believe that they BOTH play a part in the world.

I sense that you think "theory" means "unproved." It does not. And could you explain how both creationism plays a part in the world?

[Khyrta]

I personally prefer Evolution over Creationism (though my family begs to differ).

However, I am willing to accept both as they are: theories. I believe that they BOTH play a part in the world.

[Farnhamia]

I personally prefer Evolution over Creationism (though my family begs to differ).

However, I am willing to accept both as they are: theories. I believe that they BOTH play a part in the world.

Yes, you said that. Would you care to elaborate?

[Innsmothe]

I personally prefer Evolution over Creationism (though my family begs to differ).

However, I am willing to accept both as they are: theories. I believe that they BOTH play a part in the world.

That's a lot more rational than most other things I've heard on this thread.

How so?There is no modern written or testable evidence for a 'guided' evolution.
And the 'contemporary' evidence does not support evolution.

[Sociobiology]

That's a lot more rational than most other things I've heard on this thread.

How so?There is no modern written or testable evidence for a 'guided' evolution.
And the 'contemporary' evidence does not support evolution.

what time period are you selecting for contemporary?
because today evolution has more evidence than the principles of engineering that let planes fly.

[Sociobiology]

I personally prefer Evolution over Creationism (though my family begs to differ).

However, I am willing to accept both as they are: theories. I believe that they BOTH play a part in the world.

Evolution is a theory and there is no step above theory in science it is the highest tier of knowledge.

Creationism is at best a hypothesis, and barely that in most of the ways it is presented.

to be considered a theory a hypothesis must be tested to such a great extent that it not being true is less likely than it being true. in other words tested to the point of as certainty that is the highest point, as anything can be in science.
in science nothing is beyond being proven false, they just reach a point were the likely hood is so small that it will be disproved that you can safely build other principles and theories based on it as an assumption.

[Farnhamia]

I personally prefer Evolution over Creationism (though my family begs to differ).

However, I am willing to accept both as they are: theories. I believe that they BOTH play a part in the world.

Evolution is a theory and there is no step above theory in science it is the highest tier of knowledge.

Creationism is at best a hypothesis, and barely that in most of the ways it is presented.

Oh yeah? Then why are there still monkeys? I thought so.

[Sociobiology]

Evolution is a theory and there is no step above theory in science it is the highest tier of knowledge.

Creationism is at best a hypothesis, and barely that in most of the ways it is presented.

Oh yeah? Then why are there still monkeys? I thought so.

because chimps can't hunt, kill, and eat them all with only spears.

[Innsmothe]

How so?There is no modern written or testable evidence for a 'guided' evolution.
And the 'contemporary' evidence does not support evolution.

what time period are you selecting for contemporary?
because today evolution has more evidence than the principles of engineering that let planes fly.

I was arguing against creationist texts and the idea of a 'guided' evolution, not the current theory of evolution.

[Free Soviets]

Evolution is a theory and there is no step above theory in science it is the highest tier of knowledge.

Creationism is at best a hypothesis, and barely that in most of the ways it is presented.

Oh yeah? Then why are there still monkeys? I thought so.

if theories are so good, why does no one believe my conspiracy theories about how ronald reagan was secretly kenyan?

[Sociobiology]

I personally prefer Evolution over Creationism (though my family begs to differ).

However, I am willing to accept both as they are: theories. I believe that they BOTH play a part in the world.

Evolution is a theory and there is no step above theory in science it is the highest tier of knowledge.

Creationism is at best a hypothesis, and barely that in most of the ways it is presented.

to be considered a theory a hypothesis must be tested to such a great extent that it not being true is less likely than it being true. in other words tested to the point of as certainty that is the highest point, as anything can be in science.
in science nothing is beyond being proven false, they just reach a point were the likely hood is so small that it will be disproved that you can safely build other principles and theories based on it as an assumption.

example all electronics and indeed all our use of electricity is built on a theory two in fact.
namely the atomic theory (that matter is composed of atom)
yes that is a theory not a, law because it is explanatory not descriptive
and the electron theory