The Creation Debate: What have you read?

[Banquo's Ghost]

The assorted threads on the subject of evolution and creationism have provoked me to consider what sources of information people are using to form their viewpoints. Most importantly, I wonder to myself whether either side has taken the trouble to actually read the primary source of their opponents.

Thus, as my last act before I take the oath to avoid posting in any thread containing this most frustrating of discussions, I give you my entirely unscientific survey.

(For Bible, before anyone splits hairs, I mean any authorised English translation current. If you've read it in Greek and Aramaic, good for you).

[rory_20_uk]

I've got something of an interst in theology, and so I've read a fair bit of the Bible - admittedly to see how it was put together and what was not put in rather than to see God's will. I started on the King James, but as that's inaccurate I moved onto the New International Version.

I'm also trying to read other texts that were peri-bible such as the apocrypha and other books that were either removed from the Bible or never made it.

I've never read the Origin of species, but I have done Biology to A level standard, and I was a good student if I do say so myself and so I did more reading than required of the course. Unlike the Bible, work on evolution has progressed and so I think that reading other works is as useful.

~:smoking:

[Tribesman]

The assorted threads on the subject of evolution and creationism have provoked me to consider what sources of information people are using to form their viewpoints.
Well the best place to to get information on creationism is the multitude of creationist websites , definately worth a read purely for the comedy value .:2thumbsup:
So much bullshit , so many contradictions , and whenever they get stuck with something that cannot be explained or that cannot be possible , they say ....."but God did it" .
I particularly like the idea of God putting the dinosaurs on the ark into hibernation so that the hard worked noah wouldn't have to cope with the huge amounts offood and the great piles of excrement that active dinosaurs would have produced:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[Banquo's Ghost]

I've never read the Origin of species, but I have done Biology to A level standard, and I was a good student if I do say so myself and so I did more reading than required of the course. Unlike the Bible, work on evolution has progressed and so I think that reading other works is as useful.

You are right, of course. On the Origin of Species is by no means the last word on evolution by natural selection. But since Chuck gets it in the neck from creationists as the agent of the devil (they even have a word for it; 'Darwinism' :dizzy2: ) I thought it might be the best suggestion to start with.

If someone posts that they don't agree with evolution but have read Maynard Smith, I'll be just as informed. :bounce:

[doc_bean]

I've read Genesis at some point although I wouldn't know which one anymore. I've read parts of the Bible (even though I consider myself an agnost and get called an atheist by several religious people I know, they occasionally ask if I know a particular thing from the bible, apparently my knowledge of it is quite extensive for today's standards :dizzy2: ) I've read quite a bit of Creationist propaganda, but it's pretty much always the same, although sometimes they do come up with creative ways to explain things (Jesus binds protons together !).

I didn't read on the origin of species, it's pretty outdated isn't it ? I've read some books on Neo-Darwinism and some interviews with /articles by neo darwinists. I have a degree in agricultural engineering so I'm supposed to know quite a bit about biology (both plant and animal), it's been several years since my last biology course though, so not everything is still fresh in my mind :embarassed:

[rory_20_uk]

I too find that my knowledge of the Bible is more extensive than many Christians. Saying "God is love" isn't enough. Many Christians for some reason aren't keen to discuss the origins of the Bible...

~:smoking:

[Keba]

I support evolution even though I read neither. I do have a good idea of it through the compulsory four year Biology class in High School.

While I am curious and would like to read the books, I simply do not have the time for them, College is sapping too much time, and I have little patience for reading afterward.

I have a number of Christian friends and have oft discussed the Bible with them, and also had a very interesting debate with my teacher of Legal History during his lecture on canonical law, but I have only a vague idea of creation, although the .org has provided some information.

I'm personally atheist, so the whole creationism/evolution debate is somewhat alien to me.

[Kralizec]

I support evolution and have read only the bible, but...


(For Bible, before anyone splits hairs, I mean any authorised English translation current. If you've read it in Greek and Aramaic, good for you).

I read a Dutch translation, so I guess I should have voted differently ~;p

[Banquo's Ghost]

I read a Dutch translation, so I guess I should have voted differently ~;p

:oops: Damn, I knew I was gonna get killed on that one!

:2thumbsup:

[Redleg]

Read them both - creationism is for religous teachings, if one takes them for the metaphorical information that it contains one will learn much more then attempting a literal. Literal interpations of the bible leads one to miss the point of the metaphorical lesson that is contained in scripture.

Now I found The Origin of Species to be a very good read toward he theory of evolution based upon natural selection. A theory that Darwin proved based upon the observations of artifical selection.

None of your poll selections defines how I view both. Darwin never publicily stated his religous views while pursueing the course of his study of natural selection and evolution. So claims that he was a devote christian or not are not valid.


Contrary to what some modern creationists claim, Darwin had no deathbed conversion to Christianity, he issued no last-minute retraction of his theory. But although his theory of natural selection posed perhaps the greatest challenge to a literal belief in scripture, he was buried in Westminster Abbey, in recognition of his remarkable achievements. Darwin refused to discuss his own beliefs about a supreme being in public, once writing to his friend Asa Gray, "I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton." Yet he closed The Origin of Species on a more inspirational note:


There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.



http://www.strangescience.net/darwin.htm

[doc_bean]

None of your poll selections defines how I view both.

Err..there's another fairly big thread about that...

[solypsist]

Science is responsible for me not being dead by age 25, not being disfigured or made insane by disease, and saved me from a life of agrarian slavery. Can't say Religion has done much help for me, other than some subjective (and somewhat selective) moral codes for society aka crowd control.

Gotta put my chips behind Science for teh win on this whole "debate"

[Reenk Roink]

Science is responsible for me not being dead by age 25, not being disfigured or made insane by disease, and saved me from a life of agrarian slavery. Can't say Religion has done much help for me, other than some subjective (and somewhat selective) moral codes for society aka crowd control.

Gotta put my chips behind Science for teh win on this whole "debate"

Religion saved my sister from an existential crisis awhile back, gave her meaning and purpose in life, and made her very happy...

But I still don't see a science vs. religion "debate". :shrug:

[AntiochusIII]

But I still don't see a science vs. religion "debate". :shrug:Maybe because it is logically impossible, and only idiots actually believe that they are, somehow, by God and your local mathematician, diametrically opposed? :2thumbsup:

Gah! is my decision. Having read neither in full; most of the Bible, though, in several translations of the good ol' King James', which is, of course, quite more than a millenia after the supposed death of the poor Jew. Of evolution apart from the Biology course I've read quite a few secondary sources on Darwin himself.

Of course, the theory of evolution makes sense, is plausible, and well supported, whereas gah! is more intellectual than this latest wave of Evangelical fervour that comes once in a while in American history and gives the common man, the Middle Class man, and the activist Woman something to sing and dance about.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Not all of either, but much of both.

As it is, my position is like the Vatican's: darwinian evolution (dawkins aside) does not mean that God did not create the universe or spark life. Nor does it mean we evolved by chance.

Crazed Rabbit

[Uesugi Kenshin]

I support Evolution and have read about a quarter to half of the bible for school. Unfortunately I haven't gotten around to reading Origin of Species.

[Reenk Roink]

Maybe because it is logically impossible, and only idiots actually believe that they are, somehow, by God and your local mathematician, diametrically opposed? :2thumbsup:

:yes:


Gah! is my decision.

:2thumbsup:

[Hurin_Rules]

There's a debate?

A debate usually implies a rational discourse. Most creationists rely on Faith for their belief; one cannot change their mind through reason, just as one cannot change an evolutionist's mind through faith. Debates thus tend to be sterile, if they can even be called such.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I've read about half of Darwin's Origin of Species. Out of sheer curiousty, and because I heard he writes really well. It was very interesting.
For scientific purposes, a modern biology textbook would be better suited. Evolutionary thinking has progressed a lot since the days of Darwin. (One doesn't read Newton for the last word in physics either)

I've read most of the bible too. Didn't finish the new testament. Some guy in church spoiled it for me - he revealed the hero dies in the end.

[Papewaio]

I debate more to refine my understanding and to understand why someone else has theirs. That aside it is using two different ideas that have different burdens of proof. Science is a series of theories that try and provide a best fit to the data and remains open to be debated and modified as better techiques, data and understanding come about. Creationism is a literal translation of two different (conflicting) allegorical tales which does not require any proof but is a faith based execise.

Creationist "Evolution is only a theory."
Scientist "Damn straight it is, just like gravity is just a theory."

[AntiochusIII]

I've read most of the bible too. Didn't finish the new testament. Some guy in church spoiled it for me - he revealed the hero dies in the end. :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Into the Sig!

[doc_bean]

About science vs evolution: science is trying to answer the question: how ? Religion should only concern itself with the question: why ?

So asking how the different species come to be is the domain of science. Why there is creation in the first place, why the laws of physics allow live etc. is the domain of religion.





I've read most of the bible too. Didn't finish the new testament. Some guy in church spoiled it for me - he revealed the hero dies in the end.

He comes back from the dead !

[English assassin]

Darwin refused to discuss his own beliefs about a supreme being in public, once writing to his friend Asa Gray, "I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton."

Wow. Not only does Charlie formulate the theory of evolution, in 2 lines he totally pwns the bishops on their home ground. Is this guy God or what?

[Kralizec]

I've read about half of Darwin's Origin of Species. Out of sheer curiousty, and because I heard he writes really well. It was very interesting.
For scientific purposes, a modern biology textbook would be better suited. Evolutionary thinking has progressed a lot since the days of Darwin. (One doesn't read Newton for the last word in physics either)

I've read most of the bible too. Didn't finish the new testament. Some guy in church spoiled it for me - he revealed the hero dies in the end.

You missed the part where he ressurects!
"Jesus is back...and this time, it's biblical"

[Louis VI the Fat]

Meh, I hate it when authors ressurect dead heroes in the sequel to cash in on the succes. Such a cliché. Let me guess, next you'll tell me that there's also a Darth Vader act where the two main protagonists turn out to be father and son, right? And that only the father knew all this time?

[AntiochusIII]

Meh, I hate it when authors ressurect dead heroes in the sequel to cash in on the succes. Such a cliché. Let me guess, next you'll tell me that there's also a Darth Vader act where the two main protagonists turn out to be father and son, right? And that only the father knew all this time?Well, the father has been talked about throughout the book. This guy sees him, that guy meets him, they heard this, they say that, and not once does the book actually comes out to say who he is. I think the sequel would reveal who the Father actually is. My bet is on the 261th beggar. And I'm sure the authors will make it dramatic this time. Something along the lines of, "I...am your Father!" and "Noooooooooo!!!"

[Ianofsmeg16]

I support Evolution, to a degree. It's like I said in the other thread, Creationism and Evolutionism are not Mutually Exclusive. I believe in God but i also believe that animals and plants evolve, I can't see why others cannot believe the same thing.

BTW ive read both, not a light achievment for a 16 year old, but evolution is my passion

[English assassin]

Meh, I hate it when authors ressurect dead heroes in the sequel to cash in on the succes. Such a cliché. Let me guess, next you'll tell me that there's also a Darth Vader act where the two main protagonists turn out to be father and son, right? And that only the father knew all this time?

Couple that with a deus ex machina ending and you've just about got it.

Oh, and did we tell you about all the prequels?

[macsen rufus]

Most of the bible; not Darwin but more recent writers on evolution (E O Wilson).

I'm afraid when it comes to Creationism, I can't help recalling that all serious creationists come from that part of the world that tried to legislate that pi=4. Nuff said, really....

[doc_bean]

Most of the bible; not Darwin but more recent writers on evolution (E O Wilson).

I'm afraid when it comes to Creationism, I can't help recalling that all serious creationists come from that part of the world that tried to legislate that pi=4. Nuff said, really....

Surely, they must have gone for pi=3 ??? Otherwise it would be total madness !!!

:help: :help: :help:

[English assassin]

Surely, they must have gone for pi=3 ??? Otherwise it would be total madness !!!

:help: :help: :help:

I must be missing something here... :inquisitive:

[Marcellus]

I must be missing something here... :inquisitive:

Wierdness. (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_341.html)

[Kommodus]

I voted Gah! as that option is actually closest to the truth for me. My thoughts on the issue are complex and can't be described simply by saying "I support creationism" or "I support evolution".

I've read the entire Bible (and quite a few books about the Bible or the Christian faith). I've read literature espousing a wide range of faith-based viewpoints on the origins of the earth and life, from the extremely literal young-earth creationists to intelligent design theorists to theistic evolutionists. My roommate has a copy of "The Origin of Species," which I once picked up and attempted to read. Suffice it to say I didn't make it far - the dry and technical nature of it made it harder to get through than "Paradise Lost." I have read a fair amount of evolutionist literature, however, as well as books that simply assume evolution and draw conclusions from it.

One of my main conclusions from all of this is that the issue is quite complex, and the number of people that have any right to comment on it is far fewer than the number of those that do. Most evolutionists entertain a crude charicature of the views held by theists, and a gross unappreciation for the diversity of their views. Conversely, most literal creationists I meet have little understanding of the claims actually made by scientists, the diverse theories often grouped collectively under the word "evolution," or the arguments made in support of those theories. I myself am unqualified to comment on all but a few points - to accurately evaluate many of the arguments I've heard in favor of evolution (especially fossil evidence) I would need a good background in paleontology, geology, and biology, none of which I have. Never one to simply take a so-called expert's word for it, I choose instead to keep my mouth shut.

What do I support, then? I support people not boasting confidently as if they know something when they really have no idea. You evolutionists who deride believers as ignorant fools: do you really understand Darwin's theories and how they've been refined over the years? Are you able to explain why evolution is such an obvious, self-evident theory that every thinking person should accept it without doubt? If not, then leave the arguing to those who can, because you are only taking someone else's word for it. And you creationists that think you're well-informed because you saw a Ken Ham video and it made sense to you: did you double-check your facts and look for possible refutations to what you consider solid arguments? Did you find out what evolutionists actually claim from evolutionists themselves, or did you blindly accept the version of events from your primary source only? Be sure you do at least this much before you talk, lest you be easily refuted and made to look like a fool by someone wiser than you.

OK, I'll get down off my soap-box now, sorry about that. :wall:

[littlelostboy]

I've read a bit of The Origin of Species and suffice to say, never make it through the first few pages. But being a higher-level bio student in the cutthroat IB program, I've studied evolution, species adaptation, ecology and Darwin's theories intensely. I've to say that although I support Creationism, my views are a bit complex, I support evolution and at the same time support Creationism. I believe that God did not create all creatures at once but rather created the important few and from that on, allowed these creatures to evolve naturally. But at the same time, I believe He created all the creatures and some of them just died out after Noah's flood.

[crossroad]

Read/studied the Bible, have never read The Origin of Species. But you can't live in America without gaining a fair knowledge about evolution - school, Media, the Discovery Channel - evolution is pervasive.

As the creator of the Creation vs. Evolutions thread, I think I'm glad it was locked. Strange now to say, but I really never intended to get so wrapped up in that debate. Sure I was curious to see how people would react, but I never thought that my comment about the Big Bang would cause me to spend the rest of the thread defending Creation, the Bible, and a number of other issues that have nothing to do with science.

Oh well, had fun, hope those that were involved in the "controversy" that shut down the thread are ok, and hope the friendly debaters keep on posting. :2thumbsup:

Zain, thanks for the help. I pitty those who are your age who dare to debate against you! :croc:

[Tribesman]

I have read several versions of the Bible in their entirety , plus numerous texts that are no longer in the Bible , as well as texts from other religeons The reason I do not support creationism as it is put forward ...ie
AiG teaches that “facts” don’t speak for themselves, but must be interpreted. That is, there aren’t separate sets of “evidences” for evolution and creation—we all deal with the same evidence (we all live on the same earth, have the same fossils, observe the same animals, etc.). The difference lies in how we interpret what we study. The Bible—the “history book of the universe”—provides a reliable, eye-witness account of the beginning of all things, and can be trusted to tell the truth in all areas it touches on. Therefore, we are able to use it to help us make sense of this present world. When properly understood, the “evidence” confirms the biblical account.


is that the Bible is not a reliable eye witness account and cannot be trusted to tell the truth in all areas it touches on because it is contradictory , heavily altered and mis translated many times over .

[Cronos Impera]

I've read the Bible and it seems to me like a hybrid between the Mesopotamian mythology ( Enki, Gilgamesh,etc......),christian propaganda and hypocricy.For reference check ( the Ten Commandments/ Deuteronom 13:6,7,8,9,10). It is nothing than a well-built monotheistic fantasy novel, with a few historical figures ( Ramses the Great, Nero) but also a couple of turns from the real events.
The Origin of Species however it's a more practical work, focusing on the natural world as something special, not as gifts for the human race.
The Bible is wrong because it encourages sacrifices ( lambs) and views the natural world as an accesory for humanity. The Origin of Species however makes us respect the natural world and the marvel of evolution which increases enviromental awareness.

[DukeofSerbia]

I voted for I support creationism and have read only the Bible.

I learned in high school evolution theory in biology classes.

[Duke of Gloucester]

I've read the Bible and it seems to me like a hybrid between the Mesopotamian mythology ( Enki, Gilgamesh,etc......)

Genesis 1 probably is based on the Gilgamesh myth, but that's only chapter 1 of the first book. There is a lot more to the bible than Genesis, but you know that, you have read it all.


....christian propaganda and hypocricy....

I think it is a little harsh to call Christian sacred texts propaganda because they promote Christianity. They are Christian texts after all. Please explain the hypocracy bit.


It is nothing than a well-built monotheistic fantasy novel, with a few historical figures ( Ramses the Great, Nero) but also a couple of turns from the real events.

Hold on. It contains 5 books claiming to be history but probably myths, 13 books of more reliable history, but probably only as reliable as other ancient "histories", a parable, a song book, 4 books of wise sayings, an erotic poem (possibly an allegory for God's love) 17 books of prohesy (in the widest sense of the word), 4 biographies of an historical figure, one historical account, 13 letters written by Paul, 1 letter of unkown authorship, 1 letter written by James, 2 letters written by Peter, 3 letters written by John and an account of a very strange dream, so it has to be more than monetheistic fantasy, can't be merely a novel and some parts are not well built. (Feel free to correct my counting if I have missed or double counted but you get the point)


The Bible is wrong because it encourages sacrifices ( lambs) and views the natural world as an accesory for humanity. The Origin of Species however makes us respect the natural world and the marvel of evolution which increases enviromental awareness.

It depends on how you read the bible. I have never sacrificed a lamb but I hope this doesn't make me a bad Christian. Man (male and female) is created at the end of the Genesis 1 account which I read to mean that man is the most important part of creation, but the fact that God looks on his work at the end of each day and sees that it is good puts responsibility on us to care for it. Nevertheless I aplaud your approach to the bible - not "Is it true?" but "What does it mean?". As far as evolution is concerned, because it is a scientific idea, you shoud be asking "Is it true?", not "What does it mean?" I don't think it tells us anything about how we should respond to the natural world, just where it came from. If I was that daft, I could read in to it that extinction was natural and should just be allowed to happen.

To answer the question, I have read the bible and although I haven't read origin of the species I have read a number of books about evolution.

[doc_bean]

Creation, the Bible, and a number of other issues that have nothing to do with science.


~D

Mind if I put this in my sig ?

[Cronos Impera]

I think it is a little harsh to call Christian sacred texts propaganda because they promote Christianity. They are Christian texts after all. Please explain the hypocracy bit.
Sorry, for being a little overenthusiastic.Thanks for your politeness.
Well, have you read the Exodus + The Ten Commandments.
God says to Moses
1) You shall not kill ( The Ten Commandments)
God also says to Moses
2) Don't let the wizards live.
And God kills every newborn in the lands of Egypt, from the son of Ramses the Great to the child of the last servant.Isn't that hypocritical falsehood. Have you read the story of Abraham, the caldeean? Abraham prostitutes his wife with God's aproval and complicity, than extorts his wealthy victims ( The Pharaoh and The Caanite Ruler). It's too arbitrary and promotes discrimination.
I could continue but I would go off-topic then. Regarding the technical aspects of the Bible you're 100% right.:2thumbsup:
The Bible( and Torah) have so many contradictions, that you can hardly distinguish a moral patterm. That is why there are so many interpretations and religious groups. All Bible is about sacrifice ( Jesus, Abraham, Moses, Noah), pain ( all ) and "shut the f**k up if you don't want to upset Jesus and go to Hell"
The problem with the Bible is that it states "God created Earth for mankind, which resembles God. Mankind is a priviliged mammal above all else." Not very enviromental friendly.
Evolution states " Man appeared on Earth accidentaly and it's just another stupid passing specie that would likely go extinct." It is less optimistic but after all " Optimism is the privilage of liers and rulers". Less optimism lets you enjoy life.

[Papewaio]

Read the Bible, haven't read Orgin of the Species.

I have been reading popular science books (Life on Earth... asked for the book for my 7th birthday and enjoyed it very much) on biology and then astronomy as a child. Went on to do a BSc with majors in Physics and Geophysics, have also done first year core units in Chemistry, Astrophysics and Geology and a few electives such as Marine Science.

I would put my level at informed spectator.

[crossroad]

I have read several versions of the Bible in their entirety , plus numerous texts that are no longer in the Bible , as well as texts from other religeons The reason I do not support creationism as it is put forward ...ie
AiG teaches that “facts” don’t speak for themselves, but must be interpreted. That is, there aren’t separate sets of “evidences” for evolution and creation—we all deal with the same evidence (we all live on the same earth, have the same fossils, observe the same animals, etc.). The difference lies in how we interpret what we study. The Bible—the “history book of the universe”—provides a reliable, eye-witness account of the beginning of all things, and can be trusted to tell the truth in all areas it touches on. Therefore, we are able to use it to help us make sense of this present world. When properly understood, the “evidence” confirms the biblical account.


is that the Bible is not a reliable eye witness account and cannot be trusted to tell the truth in all areas it touches on because it is contradictory , heavily altered and mis translated many times over .

I have read several versions of evolution in their entirety , plus numerous texts that are no longer in the theory, as well as texts from other religeons The reason I do not support evolution as it is put forward ...ie
Some scientists teach that “facts” don’t speak for themselves, but must be interpreted. That is, there aren’t separate sets of “evidences” for evolution and creation—we all deal with the same evidence (we all live on the same earth, have the same fossils, observe the same animals, etc.). The difference lies in how we interpret what we study. Origin of the Species—the “history book of the universe”—provides a reliable, eye-witness account of the beginning of all things, and can be trusted to tell the truth in all areas it touches on. Therefore, we are able to use it to help us make sense of this present world. When properly understood, the “evidence” confirms evolution through natural selection.


is that the Origin of the Species is not a reliable eye witness account and cannot be trusted to tell the truth in all areas it touches on because the theory is contradictory , heavily altered and mis translated many times over

:dizzy2: :laugh4: :no: :juggle2:

..........I know, I know, don't go pointing out the discrepancies. Just pointing out that the theory of evolution has changed "many times over"..........

If you are still aiming to reply, notice it is an exact copy of the quote.... now do you get it?

[Tribesman]

If you are still aiming to reply, notice it is an exact copy of the quote.... now do you get it?
Right , find any evolutionist text that claims it is an eye witness account , like the quote I took from one of your favourite sites .
Then you might tell me how the bible could possibly , especially regarding creation , be even vaugely described as an eye witness account .
Also since darwins work , and that of many other scientists is available in their own handwriting in archives then how could it be mis-translated ?

A very poor attempt young person .:no:

Creation, the Bible, and a number of other issues that have nothing to do with science.

Therein lies the problem , creationists who wish to push their point of view, especially in education , cannot see that distinction , as is suitably demonstrated in the sites you linked to and whose "information" you repeated in the closed topic .

[Papewaio]

..........I know, I know, don't go pointing out the discrepancies. Just pointing out that the theory of evolution has changed "many times over"..........


Science theories change, if they could not change they would not be scientific theories. The most interesting areas to be in science are at these cutting edges of change. Science theories you could say conform very well to the idea of a replicator that has copying errors. :laugh4:

Essentially by definition science theories have to be able to change, it they were absolutes then they would not be science theories.

[Kommodus]

Well, have you read the Exodus + The Ten Commandments.
God says to Moses
1) You shall not kill ( The Ten Commandments)
God also says to Moses
2) Don't let the wizards live.
And God kills every newborn in the lands of Egypt, from the son of Ramses the Great to the child of the last servant.Isn't that hypocritical falsehood. Have you read the story of Abraham, the caldeean? Abraham prostitutes his wife with God's aproval and complicity, than extorts his wealthy victims ( The Pharaoh and The Caanite Ruler). It's too arbitrary and promotes discrimination.
I could continue but I would go off-topic then. Regarding the technical aspects of the Bible you're 100% right.:2thumbsup:
The Bible( and Torah) have so many contradictions, that you can hardly distinguish a moral patterm. That is why there are so many interpretations and religious groups. All Bible is about sacrifice ( Jesus, Abraham, Moses, Noah), pain ( all ) and "shut the f**k up if you don't want to upset Jesus and go to Hell"
The problem with the Bible is that it states "God created Earth for mankind, which resembles God. Mankind is a priviliged mammal above all else." Not very enviromental friendly.


Wow. It truly boggles the mind where you got these interpretations from. Certainly not from the text itself - it must be from the most deliberately cynical reading of the text possible. Where to begin:

1. Environmentalism

The Bible does indeed state that man, being created in God's image, was given the right to rule the other creatures. However, the Biblical idea of rulership has never been despotism, but rather stewardship. The difference couldn't be more clear - a despot does as he pleases with impunity, regardless of who or what he destroys, while a steward has been given a responsibility to take care of what is not his. Mankind may be the steward of the earth, but he does not own it, and is not free to destroy it - Biblically or by any other reasonable standard.

2. Morality

Unlike most heroic narratives, the Bible reports the negative characteristics and actions of its main characters along with the good. How you have taken this bit of honesty and turned it into so-called contradictions is beyond me. Do you really think that just because Abraham's foolish, faithless actions are reported in the text, that they are "approved" of? Go back and read the text - you'll see that those actions are clearly portrayed as wrong. As you go through the Bible, you'll find the people of God making missteps left and right - that's part of being human.

Regarding the example from the Ten Commandments you mentioned, I'm truly tired of hearing the ubiquitous misquote "you shall not kill." Never is this said - rather it says "you shall not murder", a significant difference since to murder means to kill unjustly. Make whatever arguments you want for or against capital punishment, but don't claim the Bible is contradictory because God supposedly breaks a commandment he never issued.

3. Sacrifice

You're only about 2000 years behind the times on this one. Animal sacrifices were indeed performed (and ordered) according to Jewish ceremonial law in the Old Testament. (By the way, if you're tempted to protest this barbaric practice and proclaim the moral superiority of modern times because of our kindness to animals, don't - most of those sacrifices were eaten, and we eat far more meat than they ever did in those times.) Regardless, animal sacrifices were decisively ended by Christ in the New Testament. (I'm not saying they were never performed again, but rather that the need for them was a thing of the past.)

I'm done here; these posts are well off topic. But just as I'd expect to be corrected if I stated that evolution claims man evolved from monkeys, I offer this correction to a gross misenterpretation of scripture that no one knowledgable about the Bible would hold.

[crossroad]

If you are still aiming to reply, notice it is an exact copy of the quote.... now do you get it?
Right , find any evolutionist text that claims it is an eye witness account , like the quote I took from one of your favourite sites .
Then you might tell me how the bible could possibly , especially regarding creation , be even vaugely described as an eye witness account .
Also since darwins work , and that of many other scientists is available in their own handwriting in archives then how could it be mis-translated ?

I knew someone would miss the point.:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
My post said nothing about the Bible--WAIT!!! Are you reading my mind? :inquisitive:..... :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[Banquo's Ghost]

OK, I knew this would finally fall off the wall. ~:cool:

Thanks everyone for your answers to the poll. It's very interesting to me to have an overview of what texts people have been exposed to. Darwin has been read much less than I expected, and Dawkins hasn't been mentioned at all.

Fascinating. Thanks again. :bow:

[Tribesman]

My post said nothing about the Bible--
Oh I see , then what exactly are you basing your position upon ?
I know you don't know Judean/Christian scripture very well as you and your friend have amply demonstrated , so are you basing it on South American , Middle Eastern , Far Eastern ,Australian , European folk tales ?
Now that would be strange , since the sources that you get your information from , while deciding to take information from global folk tales to support their position , then go on to destroy the credibility of those folk tales , because of course , they ain't Christian .

Creationism , the realm of the feeble minded of little faith .:juggle2:

Sorry Banquo , butfaris sin(above) what can you say to leanbai in the fasachtalking fastaimwhile struggling through the fasra that they cannot fea yet try tofeac.

ni fheadar , an bhfeadrais ?
Amaideach:no: :wall:

[Banquo's Ghost]

Sorry Banquo , butfaris sin(above) what can you say to leanbai in the fasachtalking fastaimwhile struggling through the fasra that they cannot fea yet try tofeac.

ni fheadar , an bhfeadrais ?
Amaideach:no: :wall:

B'fhéidir go bhfuil an ceart agat. ~;)

But I think the FAQ advises us to use English, in case the noble and most gentle moderators suspect we are being a tad uncomplimentary - not that either of us would be. :saint: :saint:

[ajaxfetish]

To return to the poll topic, as I think this was intended as something other than one more opinion/argument thread, I've read the Bible (KJV) along with the Apocrypha and a few other contemporary sources, but only snippets from Origin, though I've had enough biological science classes to feel at least reasonably well informed on evolutionary theory. I support evolution and don't feel it conflicts with my religious beliefs. I like the way doc bean put it:


About science vs evolution: science is trying to answer the question: how ? Religion should only concern itself with the question: why ?

So asking how the different species come to be is the domain of science. Why there is creation in the first place, why the laws of physics allow live etc. is the domain of religion.
The one thing that upsets me about this poll is there was no option for people who support creationism but have only read the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster! :furious3:

and re: Crossroad, considering what a theory is and what it's supposed to do, your satirical reply to Tribesman didn't have much substance.

Ajax

[Papewaio]

I really should learn Welsh :wales: at some point.

If you choose to speak another language that is your choice. It does limit the amount of people who can understand you on a primarily English speaking forum. It is a pleasure to see different ways of communicating between people and it is a wonderful oppourtunity to learn and gain respect for differences.

However if you use another language to insult someone that they do not understand I would see that as even more wrong then a normal attack. It is both insulting your mother tongue or anothers to devalue it to only a negative role. It is also spineless to attack someone if they cannot defend themselves.

So again it is your choice and as adults you are all fully ready to accept responsibilty for all your actions even if the consequences are very nice or very bleak.

[ajaxfetish]

I'm not sure how much help learning Welsh :wales: would be for understanding an exchange between two Irishmen :ireland:. Besides, that couldn't have been Welsh anyway: I'm sure I saw some vowels in there!

Ajax

[Papewaio]

I know they are Irish, but if I had bothered to learn Welsh as a kid from my Mamgu I would have a leg up in understanding another Celtic tongue.

[Ronin]

I learned about the evolution theory in biology class in high school, I have since read many other scientific documents and publications on the matter, I have just read a few passages from "origin", mainly for historical interest, it is the base of evolution theory but the up to date scientific position as moved long passed it.

As far as the bible goes, I´ve never read all of it, but I´ve read a fair good part of it, along with other assorted fairy tales, i also went to a catolic school for a few years, were they unsuccessfully tried to hammer that stuff into my head.

as for which one I support.....there´s only one of them that even begins to make sense....and that´s evolution.

[crossroad]

My post said nothing about the Bible--
Oh I see , then what exactly are you basing your position upon ?
I know you don't know Judean/Christian scripture very well as you and your friend have amply demonstrated , so are you basing it on South American , Middle Eastern , Far Eastern ,Australian , European folk tales ?
Now that would be strange , since the sources that you get your information from , while deciding to take information from global folk tales to support their position , then go on to destroy the credibility of those folk tales , because of course , they ain't Christian .

Creationism , the realm of the feeble minded of little faith .:juggle2:

Sorry Banquo , butfaris sin(above) what can you say to leanbai in the fasachtalking fastaimwhile struggling through the fasra that they cannot fea yet try tofeac.

ni fheadar , an bhfeadrais ?
Amaideach:no: :wall:
Three months into the org and I think I've made a bad impression. :embarassed: :embarassed: :embarassed:

Yes, I'm stubborn. Yes, I'm still moving forward with my education. Yes, I'm a diehard Creationist. But first and foremost, I am a Christian. I don't like the way I've dealt with some posts, but I'll get better. Remember, stubborn? But for what it’s worth, I apologize to those whose temperature may have risen because of my words.

No more debating for me. ~:argue:

rory_20_uk you are not a hillbilly evolutionist.

Tiberius sorry about the english crack.

Tribesman, what can I say about Tribesman? Some day when I make it over to Europe I'm going to zip over to Ireland (I assume that's where you're from) and buy you lunch. What do you say? ~:cheers:
Sorry if I missed anyone.
:shakehands: :balloon2: ~:cheers: :balloon2: ~:grouphug: :balloon2: :dancing:

[-Silent-Pariya]

There is a very interesting debate about this in the Lion forums i beleive many of you might find of interest. http://www.clubsilence.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=180

[Banquo's Ghost]

Three months into the org and I think I've made a bad impression. :embarassed: :embarassed: :embarassed:

Yes, I'm stubborn. Yes, I'm still moving forward with my education. Yes, I'm a diehard Creationist. But first and foremost, I am a Christian. I don't like the way I've dealt with some posts, but I'll get better. Remember, stubborn? But for what it’s worth, I apologize to those whose temperature may have risen because of my words.

No more debating for me. ~:argue:



For what it's worth, I don't think you have made a bad impression at all. You certainly drive my blood pressure through the roof with your championing of creationism, but that's really my problem in the end. The Backroom is full of stubborn people with strongly held views. I'm sure I drive many to distraction with my opinions, even though I am clearly right all the time. :tomato2:

Enjoy the Backroom for what it is, idle entertainment and the chance to discuss challenging viewpoints with mostly really clever people. And to support big pharma's tranquiliser products.

Having the grace to respect other's feelings and offer an apology (where none is really needed) demonstrates you have exactly the right attitude to be right at home here.

Keep arguing. ~;)