5 best proofs of evolution

[David George]

Biggest problem is that most athiests along with others assume that this believe is to fill in gaps, when the basis of some religions (Christianity) does non of that 'filling in'. there are some who will tell you, God is reason for everything to truly fill in a gap in their understanding, but opposite of early mythology Christianity actually moves out side of that thought of reason. instead of saying or looking for God as reason to this or that, many Christians actually take the stand that it is about knowing God and His Creation, and loving it...loving Him. where as many early religions filled in things and beings as for lightning, river, etc. The Christian Faith focuses on other attributes all while realizing the existance through God.

Nice move of differentiating Christianity from other older mythologies.Anyway why does the Bible say that certain animals are clean and some are unclean.Looks more like the mythologies to me...
And don't tell in the other part of the Bible this was all not considered.

[gfrabizi]

Biggest problem is that most athiests along with others assume that this believe is to fill in gaps, when the basis of some religions (Christianity) does non of that 'filling in'. there are some who will tell you, God is reason for everything to truly fill in a gap in their understanding, but opposite of early mythology Christianity actually moves out side of that thought of reason. instead of saying or looking for God as reason to this or that, many Christians actually take the stand that it is about knowing God and His Creation, and loving it...loving Him. where as many early religions filled in things and beings as for lightning, river, etc. The Christian Faith focuses on other attributes all while realizing the existance through God.

Nice move of differentiating Christianity from other older mythologies.Anyway why does the Bible say that certain animals are clean and some are unclean.Looks more like the mythologies to me...
And don't tell in the other part of the Bible this was all not considered.

Im unclear on what is meant by "other part of the Bible this is not all considered". what is meant exactly there?

Thank you for your recognition, but to be serious...could the older mythologies be explained as they are? I mean, there is that possibility through some observation that someone would want to say, "I dont know why this is therefore it must be that". Kind of like the old thought of something from nothing, where it was common for people to believe that living things or creatures (not humans) came form non-living things. From observing rats appear from a pile of materials or bacteria grow from old soup, or magets that come from rotten meat. However, there is still that claim of someone. Since we do not know exactly how those religions started, its let to a guess. Therefore that claim of 'someone' some divine being is giving power above self to explain not just for what was not known, but what had character. like a river god for instance...water fell from above, there was a source of water upstream, it flowed downward, could be trapped...yet still the river was given a characteristic. the same thing is done today, but with use of different terms and without making it out to be a person or in a being's control(having someone being able to rise and lower tide or rush someone away to their death).

Reason I mintion this is because science has even acclaimed (within the classes atleast) to assume is to be an ass. therefore it seems like too many jump to one claim without really giving a thought about it. making it appear to do the exact same thing they blame their ancestors of doing (not to say anyone here did that, but people have done it). Why there is even talk about a gene or area within the Brian almost programed to search for God or a god. And that in it self makes sense with supporting evidence as there are also evidence given to disprove it.

[gfrabizi]

If the offspring has changed (improved or not) in anyway from the parents and God did not do it ( even creationists don't say he personally designs every single person) , then that leaves rom for another explanation.

If there can be even the smallest improvement without God's designing it directly, then the path from ooze to human is possible without God. You just need time to 'add' the improvements together.

The exact definition of evolution is irrelevant (though nice to know).

The fact is you do believe in evolutions main premise. Improvement in design from a system - not a creator.

There a quote from a scientist during the renaissance era I believe...its been some time since I read about it, and I forget his name...perhaps someone else knows.

"The Universe is a clock ticking, and God created it."

[alextemplet]

Anyway why does the Bible say that certain animals are clean and some are unclean.Looks more like the mythologies to me...
And don't tell in the other part of the Bible this was all not considered.

It's simple. All of the animals that were declared "unclean" were, before modern food preparation, very unhealthy to eat. For example, pork (unclean) is loaded with tons of parasites if it's not prepared and cooked properly, whereas beef (clean) can be safely be eaten rare. Those dietary laws were mainly written into the Scriptures to ensure that the Hebrews ate healthy diets.

[David George]

It's simple. All of the animals that were declared "unclean" were, before modern food preparation, very unhealthy to eat. For example, pork (unclean) is loaded with tons of parasites if it's not prepared and cooked properly, whereas beef (clean) can be safely be eaten rare. Those dietary laws were mainly written into the Scriptures to ensure that the Hebrews ate healthy diets.

In the book of leveticus[Its also give in the other books] it was give with specific names, that some animals and birds were unclean and others were clean.And beef is also loaded with parasites.Besides the classification doesn't seem to have your interpretation at all.

[alextemplet]

No, beef is a very safe meat to eat almost raw. One of the many things you learn working in food service.

I'm well aware that the clean and unclean animals are mentioned by name; if you examine it closely, it follows exactly the reasoning I explained.

[David George]

No alex i am quite sure that the beef is "unclean".My uncle who is doctor tells me often i should only eat beef when its nicely cooked because of tapeworms.A doctor working in ethiopia also said that the ethiopians get sick often because they eat raw beef.

[mcar]

David George wrote: Anyway why does the Bible say that certain animals are clean and some are unclean.Looks more like the mythologies to me...
And don't tell in the other part of the Bible this was all not considered.

Also in the Bible, we have to watch out of the things coming out of our mouths now (what is more important), instead of what is coming into it. It's practically explained why some animals were declared "unclean" for eating them could cause diseases and the like. In addition to that, when God commanded those things, I noticed how God has to be seen in such a way that His power is in charge of anything, of us. The factor is obedience. We will follow with no questions.

Now about that beef thing, since we can not always ensure how really parasite-free the cattle are, we really have to prepare the beef properly; unless the farm raising the animals follows its strict compliance to maintain sanitation, then maybe you could relax eating a raw beef. In one that I have recently read, even the human gut had evolved in a way that it could also expel the Taenia saginata. What do you think of that?

[alextemplet]

That must be a regional thing, since I've eaten nearly-raw beef plenty of times with no problems. It's one of very few meats that the health department here doesn't require to be served fully-cooked.

Although to be fair, this is probably irrelevant since in the Mosaic law the Hebrews were forbidden to eat anything that wasn't fully cooked, because they were forbidden to ingest blood.

[Magnus1]

What i never understood about creationists and atheists is why can't both camps be true? Its very simple: God created the "rules" by which evolution follows. So, Darwin could be correct and there is still a god.

[gfrabizi]

What i never understood about creationists and atheists is why can't both camps be true? Its very simple: God created the "rules" by which evolution follows. So, Darwin could be correct and there is still a god.

well, doesnt Darwin make the statement that God does not exist?

[David George]

What i never understood about creationists and atheists is why can't both camps be true? Its very simple: God created the "rules" by which evolution follows. So, Darwin could be correct and there is still a god.

Its the same story again.I don't think there are any rules with evolution.Genetic drift,natural selection,etc,etc are not rules but factors.And it would be no surprise if new factors pop up.Also i donot find any reason for the so called "God" to be involved.And atheists donot need to accept what Darwin said.Besides there are flaws in his theory without doubt.Its like saying all atheists are communists.
And i think that the Modern Synthetic theory of evolution which has much lesser flaws.

And coming to that beef question lets leave that stuff for now.How abt the whole miracle stuff in the Bible???It seems to happen so often in the bible.I ain't seen one in my life........

But more importantly congrats about your Marriage,Alex .But i haven't even got a girl friend given that my age is 18 and i got 2 proposals