A definitive hole in Creationism?

I think they are believing that the Universe and God are separate and that God created the Universe and everything in it.

Oh boy…

I am firmly in Darwin’s court on this issue. That said:

Why is it so important that you “poke a definitive hole in creationism”?

Is there some kind of monetary award? Do they put your name in Wikipedia? People are allowed to believe what they want to believe in this country, wrong or not.

What are you going to go after once you’ve slain creationism? Santa Claus?

I want to add too that I don’t think it’s a hole in only creationism but also science – no person or ideology or system of thought can perfectly describe the beginning of the universe (if there was one); At least not yet.

@Blondesjon

50% of the US public isn’t trying to teach Santa Claus in public schools. Belief in Santa Claus isn’t hindering the progress of science and making this country the laughing stock of the world.

I need a link to those numbers.

Like I said above, I believe in Darwinism, and the creationists haven’t slowed me down any. I have yet to see an article relating to the closure of labs due to creationist theory.Can you even give a specific example of how believing in creationism “hinders the progress of science”?

Sounds to me that you are simply one of those people that won’t be happy until everyone is exactly like you. Which kinda makes you like one of them, doen’t it?

Go to a 3rd grade Christmas party and see if they don’t teach Santa Claus.

Get over yourselves.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

Nearly 50% of American families are teaching their children to abandon science. Half of the nation’s youth are, essentially by default, removed from the pot of potential scientists. How does that not hinder science’s progress? Not to mention the constant attempts to interject creationism into the public classroom and remove evolution from the curriculum.

That link is the atheist version of the Watchtower. I want something solid from a credible, non-biased, source.

I live smack dab in the middle of the bible belt and we have never had a problem with our young ‘uns not being teached about the monkeys.

“God did it” is the only thing there is in creationism. There’s no hole there that wasn’t always there.

@Blondesjon

All it did was aggregate a bunch of polls…
http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/Evolution-Creationism-Intelligent-Design.aspx
http://people-press.org/report/254/religion-a-strength-and-weakness-for-both-parties

yeaaaaaa

I think the belief is that God exists outside of time and space, and is therefore not confined to the same things we are. Additionally, I have never heard the argument that everything has to be made by something, therefore God must exist?

That there is a hole in Creationism theory appears to be true, like all man-made explanations for potentially inexplicable realities. If you just think of recent theories, hypothesizing that there are multi-universes, which thus precludes the need for a beginning, making things even more confusing. And through superstring theory, there are postulated 10 dimensions which seems to be the generally accepted mathematical treatment by scholars. Man will continue to push this envelope creating (pardon the pun) many “black” holes. It is difficult to comprehend and debate. But as Mr. Spock, would have said, “fascinating”. But as you state in your question, lots of holes..perhaps never to be closed. On the positive side, never stop asking the questions, it will drive us forward to more discoveries. But never believe anyone, including creationists or flutherers, have all the answers, for we do not and probably never will

uhhhhh I don’t know what to say about this whole hole in creation..wtf am i even saying!!!?

Why are we doing this again? People believe in this for whatever reason they believe in this. Can’t we all just accept this (both sides, that is) and move on. Nobody is going to convince anyone of anything anyway. Instead, let’s tackle something less volatile and more original; the Mayan calendar 2012 apocalypse, for example. ;)

AstroChuck is right. It is—fucking—pointless for atheists and creationists to debate. Neither side is ever going to convince the other of anything. Hell, Catholics and Southern Baptists can’t even agree on anything, except that they both hate the Jews.

Without the Jews, there would be no Christianity, which is really rather ironic.

@AstroChuck When did you start getting so rational?
@Blondesjon I can tell you from personal experience as someone steeped in science that we (meaning the US) are absolutely, positively FAILING our children in science and math education. That we even have to have a debate on this issue is a waste of time and resources. That schools have to waste valuable time “teaching the controversy” is an issue. That schools have to dumb down the science so as to make it palatable to conservatives is an issue.

In 2003, US high school students ranked 24th out of 29th in math, an ominous sign. This is what Bill Gates had to say about the sorry state of education in this country. To that end, he has donated billions of dollars to help support education in the US. So, yes, things are bad, and getting worse. This debate is not simply for academic purposes. Our children (and our prosperity) will suffer for it.

Well, if we’ve all decided that no one is ever going to change each other’s minds, we might as well just stop talking about it. In fact, we might as well just stop talking about every issue that people disagree on. Let’s just shut down this website, since it won’t really have much of a purpose anymore. Hell let’s shut down the whole Internet. At least that way atheists and creationists wouldn’t debate each other.

@shilolo- I’m glad that you agree that discussing the upcoming apocalypse as predicted by the Mayans is rational.

@AstroChuck Indeed. Nothing pleases me more than discussing apocalyptic fantasies reality.

God is divine. He isn’t limited by the laws of science, physics or time. Those concepts (as human beings understand them) were created by us. I think that’s part of the reason people have trouble believing in God.: because they are using a set of “rules” created inside a box and limited to that box. Anomalies that don’t fit into the “equation” are simply tossed out.

Building off Uberbatman’s link, here is the Tenth Dimension video that he linked to in response to my post on his thread.

@Ivan – Are you comparing the concept of God to the concept of Santa Claus?

@ABoyNamedBoobs03 – Is has to do with the concept of God.

God is uncaused and uncreated.

It’s a bit like the atheist premise: The universe (multiverse) simply exists. It’s a natural phenomenon. The theist premise is: God simply exists i.e. God is uncaused and uncreated (we can’t prove any of this in a scientific way).

Maybe you prefer a mathematical analogy. Take the infinite set of natural numbers. Now merge it with a second infinite set of natural numbers. You still have the infinite set of natural numbers: IN = IN U IN or take real numbers: IR = IR U IR

it was just something I noticed. there’s no prize, I won’t feel better about myself or any of that crap. it’s conversation. It’s not meant to attack religion… it’s just conversation

I understand that god “simply exists” that’s not what I was asking. perhaps I worded it poorly. I’m saying, isn’t someone contradicting themselves when they said creationism has to be true because how else would the universe come to be? Yet they believe it’s “maker” always was and always will be. They’re saying one thing HAS to be finite, while the other can easily be infinite, it’s a conflict of ideologies.
Simply put, why can’t the universe/multiverse(if you will) be infinite?

@ABoyNamedBoobs03: The idea that physical things always existed is incomprehensible to us, and the physical world that science continually defines shows us nothing of the sort. All things created here on earth tend to show us that there is a beginning, a middle, and an end.

So for example, if our universe has always existed why does it still contain so much energy? First, we know that the total amount of energy in the universe is equal to the sum of energy in all the stars, planets, galaxies, etc. Second, we know that this is a finite number no matter how large it gets. Stars will continue to radiate heat until someday, when they burn all of the hydrogen they have and die. So we know that the universe we see is finite and these energy sources will radiate heat only for a finite time. This is a finite number inside of a supposed infinite timespan, so we know that there was a beginning to our universe. We are currently involved in the middle, and we know there will be an end when all of the energy is depleted.

So for someone to say that things physical on this earth have simply always existed, IMO, is fallible, because from what science has taught us here on earth, no such thing we know of has always existed. It would take an incredible amount of faith for me to believe this.

So perhaps the only logical explanation is that somebody or something has created it. Something not withheld to our understanding of science. Somebody or something outside the realm of time, matter, and/or space?

Personally, I’m not sure that we will ever answer how the universe was created and be 100% sure of it. Seeing how none of us were ever there, it’s a difficult thing. I personally believe it’s just a natural phenomenon.

I find it interesting that even most Catholics still teach and understand science, whilst trying to make it go hand in hand. Whereas most Christians I know consistently doubt science, and even proven fact. Did you know that the Vatican actually believes in aliens? Maybe it’s because they’ve been around longer (which is also probably why they get so much flack, it’s such an old existing religion that is still commonly practiced), so they’ve seen a bit more. They used to condemn science, however are now supportive of what it can teach us and that it can save lives. Why are many parents and religions still not supporting the wonders that science can give us? That is my curiosity more than who made our universe.

We know for a fact that the life on this earth has not always been here. We have not been on earth since day 1, and many creatures that existed prior to us died even still before we existed.

@mattbrowne

No… I was responding to Blondesjon’s comment regarding Santa Claus and God.

You can’t just assert that God timeless and uncreated. I could just as easily assert that I am timeless and uncreated. The statement has absolutely no value or substance whatsoever. It is simply a convenient attribution of characteristics to being such that you can defend your belief in it more easily. You are essentially just defining your beliefs to be correct.

There is an elephant in my briefcase. Nope, you can’t just look in the brief case because my elephant is outside the realm of site. Their, I win.

@Ivan . . .The elephant statement is true if your briefcase is a hypercube.

Wow, I meant ‘sight,’ not ‘site,’ and ‘there,’ not ‘their.’

I’m sure you believe in superstring theory. Is your mind any more capable of picturing 24 dimensions than it is God?

This has nothing to do with picturing God or placing limits on God. My argument is not about the nature of a potential God, my argument is about the competing arguments used to support a belief in God. You can’t simply just define God to be limitless and uncreated, just as I can’t just define my elephant to be outside the realm of sight.

Why not?

Because I care whether or not my beliefs are true. If you don’t, make all the assertions you want, go ahead.

What does it benefit you, Ivan? What sort of prize do you get for your beliefs being the right ones?

More importantly, what happens if one day you find out you were wrong? Could you deal with that?

My prize is using those beliefs to better the world. If I wanted to believe that the Earth is 6000 years old, I could, and that would be just fine. But I’m not going to advance the boundaries of science with those beliefs.

And yes, I could deal with that. Science is always first to admit when it was wrong and to seek out the correct solution at all times.

How are you specifically advancing the boundaries of science? In what ways are you bettering the world? How is belittling the beliefs of others furthering these goals?

I’m attaining a degree. In the future I hope to tangibly advance the boundaries of science. Until then, it’s important that I remain keen on scientific principles and current knowledge. I believe that discussion is important. If you feel that discussion is “belittling the beliefs of others,” then I’m sorry, but I disagree.

You anger, Ivan, fuels my belief that there is more to it than that.

Can you be more specific about what type of degree you are working toward? What field of science it is in? You are still speaking in the broad vagaries you constantly accuse others of.

My anger? What has given you the impression that I’m angry? I guess I didn’t realize you wanted me to be incredibly specific about my life and beliefs. Currently I’m working on a Physics BS.

Very cool.

I imagine when someone attacks your core beliefs, especially beliefs rooted in as dedicated a science as Physics, you become just a little bit agitated? I mean, you have basically dedicated your most of your life so far to this pursuit, right?

Yes I get agitated, but I make an effort to remain objective.

Well, than perhaps you could step back a bit and see that most Christians have devoted most of their lives to a system of belief that to them is important.

They are feeling the exact same things you do because they feel their core beliefs are being attacked.

It’s a big planet man, we can all live on it.

if this makes it any more palatable to you i don’t believe in god either but i do believe that everyone has a right to live the way they want to

@Blondesjon I lurve you! I really do!

@Blondesjon

You have to get this notion out of your head that I think everyone should believe exactly what I believe and that people shouldn’t be able to live how they feel.

This isn’t about some selfish pursuit of mine to prove how correct I am to everyone. This isn’t about my hatred of opposing viewpoints or my desire for a world in which everyone agrees with me. This is something much larger and much more important than that.

You are essentially arguing that, not only is it pointless to discuss these issues, but it’s immoral to do so as well. Pardon my harsh words, but I find this disturbing and sickening. You seem to feel as though you can’t remain respectful and discuss issues at the same time. This isn’t an argument, this is a discussion. This is about learning alternative views and opinions, this is about becoming aware of opposing beliefs and their rationale, this is about collectively acquiring new knowledge and education, this is about developing critical thinking skills, logic, and reason, this is about defending your beliefs rationally, this is about analyzing your beliefs critically, this is about drawing conclusions from evidence.

This is about attaining truth.

If that violates your view of a world in which we all just agree to disagree, then I don’t really know what to tell you.

Ivan, step back and look at some of your past posts. You tend to become highly agitated and passive/aggressive when you are not being totally agreed with.

Try admitting to not knowing everything for once. It’s very liberating.

What are you even talking about any more? Your attempt to enlighten me with your objective wisdom is patronizing and ridiculous.

Take it as you will Ivan. I only see someone making a lot of the same social and ideological mistakes that I did. Believe me, you pay for them down the road.

if it makes you feel any better i would have called me patronizing and ridiculous too

The only thing about me that might be considered an ‘ideology’ is that I believe the best society is one in which its inhabitants are always open to discussion, no matter the topic. If that is a “mistake,” then I see little point in ever coming to this website (or living, for that matter).

Aren’t we discussing things?

We’re discussing how much you don’t want me to discuss things.

Then you’ve totally missed my point. I was letting you know that there are other opinions out there that no matter of discussion are going to change.And that’s ok.

That is a fatalist attitude. And sure it’s OK that people have other opinions. What isn’t OK is when those people refuse to change their opinions and use them to wreak havoc.

Besides, discussion isn’t just about changing people’s minds.

A fatalist attitude is one in which you see no other way but your way.

As far as wreaking havoc goes, give other people’s intellect a little credit. Most folks see bullshit for what it is.

Were you comfortable with the activity depicted in the movie Jesus Camp?

I’m not familiar with it. Is it a documentary?

Yes, I recommend it.

I’ll definitely check it out.

@Ivan – No, I’m not defining my beliefs to be correct. The statement that God is timeless and uncreated can either be true or false. I can’t tell you if it’s true or false. I believe God exists and if he exists I believe he’s timeless and uncreated. There’s no proof and I don’t feel the need to defend my belief, but I feel a need to point that science can lead to both a theistic and atheistic interpretation of the universe. Atheists are in no way more scientific than theists. But sometimes they appear more angry than enlightened theists.

@Ivan – It is important to be clear on whether you are assuming someone is wrong because of their beliefs or because of their actions.

“the activities depicted in Jesus Camp” are actions.
Defining “God to be limitless and uncreated” is a belief.
That belief is not going to “wreak havoc” so you want to be clear on what you are arguing against.
Also, this post is full of contradictions and unintended hipocracy. But that’s okay.

I don’t have proof that the prayers my fiancee said in the shrine of Baha’u’llah 3 months ago were responded to, but it is interesting to note that she prayed for God to prepare the mind of her future husband if it was part of the divine plan. A few weeks after that, I quit smoking, got the APRs on my debt reduced and actually felt a mental shift. Then a couple of weeks after that, we met. A couple days after us meeting, she had a dream that I was the man she would marry; we started spending time together every day; found that we are compatible mentally, emotionally, spiritually and physically; met each others families and felt more at ease with them than any relationship either of us had ever had in the past; and are now engaged and will be married by the end of the summer with our plans well in place for savings and growth. Apparently there are people in our community that have wanted to introduce us for a long time because they thought we were compatible, but they decided that it would be best if we met naturally.

I don’t have any proof that this wasn’t just a long string of coincidences, but does it matter?
Not to me.

@mattbrowne

“There’s no proof and I don’t feel the need to defend my belief”

Then don’t tell me that your theistic beliefs are a result of science, because this is an incredibly unscientific statement.

“But sometimes they appear more angry than enlightened theists.”

No offense, but I don’t know why you feel the need to say something like this in every post.

@fireside

My mention of Jesus Camp had nothing to do with the discussion at hand in this thread. I apologize if it led to confusion.

“does it matter? ”

It should matter. Understanding what constitutes as evidence (and the role that personal experience plays in that) should also matter.

@Ivan – Why should it matter? Her prayers and dream were not the reasons that we based our relationship and marriage on, simply personal experiences that helped confirm the evidence we found that led us to believe that we would be compatible.

Also, you brought up Jesus Camp in direct response to blondesjon saying, “Most folks see bullshit for what it is.”

Here: is an article about the film:
“The film has drawn criticism from secular organizations, as well as some from Fischer’s own charismatic Christian community, who accuse her of brainwashing children.”

And more info from wikipedia
“In November 2006, Fischer announced that she would be shutting down the camp indefinitely due to negative reaction towards her in the film.”

I brought up Jesus Camp for an entirely separate reason. Unfortunately Blondesjon hadn’t seen the film, so the conversation about it ended.

i’m workin’ on it

@Ivan – You said ‘Then don’t tell me that your theistic beliefs are a result of science?’

Since when have I said that my theistic beliefs are a result of science? I never did that. All I’m saying this that science can lead to both a theistic and atheistic interpretation of the universe. Again, atheists are in no way more scientific than theists. Why? Because science can’t explain the ultimate reason for creation. It can’t explain the meta-phenomenon that there are natural phenomena for us to observe and explain. Now, there are two ways to speculate using either a theistic or an atheistic approach. Neither of them is superior. It’s up to every individual to make up his or her mind.

Does this help?

You sound angry to me, but I could be wrong. That’s the problem with the Internet. If we actually faced each other in the real world, I might realize that you are not angry at all. So scientifically speaking, your anger is a hypothesis. I’m eager to learn of evidence that would contradict this hypothesis.

Darwins theory is a great story, things mutated over time to become what we are. For all science belivers i have three questions.
1. If evolution is real why did it just stop all of the sudden?
2. If evolution is real why isnt everything on earth as smart as people, of why arent we smarter?
3. We have proof of reptiles and proof of birds, but where is the proof of the mutated things that have half a wing and half a hand? there should be many of these but we have none.

1. It didn’t. People today are different from people 250 years ago. Most obviously, we’re taller.

2. Evolution is all about the survival of the species and procreation. While that involves a certain kind of intelligence, it’s probably not the kind you are thinking of. Even today most humans don’t select purely for booksmartness in their mate. There are a factors of things that go into it. Plus, our perception of intelligence (and what makes intelligence) has changed over time. Not even 50 years ago, to be considered to have a high IQ, you had to be able to lift a certain amount of weight. Today, we obviously don’t think physical fitness is the same as mental fitness.

Survival of the species, however is about adapting to change in an environment. And to this end, most beasts that are still around can do so quite well. Some even better than humans. So.. in a way they are.

3. You mean like bats? Or any number of dinosaurs?

Short version:
1. It didn’t.
2. They are.
3. We do.

1. No, if anything we are getting worse, life span, if evolution was real we would be living for hundreds of years by now dont you thinks seeing as evolution is adaptations for survival
2. No, i was talking about things like zebras that are hunted by lions, wouldn’t they have adapted for survival.
3. No, little things that are in the middle of both wings and feet. they cannot use feet for walking or wings for flying because they are still under the evolution process if you would call it.

1. It’s for survival of the species. Not survival of the individual. Frankly, as far as evolution is concerned, once you’ve reproduced you’re basically worthless. Unless you can reproduce again.

2. You mean things like zebras, which are hunted, and how they have stripes that help them hide from their predators, speed to escape, and are a perfect example because only those who are quick enough/have good instincts/hide well survive long enough to pass on their genes, thus insuring the next generation of zebras will be more like them and have these traits. Yet at the same time, the lion is also evolving. Only the lions that are successful in capturing prey survive to pass on their genes. And so the cycle continues.

3. The feet only become less useful after the wings are already developed. Until then, the feet are necessary. So the reason you will never see something that can use neither feet nor wing is because it just doesn’t make natural sense.

Short version:
1. You’re wrong.
2. They have.
3. You’re thinking about it wrong.

I mean the short answer for all of this is that you are thinking about it from completely the wrong angle or not thinking your examples all the way through. Why would only the zebra evolve and not the lion? Your example shows that is clearly how you are approaching it. You need to think of it as passing on genetic information in a logical fashion.

As for creatures in-between, look at YouTube videos of flying squirrels or sugar gliders (sugar gliders are so cute!!). Or a David Attenborough video about bats. I mean, if you are honestly interested in this subject, watch Planet Earth. Yes, the entire series. Or some old David Attenborough documentaries.

@pats04fan

1. If evolution is real why did it just stop all of the sudden?

It didn’t. You don’t seem to have a sense of the time scale we are talking about here. Evolution is by no means a quick process. Humans would never be able to observe significant evolution in complex, multicellular organisms in a single lifetime or even a hundred lifetimes. Evolution continues onward to this day.

2. If evolution is real why isnt everything on earth as smart as people, of why arent we smarter?

Intelligence is not the only thing that drives evolution. Evolution does not continually make everything “better,” it makes them more suited for survival in their environment. A snail doesn’t need to be really smart; it procreates well enough with the intelligence it already has. Evolution does not add or improve features that aren’t needed. Evolution will only take place if it is necessary for survival.

3. We have proof of reptiles and proof of birds, but where is the proof of the mutated things that have half a wing and half a hand? there should be many of these but we have none.”

That isn’t how evolution works. You don’t see organisms with half a wing and half a hand in the way you might imagine it. It happens in more discrete ways. For instance, we have fossilized records of the entire sequence of whale legs evolving into fins. We have countless transitional forms, they just might not look how you would imagine them.

Sorry I would message back all of that again but then someone else would try to disprove me. In the case my overall seeing of evolution is man trying to get rid of god anyway they can. The smarter we ant to be, the stupider we get. Ha i’m gonna get a lot of text backs from that one.

There is nothing about evolution that contradicts a belief in God. Evolution is not man’s attempt to get rid of God; evolution is man’s attempt to understand one facet of the universe rather than resting on our laurels and accepting what a book tells us as truth without evidence.

To believe evolution is to throw away the bible. Here we go agian.

To believe evolution is to throw away the literal interpretation of the Bible.

What do you mean by that Ivan

The Bible is not a history book; it does not entail the actual, literal events of the past. Evolution may contradict the notion of a 6000 year old Earth and a great flood, but it doesn’t contradict the actual message and value of the Bible.

My friend, the last thing I want, is for you to find out the truth to late.

The last thing I want is for you to make veiled threats in an attempt to avoid defending your beliefs.

Oh no sorry no threat and in a way that question was me trying to invite you into mine. See but for us to see eye to eye is that we must first believe that the bible is a history book. If we cannot believe that you will say what science has taught you, and what the bible has taught me. I do not want that last message to sound of a threat

dude, pat, brother…. the bible isn’t an accurate depiction of history. most christian religions publicly acknowledge it, get your head out of the sand bud.

@pats04fan

I don’t mean to sound rude, but I didn’t understand any of that. A more judicious use of punctuation might help me understand what you’re saying.

Ok, aboynamedboobs I will never question the truth about the bible, because that was the way I was taught and the way I believe. I have seen time after time people have tried to disprove the bible but have failed. Sorry, but I cannot.

Ivan I’m sorry if you did not get that, all I was trying to say is that the only way for us to agree if the idea of creationism is true or not, is for both of us to agree that the bible is true or not.

@pats04fan

“I will never question the truth about the bible, because that was the way I was taught”

You must understand how incredibly illogical this is.

“the only way for us to agree if the idea of creationism is true or not, is for both of us to agree that the bible is true or not.”

Well, I guess that would be true, so long as we are defining creationism as the literal interpretation of the Old Testament. I guess I don’t understand your point though.

We will argue about how everything was created until we agree on whether the bible is real or not, that is my point.

The Bible and creationism do not go hand in hand. You can accept the Bible without accepting creationism.

No, because I believe in God. The bible speaks of how he created earth and what it contains. That is why I believe in creationism and the bible.

But how do you know that God meant it literally?

@pats04fan, I just want to nail down what you actually believe about the Bible before we talk about evolution. Lots of evangelicals say they believe in a literal Bible but don’t really seem to understand what this entails.

You said the Bible is a “history book” up there. Does this mean you believe God literally ordered the Hebrews to enslave people they conquered (Deuteronomy 20:10)—unless they lived in the holy land, in which case they were ordered to commit genocide, “letting nothing that breathes remain alive”?

Do you believe, as a history book, that the Bible accurately describes Joshua’s repeated, God-ordered genocides of the Canaanites, the Gibeonites, the Libhanites, Debirites, and so on—nearly a dozen tribes and kingdoms and cities—killing every single man, woman and child per the holy commandments which you claim are the moral guide for all of humanity for all of time? I just want to be clear whether or not you condone the multiple acts of genocide that your history book claims is a standing order from your God.

Going back a bit further, to Genesis 1, do you believe that the sky is a solid dome (the Hebrew word is “raqia,” which means “that which is hammered out”) that God created to hold up an above-sky ocean? And that God set the sun, moon, planets and stars in this solid dome? That’s what the Bible says, and it’s exactly what everyone else in ancient Mesopotamia believed at the time; it sounds strange now, but that’s because science says otherwise. But you wouldn’t believe science over the Bible, right?

To Qinqu, I believe the bible and in it is all true. The history in the old testimant(probably not spelled right), and I have faith, which is a key success in believing a lot of the bible( which most stop in there ways there), in the New testimant. You really have to have faith in it all, but please do this for me: Go to Google, type in “Ham, Shem, and Japheth’s descendants” and look around until you find a list of they’re sons which are the start to a lot of the cultures. These people are Noah’s sons ,and we all know the story of Noah. Hopefully it will help you understand the way I think. It does not follow the question entirely but I did have a response about how Egypt started, and it might show you a tie in the bible and history.

I’m familiar with Noah’s sons, I’ve read and studied the Bible.

I’m not sure what your point is. You didn’t really interact with my post.

Just to be clear: are you morally okay with genocide, under certain circumstances?

And do you think the sky is a solid dome that holds up an above-sky ocean?

Please answer the questions directly. As I said, it’s important for me to understand what you mean when you say you have faith in the Bible.

lol wait wait wait… you zealously believe in something you don’t even know how to Spell correctly?!?!?!?!??! dude… you’re killing me here….

When I said I believe the Bible that was my answer to both questions. I will never know what Gods meaning for everything is and I know that he has one for those moments. No, I do not believe in genocide just that he has a plan, and i don’t get your second question totally.

Do you realize that there’s a difference between believing in God and believing in the Bible?

I believe in God and I believe the bible. Tell me who(denomination) and why people do not believe the bible.

Generally, people do not believe in the Bible because it is an obvious collection of folk tales which have no supporting evidence and claim many things that are simply false.

Ok, take the flood, cultures everywhere talk about a great flood that swept the earth. From the cultures of Central America to China. Now it is either odd that all of these people who have never seen each other( which many people say that they haven’t) have the same story, or easier to believe that there was one that actually happened and that the survivors of that flood(Noah and his Children) have repopulated the earth and their descendants have heard about it.

@pats04fan: Have you read the bible? All of it?

First of all, cultures which originated in Mesopotamia are generally the only ones to have a flood story. Secondly, most ancient cultures lived near large rivers. Large rivers flood, that’s not a surprise. Thirdly, a flood that encompasses the entire Earth is, for one, impossible, and also completely unsupported by any evidence. I value empirical evidence over the legends of ancient tribesmen.

See, but look at fossils of fish found in the highest mountains

Yes, the Earth changes. What are mountains today have not always been mountains. Plus, there are rivers on mountains.

@pats04fan: You haven’t answered my question. And evidence from what you’ve said indicates you have not. Which means it is fairly pointless to debate with you.

@pats04fan, you said you “don’t believe in genocide.” So do you believe that the Hebrews were wrong to follow God’s commandment for genocide? Would it be wrong to kill all the inhabitants of a town in Israel that converted to a different religion, as Deuteronomy 13 commands you to do? I thought you said you believed in the Bible.

As for my second question, here is what the Bible says:

And God said, ‘Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.’ So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so. God called the dome Sky.

And God said, ‘Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth.’ And it was so. God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth

The Hebrew word translated here as dome is raqia. It means “that which is hammered out.” It is clearly a solid object, and God names it “Sky.” The Bible says God created this dome to separate out waters below it and above it. We encounter the waters above the dome in the flood story, when God opens the “windows of the sky” to let them in. He closes the windows to stop the flood—so the ocean above the sky is still there.

The Bible also says God sets the sun, moon, planets, and stars in the dome.

So. Do you believe the sky is solid and holds up an ocean? Do you believe the sun, planets, and stars all revolve around the earth and are set inside the dome? Please answer the questions.

@pats04fan, lots of cultures have flood stories… because floods are common phenomena for people who live near rivers and oceans. Like most early civilizations.

Now, it’s interesting that you brought this up, because the Biblical flood story is actually nearly identical to an earlier tradition of flood stories in Mesopotamian mythology. The Atrahasis flood story, for example, has many of the exact same details as the Biblical flood story—and ark with pairs of animals, doves released from the windows, a great sacrifice after the flood to appease the divine powers, etc.

But the Atrahasis myth is earlier than the Bible. Why would the Bible copy details from an earlier pagan myth?

Oh, EmpressPixie I am sorry, no I havent but i am working very hard on that.

To Qinqu:

Question one: God told that to the Israelite thoundands of years ago. Then God made the ten commandments, one saying “thou shall not murder”. God works in his own ways. I,m sure if you read more of that part of scripture, you will get why he did it.

Question Two: Is that your bibles version of the 7 days of creation because I havent heard it like that.

Second Comment: Noah was way before Moses. Moses wrote the first five books of the bible, one being genesis where Noah was found. So yes, there would be a time difference due to the waiting of writing Genesis.

@pats04fan: Qingu has studied the bible. Unlike you.

Try opening your bible to page one. Genesis. Start at Genesis 1:6. It will be on the first page. God will be dividing water from water.

But actually, for a better version of the Bible (that admittedly skips the boring parts), try the Brick Testament.

Re: not murdering, that particular phrase refers to unlawful killing. Obviously, if God told you to do it, it’s not unlawful to him.

@pats04fan
I figured that the bible should be taken metaphorically. Also in some parts, IT CONTRADICTS!. I believe in GOD, but some parts of the bible just don’t make sense a all. The bible is just a tool. Yes, I do believe in evolution. And how can the bible be a history book? you should be more open about ideas rather than a book! How for sure are you certain that there was not a human mind making the bible?

@pats04fan, as EP said, you need to read your Bible.

Question 1—God told the Israelites not to murder before he ordered them to commit genocide. Exodus comes before Deuteronomy. Both laws are of course part of “the Law,” as Paul calls it, which he also calls “holy, just, and good” (Romans 7:12). Jesus also says you should follow all of the laws of the Old Testament, and teach others to do the same, lest you be called “least in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:17).

Question 2: I quoted the verses in Genesis 1. You can go read it yourself if you don’t believe me.

Second comment: I understand that this is the Christian interpretation. But you’re the one who brought up similarities to other flood myths. If you look at the similarities, it’s pretty difficult to conclude that the Bible is not derivitive of the earlier Mesopotamian myths, unless you’re simply being dishonest.

@cyndihugs, I have to say that I get kind of annoyed when people assume parts of the Bible are meant to be taken “metaphorically.” What does that even mean?

The Genesis creation myth, for example, was clearly not intended to be a metaphor by its original author or its original audience. People in ancient Mesopotamia (as well as lots of other places at the time) really did believe the earth was flat, the sun revolved around the earth, and the sky held up an ocean. That stuff is all over myths from Akkad, Babylon, Canaan, Egypt, Greece, even India. And it actually makes sense, if you think about it (and if you’re a pre-scientific bronze age nomad)—obviously there’s an ocean above the sky, beause the sky is blue like big bodies of water, and rain falls from it.

It’s not a “metaphor” for anything—it’s a pre-scientific attempt to explain the shape of the world. It’s wrong… but so are a lot of pre-scientific explanations. Aristotle is wrong about 75% of the shit he writes about, but we don’t say his writings are “metaphors.”

Now, obviously the Bible does contain some metaphors. Jesus’ parables are metaphors. Poetic language like “four corners of the earth” is probably a metaphor—no evidence the Hebrews believed the earth had physical corners. But claiming that a passage is a metaphor simply because its literal meaning is scientifically wrong is really a dishonest way to interpret a text.

@Qingu & @EmpressPixie I study it everyday, but i find the future more important then the past. Yes it does, but i was making a point that God works in his own ways.

@cyndihugs Do you believe in the New testament?

@pats04fan: What I hear you saying is, “What the actual bible says isn’t important because I don’t like it, I just want to ascribe to this religion for no discernible reason.”

@pats04fan, the point of God ordering genocide is that God works in his own ways? Actually the passage is quite clear about what the point of the command for genocide is: God doesn’t want the Hebrews to mix with other cultures.

You shall annihilate them—just as the Lord your God has commanded, so that they may not teach you to do all the abhorrent things that they do for their gods, and you thus sin against the Lord your God.

Not mysterious at all. I take it you are okay with genocide for this reason?

Also, thoughts on the sky? You never answered if you think it’s a solid dome that holds up an ocean. (I realize you “like to look to the future, not the past,” but since you’re trying to use what the Bible says about the past to justify your views against evolution, it’s sort of important to be consistent here, don’t you think?)

I always found the “The Bible contains bad things” argument pretty hollow.

Man. Pats fan, you’re getting ripped up here.

Please keep in mind though everyone.

Pats, they’re not trying to bash religion or faith, specifically not your faith. And I’m sure they won’t do it intentionally if it does happen, or if you are insulted in any way.
But please, Conversation requires educated banter, logical arguments with equally logical counter arguments. So I say this as respectfully as I can, Believing in something just because someone tells you to, or because you just feel like it, is a dangerous choice to make. If you have faith, phenomenal, I admire those with it, but only do so if your heart and your mind truly believes it. Because to be honest, it seems like your heart wants to, but you’re head won’t follow.

@Qingu For me “metaphorically” means: just take the message of the passage and don’t take anything too serious.” The bible is very argumentable: contradiction, no evidence, etc. etc. You are getting off topic with me taking science metaphorically, which I do not.
@pats04fan I do believe Jesus existed and the whole plot…blah blah blah…but like I said before I think that a human mind was edited in the bible that’s why it’s very contradicting…

@cyndihugs, but my problem with that is that sometimes the message of the Bible is incredibly wrong. What is the message of Genesis 1? That God created the earth and all the animals and humans? That’s incorrect — the earth formed from cooling debris around the early sun, coalescing into a planet due to the force of gravity and known physical laws. Living things, including humans, emerged from evolution. The first living thing emerged through known chemical laws. No deities were involved.

What is the message of Deuteronomy 22:28, a passage that says an unbetrothed virgin who is raped must marry her rapist, after the rapist pays her father the brideprice? The message seems obvious to me—“you break it, you buy it.” And this shouldn’t be surprising, since in ancient Mesopotamia, women were basically treated as property, first of their fathers, then of their husbands. The Old Testament reflects this Mesopotamian culture—but the message is still abhorrent.

What is the message of Deuteronomy 20:10, a passage that commands you to enslave people you conquer or, under certain circumstances, just kill them all? Again, the passage tells you the message—God doesn’t want you mixing with these people and learning their customs, so therefore you must kill them all. I have trouble imagining a more disgustingly immoral message.

@Qingu that’s why I said some parts of the bible don’t make sense. See about the message of Genesis 1, you believe in one thing and I believe in another thing…I totally respect your beliefs. But in this life it is so impossible for people to come to an agreement!

sometimes….

But what do you think the message of Genesis 1 is?

the creation of the world…of human kind…
[edit] God is the creator

But he’s not. That message is incorrect. As I said earlier, we know for a fact how the world formed—through gravity. We know for a fact that humans evolved from other apes.

@EmpressPixie That is way not what i am saying at all. See, its not about what you like or not, and i have had to learn that. It is about what others believe.

@aboynamedboobs Thank you for that, and your alot of help.

@quingu You have to listen to cyndihugs, there is no way to win an argument over science and creation. One has faith in that God created the heavens and the earth, and another believes that that is illogical. Sometimes friend, you just cant break anyones faith. Oh and yes you are correct, if i wanted to get into this deep conversation about evolution and creation then I should be fully studied in it, but no matter, my faith makes me want people to believe.

@pats04fan, so just to be clear, you do believe that the sky is a solid dome that holds up an ocean? (Since you have faith in what the Bible says over what science says?)

@Qingu remeber earlier when I said I also believe in evolution? Well, my opinion is that we originated from apes and that Adam and Eve were “apes” and through time we evolved into what we are today…

But if Adam and Eve were apes, they weren’t created by any god. That completely contradicts the message of the Bible.

And this is important. You talked about “message.” Well, the message of evolution is actually quite profound, and very different from the message of even a watered-down Biblical creation story.

The Bible says we are God’s special creation, separate from the animals, alone capable of good and evil and obedience to God’s will. Human nature is a divine spark.

The facts of evolution say that there is very little about human nature—if anything—that we don’t share with our closest ape cousins. All primates are capable of altruism and form societies. They have concepts of territory and property. They compete over women. They flirt and lie, they struggle over political power.

Most apes use—and create—tools. They learn how to interact with their technology by watching others, just like us. Chimpanzees even have distinct cultures—behaviors and knowledge that is passed down through the generations. One group of chimpanzees uses a certain tool combination to crack open nuts; another group uses a different tool combination.

Chimpanzees, like humans, form hunting bands. They use hand-made spears to hunt small monkeys. They can communicate complex ideas to each other. And, just like humans, chimpanzees form war parties and kill each other in battles over territories and resources.

Really, the only meaningful difference between us and chimpanzees is that our brains are slightly larger—which allows us to have more complex languages and cultures. But human beings retain all the aspects of “nature” that we share with our closest relatives—cleverness, the ability to empathize and communicate, to use tools, altruism, and intense competition and even warfare between “tribes.”

And the longer we dance around this essential fact, with qualified ancient myths about how some Mesopotamian sky god created us, the easier it is to lose sight of this even more essential meaning. We need evolution to fully understand what human nature is, so we can better try to deal with the parts of human nature that cause suffering.

Also: I’m generally not a fan of “linking” to external videos to prove my points, but one of the most amazing things I’ve seen was a special on the Life of Mammals by David Attenborough. The last episode is about apes, including humans. If you watch it, it’s hard not to see just how thoroughly similar human beings are to apes, and where we really came from.

This clip shows orangutans using tools, completely on their own, just from observing humans. This clip shows how our chimp-like ancestors may have evolved into bipedal human-like animals.

@Quingu
Well, no, if i am sure on what you are talking about it was before the great flood. It was creation correct. Before the flood, i believe that the habitants of the earth had never seen rain. How though if you are talking about all waters do you get he separated the waters from the earth.
@cyndihugs
To believe in evolution and God is to pretty much take out the whole old testament, and verses in the New testament. For instance, Hebrews 11:3 states that you should not believe that things came from other living things, that they were created by God. That is pretty cool stating that, because he is pretty much giving a verse about something that Darwin theorized hundreds years after it was written.

@Qingu how do they actually contradict?
we’re looking at this at a different angle
theory 1: dinosaur exsisted
theory 2: dinosaur died (during this time it was the war between God and the devil..)
theory 3: God decided to make a new world…with “primates” roaming the world
theory 4: he made it…garden…paradise. blah blah blah…
theory 5: Devil went into garden
theory 6: The Sin…Adam and Eve get kicked out…
theory 7: they make descendents
through time they evolve…

@pats04fan, again, just to be clear—are you now saying that the sky is indeed a solid dome and that it once held up an ocean (before the flood), but that the ocean no longer exists up there?

The problem with this is that God had to close the windows of heaven (Genesis 8:2) to stop the flood. If there is no more ocean up there, why does God need to close the windows?

I’d appreciate it if you would directly answer my questions. I mean, I don’t really know why you’re incapable of giving a simple answer to the question “is the sky solid?” It doesn’t seem that hard of a question to answer.

@pats04fan how can you fully believe in something that contradicts itself?

@cyndihugs: You mean “hypothesis”. Because none of that is a theory. And by abusing the word “theory”, you make it easier for others—often religious people—to do so as well.

@cyndihugs, I’m not really sure what on earth you’re talking about. Are you trying to twist parts of the Biblical creation story so they “match” up with real history?

Theory 1: dinosaurs existed, yes. They evolved. The Bible does not mention any dinosaurs.

Theory 2: dinosaurs went extinct. Lots of groups of animals and plants have gone extinct. The late-cretaceous extinction was one of several mass extinctions in Earth’s history. Also, this scientific fact has nothing to do with a war between God and the Devil. Furthermore, no such war is even mentioned in the Bible. (or are you referring to the Psalms about how Yahweh beats up the ocean and Leviathan?)

Theory 3: This contradicts reality. No new world was created after the dinosaurs went extinct.

Theory 4: this never happened.

Theory 5: this never happened.

Theory 6: there is no such thing as “sin.” My whole point, with my long post, was that all the problems and evils of human nature can be traced back well before humans evolved.

(And as EP said, those aren’t theories. I don’t even think they’re hypotheses. Frankly it looks like you’re just making shit up.)

@cyndihugs: So you think God looks like an ape?

@Qingu
what do you mean i make it easier for others?

@pats04fan, Hebrews 11:3 says no such thing.

“By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was made from things that are not visible.”

Did you mean a different verse?

@cyndihugs: I said that, not Qingu. And I was merely pointing out that you were grossly misusing a word and in doing so, continuing the idea that it is okay to diminish the work the scientific community does because you don’t like (or possibly you simply don’t understand) it.

@Qingu the bible does not have to mention any dinosaurs.
It never did! but they did exsisted. Poeple back then weren’t smart enough to know there were any dinosaurs…
Again those are your believes not mine!!

@cyndihugs, at this point I really have no idea what your beliefs are.

Do you?

@EmpressPixie sorry… but i still don’t get what you are saying
i’m actually trying to fit biblical history with science…

@cyndihugs, why are you trying to fit Biblical history with science?

Do you try to fit Mesopotamian mythology with science? Or Hindu mythology with science?

The fact is that they aren’t compatible with what we now know through science. All of these stories are pre-scientific myths. They reflect what the cultures who wrote them thought about reality. Trying to “fit” them in with science is simply a dishonest reading of the text.

@cyndihugs: For something to be considered a “theory”, it has to go through years of rigorous testing and retesting. Many religious people try to say that because something is a “theory” it is not a fact, when actually a “theory” is the closest science is willing to come to calling something an absolute fact. Ergo, your random thoughts are not THEORIES. They can be hypotheses, ie something that could eventually become a theory through rigorous testing, but they cannot be theories.

Or perhaps you didn’t understand when I was bemused that you think God looks like an ape. Because if he created Adam in his image, and then Adam evolved, God looks like an ape, yes?

@Qingu
Well this question was hard to understand for a while, but i think i have a greater understanding of it. My bible says,“he made the expanse and seperated tthe water under the expanse and the water from above the expanse. And he called the expanse the sky. Okay now i see it. Just an idea but what if he were talking about the water cycle, and if it is there in the bible, and i believe the bible then yes.

@cyndihugs
Where does it contradict, I guess I don’t get what you mean.

@EmpressPixie

Most defiantly!

@cyndihugs

I do agree with Qingu here, They just cant go together

@pats04fan: For this conversation to be very constructive, Qingu’s gonna need to know what bible you are reading from.

No, it is the NIV

@pats04fan, he’s not talking about the water cycle. The word “expanse,” in Hebrew, is “raqia.” It means “that which is hammered out.” In other words, it’s a solid object. Obviously, it must be, because the whole point of the expanse is to “separate the waters” above it from the waters below it.

Also, the expanse has “windows” which God opens to let in the floodwaters in Genesis 6. He closes them in Genesis 8.

(EP, different versions translate “raqia” differently—“expanse,” “firmament,” and “dome” are all common.)

but if he needs me to read from a KJV, just ask.

@EmpressPixie yes, hypothesis..thank-you for correecting me :)
yes he probably evolved too
@pats04fan
edit:{sorry wrong link} link
@Qingu
yes i do
my beliefs and i don’t care if they make no sense…
God exsisted long time ago, very long time. in my beliefs the devil was God’s angel, but then that angel wanted to know more than God. angel and god got into a war-my hypothesis:the day(etc.) the world ended for the dinosaurs…
after that God created a new life…

Mabey, it could be a simple thing or the most complex idea. We have yet to discover everything that is around us. So, let me study this for a while, its the best I can do.

@cyndihugs
Are you saying that i am to not have faith in the bible?

@cyndihugs, why on earth do you believe any of that?

It seems like if you’re flat-out admitting your beliefs make no sense, you may want to reconsider having those beliefs.

@pats04fan, what do you mean by “simple thing” or “complex idea”? I thought you said you took the Bible literally. Are you saying it doesn’t mean what it literally says—that the sky is a solid dome/expanse/firmament with windows that let in the ocean that sits above it?

No, I am saying that we have yet to figure everything of this earth out yet.

@pats04fan
faith, beliefs, imagination, whatever cannot be taken away. I’m just showing you where the bible contradicts
btw I fixed the link

You’re saying we haven’t figured out yet if the sky is a solid dome, and if there’s an ocean above it?

Are you one of those people who believes the space program is a big conspiracy?

Okay here ill check it out agian?

Hahaha that is funny. No, let me back up again I do not no Hebrew, but i do know there are different definitions to one word. Is there any.

@Qingu It’s make sense to me…!
and why on earth do you believe in any of what you say?

Testing and retesting. As opposed to “oh, I just think that’s how it is”.

@pats04fan, I’m not aware of any translations of “raqia” that don’t mean solid. You can look at the Hebrew translation page yourself.

As I said, the root of the word is the same as that used for describing hammering out metals.

Thank you Quingu

@cyndihugs, why do I believe what, exactly? I try to base my beliefs on facts.

And how on earth does God’s war with Satan lining up with the Dinosaurs make sense to you? Are you saying that Satan was like a dinosaur and God threw a big rock at him to win the war? That’s just… silly.

Okay [sigh] here I go again: God and satan got in a war, but my hypothesis is that probably while they were fighting(God and Satan)....the world ended for the dinosaurs…and as far as I know God and satan still are not done with their “war”...
there is still good and evil in this world. If you believe or not believe in good and evil in this world, I DO NOT CARE!!

But you also believe in evolution, which basically proves that the things we consider “good” and “evil” are evolved traits from our ancestor apes.

Also, why do you believe God and Satan “got into a war”? Again, that’s not even in the Bible. It is in a lot of comic books and movies though. (not that those are any less believable…)

I think you’re just making up your “beliefs” as you go along in this discussion.

@Qingu
no, not really
I actually wrote them down in a notebook like 2 months ago when I was talking to my friend…
How does evoltion fit into good and evil?
and i’m sick and tired of repeating about Satan and God making war…blah blah blah. look… I respect your believe/opinions whatever…I really do.

@Qingu: You stated, “We know for a fact that humans evolved from other apes”

IF in fact we did evolve, it wasn’t from apes. It was from some common ancestor.

@critter1982

Which would probably be classified as an ape.

@Ivan: Or something other than an ape, considering we have no idea what it is.

@critter1982

Sure we do, it just depends on what species you want to find a common ancestor for. Chimpanzees? Probably pretty recent and most likely an ape. Bananas? Probably not an ape.

@critter1982, it is a fact that we evolved from other apes. Human beings are apes.

I’m also not sure you understand what the term “common ancestor” means. The term only makes sense when comparing two organisms. The common ancestor between humans and chimpanzees was, obviously, an ape. The common ancestor between humans (an ape) and a monkey would be an ape-like monkey. The common ancestor between humans and bananas would be an archaean, I’m guessing.

@Ivan – I’d like to add one thing to your great analysis about

“If evolution is real why isn’t everything on earth as smart as people, of why aren’t we smarter?”

Yes, evolution is real, but a smart brain has its price and there are two downsides in particular

1) Our brain is a gas guzzler. It uses about 20% of the total energy intake
2) The size limitations of the pelvis and the birth canal (related to upright walk) require intensive care for baby and toddlers.

There’s a very interesting book by Stephen Baxter called “Evolution” and it includes posthuman chapters at the end.

An ape is any member of the Hominoidea superfamily of primates. In less scientific language, it has various meanings, although it often (but not always) excludes humans. Due to its ambiguous nature, the term ‘ape’ is less suitable as a means of describing taxonomic relationships.

Under the current classification system there are two families of hominoids:

* the family Hylobatidae consists of 4 genera and 14 species of gibbon, including the Lar Gibbon and the Siamang, collectively known as the lesser apes.
* the family Hominidae consisting of chimpanzees, gorillas, humans and orangutans collectively known as the great apes.
An ape is any member of the Hominoidea superfamily of primates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape

@Qingu: It is not a fact that humans evolved from apes. I consider you just as bad and annoying as those zealous believers who come on here and say I believe the Bible because my mommy told me so and so should you. Additionally, a common ancestor is an ancestor that 2 or more descendants have in common. If it happens to be true that humans did evolve from some earlier primate then yes that primate would be a common ancestor.

You can certainly prove that monkeys are evolved from other monkeys but we do not have 100% PROOF that humans evolved from some earlier primate, and until we discover this primate it is only another perspective and still not necessarily the truth.

@critter1982, it is absolutely a fact, and I find your equivocating annoying.

You don’t even seem to understand basic facts of human evolution. We don’t have a common ancestor with primates. We are primates. We are apes. Humans don’t have a common ancestor “with” primates, or apes. So I’m confused as to why you even feel you are in a position to lecture me about this.

If you’re still confused, here’s a pretty picture. I’ll be glad to explain why this is true, but at present you don’t even seem to understand the concept of evolutionary phylogeny.

@mattbrowne, semantics aside, humans are part of the same evolutionary clade as the animals commonly called “apes.”

That is a biological fact. In the same way that insects are part of the same evolutionary clade as other arthropods.

@Qingu: I found that “picture” to be neither pretty nor actually a picture. Informative? Yes, but just a chart. Find a really cool infographic please.

Humans did not evolve from apes, if evolution is even true. I want you to find me a quote from some current biologist that states we evolved from apes and not some unknown common ancestor. Some believe it could be Nakalipithecus but there is not absolute proof of this. So yes, humans share an 8 million year old common ancestor with modern gorillas and chimps (still no absolute physical evidence of this primate). It was this common ancestor that 2 different species would have diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids like your pretty little picture shows. Humans are not apes, at best we are cousins to apes, as the evolution of apes occured outside our own evolutionary timeline. Get over yourself, you don’t have unequivocal evidence of human evolution from this 8 million year old ancestor, hence your belief in evolution is no more right than those that believe the literal meaning of the bible.

Isn’t the definitive hole in creationism found in the center of the “o”?
I suppose there is are secondary holes inside the “a” and the “e” but the “o” is more definitive.

@fireside: lol4rl

@critter1982: I’m not sure why you are really arguing about the whole “humans are apes” thing. It’s not like we’re even arguing about where people come from or, like, what to believe. It’s “how are humans classified” and the answer is “as apes”. The definitive answer is “apes”.

Humans are:
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Suborder: Haplorrhini
Parvorder: Catarrhini
Superfamily: Hominoidea

Any member of the superfamily Hominoidea is known as an “ape”.

Within the hominoids we belong to the Hominidae. This family is collectively known as the “great apes”.

So feel free to argue all you like, but just as arguing that gravity does not exist will suddenly allow you to fly, arguing that humans are not apes, will not suddenly make this fact untrue.

@critter1982, I think what may be tripping you up is the fact that humans did not evolve from any ape species alive today. In other words, we didn’t evolve from chimpanzees, or orangutans, etc.

However, both humans and chimpanzees did both evolve from a common ancestor. That common ancestor is no longer with us, but it was an ape.

Similarly, ants and spiders are both arthropods. They both evolved from a common ancestor. That common ancestor is no longer with us, but it was an arthropod.

(Also, we share a lineage with chimps that is separate from gorilla’s lineage. In other words, we’re more closely related to chimps than we are to gorillas. Look at the phylogeny link in my previous post.)

Again, I’ll be happy to explain to you why this is true—how we have been able to trace our evolution using both fossil and genetic evidence. But before I do that, you need to understand how phylogeny works in the first place.

Here’s another parallel for understanding phylogeny.

Ants, bees, and wasps all belong to the order hymenoptera. They all share a common ancestor. That common ancestor was a wasp. That ancestor, like most species that have ever existed, is now extinct.

So, bees and ants evolved from wasps, and belong to the wasp family. In the same way, humans evolved from apes, and belong to the ape family.

@critter1982

I don’t think you quite understand what you’re talking about. For us to have a common ancestor, it has to be common with something. Like I said earlier, our common ancestor with bananas is different than our common ancestors with chimpanzees. We did not, of course, evolve from modern apes such as chimpanzees or gorillas. But somewhere along in our history, there is a point where we can’t quite call ourselves human. At that point, we would probably be considered an ape. As Matt said, this all depends on what your definition of the word ‘ape’ is, but our common ancestor with chimpanzees was most likely an ape.

Now, under my definition, we are apes. We are primates who are very closely related to all of the other great apes. For us not to be apes, that would require quite a bit of selective definitions. For some reason, you and many others seem to have some sort of aversion to calling yourself an ape or saying that you are a descendent of an ape. It doesn’t make much sense to me. It’s all just definitions. No matter what you want to call it, somewhere down the line your descendants looked like something that, had you passed it in the street, you would have called an ape.

@Ivan is correct, but I can live with the fact that some people are more comfortable referring to the common ancestor of humans and gorillas as a common ancestor not being called an ape because of the confusion with modern apes. In common language we also talk of human rights and animal rights. Like ape, the word animal has two meanings.

@critter1982 – There’s plenty of proof including the common ancestor of monkeys and humans or the frog and humans. In addition to fossils we now have the science of paleogenetics and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_genomics

We know a lot about the tree of life. The origins of life is still a puzzle and Darwinian processes need to be complemented by new scientific mechanisms yet to be discovered.