Does teaching of evolution cause social decay?

Oh no, you're not claiming to be God. You're just claiming to be his Prophet. If you say something is the word of God it is. If you say that it should be interpreted thus then that is how it must be.But like all your sort you won't REALLY look at the Bible. Was Phinehas a murderer ? If not why not ? It should be a simple question. If, that is, your beleifs really are true.

Can you tell me the address of the verse. You wrote it in another thread but i cant remember it now

It was in this thread and only 2 1/2 hours ago. Numbers 25:7-8.Is there any reason why you couldn't just look back at the last few posts ?

You are proposing your god as the " basic of morals "
The divine guide , dictates the rules that you call "morality "What rules ?
---> the rules of Allah - and the sharia ?
---> the rules of YAHWE - and the Thora ?
---> The hindu rules ? etc ...
---> The unfaillible decrees of the pope ?
---> The tenets of the moral majority ?
---> The habits of the ruling class in your society
---> The dictates/teachings of your church
---> The writings and life of the "divine Oarsmen" Mao-tse-toeng ?
---> The conventions in your society considered by the elderly as " good " ?
---> Julius Caesar ? Napoleon ?
---> The "deep truths " sayings of dementing popular lunatics considered very " wise men "and why do you think that one of these is " more moral" then the others ?
You even can state that the non-believers are immoral and therefore can be exploited
and exterminated in a "moral justified " way,____ why, it was ordered by God ?Simple
the Morals are the morals imposed by the ruler/ ruling classes and societies that survive ...
That's why there are punishments attached to morals and "laws " , because without them they
have no real power to control the behaviour of people under those laws ...
Without executive power, any imposed reglementation is mere bluff ....What you call morality
are the rules to maintain a certain society running ....Obedience and surrender to these rules is based on
psychological mechanisms
Apprenticeship and initiation rituals
education
conditioning
and yes brute force ....But most of all the human need to live in any social setting that is beneficial to the
reproduction power of the concerned population ....Particular "Morals' are the norms in any society
there never was "another "base
And the divine is nothing else but the " ghostly "representation of the "society "
itself ...
God is nothing else but the "Swarm Intelligence" in a large men-nest
( compare it to caravan- ants colonnes )And yes , haven't you noticed :
the "morals" change if the societies survival is under attack /environmental stress
and
That's a fact ... not a much desired goal ...If the morals decline in present societies the reason is "OVERPOPULATION" and the increased
competition for supplies and materials that keep these societies running ...

The reason we shouldnt listen to any other institution is because none of them can even compare to the credentials of the Bible . There is no view,opinion,religion,literature which has predicted the future hundreds of times without mistakes . In fact there is not even one clear fullfilled prophecy .Which "Religion" can give similar credentials to this?...UNITY- Written by 40 or so men, most of which did not know each other, several continents, over a period of 1600yrs, over 40 generations, Authors from all walks of life scholars, peasants, fisherman, written in times of peace and of war , others in joy others in despair, written in 3 languages, hundreds of subjects were written about, And they all came to together to make a perfect book without error or contradiction.This same book went on to be the foundation of law,morality and meaning of life (This gives proof that God was guiding these men to write his words)PROPHECY-The Bible was orginally and continues to be the only volume written by man or group of men which fullfilled written prophecy to individual nations, To Israel , to all people of the earth , To certain Cities , And a huge amount of the coming the Messiah. God challenges other religions to prove that they are the way. And to this day no book in the world has correctly foretold the future hundreds of times without mistakes.Buddha,Hindu,Muslims do not have any contained writings of a fullfilled prophecy.(This is good evidence that there is a greater mind than man with guided the writings of the book)SCIENCE-Scientific information that people only discovered recently or centuries after..Everything from the earth is round(Isaiah 40:22),earch is suspended in space without support (Job 26:7)etc etc..The list literally goes on and on..(The Bible is only at Conflicts with Evolution,But remember Evolution is the science of Humanist..Not Science in general.Historical science is very different to practical science we see everyday..Historical is based on presuppositions,frameworks etc..A Creationists and Evolutionists are both scientist.ARCHAEOLOGY-Archaelogoy discoveries have confirmed the Bibles historical accuracy.In fact it was quite possible the first and earliest writings of mankind (Showing the source of the earth right to the end).All Jewish, Israeli history is all confirmed in the Bible.This of course gives proof that the things in the Bible did happen . Mr John Warwick Montgomery said " To be skeptical of the texts in the New Testament is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no document of the anicent period are as well attested bibliographically as the New Testament.

SCIENCE-Scientific information that people only discovered recently or centuries after....etc ...
---------------------------------------------------------------------1.- The bible is no scientific book
2.- Neither is it a " user manual " to repair your car or to find the best ways to solve occuring problems in THIS world
3.- prophecies that are fullfilled are not the bible's monopoly
--->Nostradamus did some for example
--->Even witches could predict that "food turns into junk " on a summer day and without freezer availeable ...The rest of your post is equally puzzling--->Why do you want to built a god that fits into your peculiar sect and mind-set ?--->Your brand of creationism is maybe pure and simple
"fundamentalistic politics" ?
Do you want to install a worldwide christian Theocracy ?
and your MORAL laws that then you can impose on everyone ?Again about prophesies :
Do you want to blow up the Al Aqsa mosque in order to fullfill
the prophesies of the " second coming" of Christ ?
Do you think you will miss your wanted "doomsday "-date , you are longing for ?I think that your replies has nothing to do anymore with creation/evolution debate ; but is pure and simple propaganda
and zealotry by a proselytising but "usefull" tool of the ideology
/doctrine concerned ...
Why can't your god-cartoon realise his own plans ? do you ...eh ...
think ?Thanks for reminding me the still very real existence of this ( and yours ? ) particular kind of totalitarians ...Blessings

Having lurked on this thread for a while, I've finally decided to throw in my 2 cents...

quote:

---

The reason we shouldnt listen to any other institution is because none of them can even compare to the credentials of the Bible . There is no view,opinion,religion,literature which has predicted the future hundreds of times without mistakes . In fact there is not even one clear fullfilled prophecy .Which "Religion" can give similar credentials to this?...

---

What credentials? I have yet to see any prophecy in the bible fulfilled without any doubt whatsoever - mostly they appear to be wishful thinking on the part of the person trying to show that it has happened. What prophecy exists in the bible that does not require the reader to believe in Christianity before they would accept that it has come true? Otherwise, I find the bible to be little more than a mildly interesting collection of mythological stories.

quote:

---

UNITY- Written by 40 or so men, most of which did not know each other, several continents, over a period of 1600yrs, over 40 generations, Authors from all walks of life scholars, peasants, fisherman, written in times of peace and of war , others in joy others in despair, written in 3 languages, hundreds of subjects were written about, And they all came to together to make a perfect book without error or contradiction.This same book went on to be the foundation of law,morality and meaning of life (This gives proof that God was guiding these men to write his words).

---

The bible has more errors and contradictions than your average school textbook. It is NOT the foundation of law, or else it would still be legal to own slaves and stone adulteresses; it is not the foundation of morality for the same reason. As for the meaning of life... Only a Christian would think that.

quote:

---

SCIENCE-Scientific information that people only discovered recently or centuries after..Everything from the earth is round(Isaiah 40:22),earch is suspended in space without support (Job 26:7)etc etc..The list literally goes on and on..(The Bible is only at Conflicts with Evolution,But remember Evolution is the science of Humanist..Not Science in general.Historical science is very different to practical science we see everyday..Historical is based on presuppositions,frameworks etc..A Creationists and Evolutionists are both scientist.

---

What relevence has this to anything? The bible is not a science book. It cannot be used in science PERIOD. I would even say that because of creationism it is a definite hinderance to science.Historical science is based on the same science that is done today: EVIDENCE. Creationists seem to miss this so often... Everthing in science stems from evidence first. From it, we develop frameworks and hypotheses etc. which may, if they prove to be robust, go on to become theories. This is also what distinguishes creationists from actual scientists - creationists do not start with the evidence, they start with the presupposition that the bible is correct and look for evidence to support it - which immediately disqualifies them from calling themselves scientists. And please do not say "oh evolutionists are the same, they start off thinking that evolution happened and interpret all the evidence with that in mind". I've heard that often enough to be tired of refuting it. Scientists examined the evidence and formulated the Theory of Evolution based on that evidence.

quote:

---

ARCHAEOLOGY-Archaelogoy discoveries have confirmed the Bibles historical accuracy.In fact it was quite possible the first and earliest writings of mankind (Showing the source of the earth right to the end).All Jewish, Israeli history is all confirmed in the Bible.This of course gives proof that the things in the Bible did happen . Mr John Warwick Montgomery said " To be skeptical of the texts in the New Testament is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no document of the anicent period are as well attested bibliographically as the New Testament.

---

No, it has not. The earliest archaeologists investigating Egypt and the Middle East were originally searching for evidence to support the bible stories, but in the absence of such evidence they (like all honest scientists) abandoned the notion in favour of other hypotheses. As for Dr. Montgomery (please use the honorific that a person deserves when you quote them), I doubt that a Professor of Law who holds additional degrees in theology and philosophy can give a true and accurate appraisal of current archaeological findings in the Middle East.Almeyda, all you've done so far is bluster, throw around unsupported assertations and generally preach at everyone here. It's not appreciated - please try to start over with the topic at hand. and remember that reposting earlier points that have already been dicussed is a sure sign of defeat.The Rock Hound

Like youve looked..It is a fact that it has predicted the future hundreds of times over. It is an Historical document. And you cant deny it no matter what crap you come up withThe Bible has no contradictions or errors. And to make sure everyone plz bombard the thread with the most damaging contradictions (Not taken out of context of course)Yes it is the foundation of law. Keep in mind that it spans 2000yrs the book. Its got things from the beginning of civilization. Its just todays world that rejects the authenticity of the BibleThe relevance is that it had things before there werent discovered. This is all you people talk about evolution/science,evolution/science well im here telling you that the Bible contained science written before it was founded.Plz dont try to say Creationists are not scientists. It really is getting pathetic. If that Frogguy i talk to hasnt realised that Creation is science also well then this is all pretty hopelesslol omg The Bible isnt confirmed by archaeaology. Your really messed up jack.This message has been edited by almeyda, 05-06-2004 08:24 AM

Have you got one other source besides Nostradamus disputed prophecy?..There is always the chance of luck. But that blows away when you realise how many times in a row the Bible did itThe rest of your post is kinda just rambling. Anyway no im not trying to indoctrinate you into my cult. Im trying to show you that truth does exist and its in the only true Gods book The Bible because it has the facts and crendentials far beyond every other thing in the entier galaxy.

It is not the fact that the Bible has "predicted the future hundreds of times over". We've tried discussing prophecy fulfillment more than once on this site and we still have not found a single good example.You want an example of a contradiction in the Bible ? OK, according to Deuteronomy if a prophecy fails to occur the prophecy did not come from God and the prophet should be put to death (18:20-22). According to the book of Jonah a prophecy may fail to occur because God changes his mind. Jeremiah 18:7-10 supports Jonah in this instance.As you yourself have stated the Bible is not a single document. It is a collection of works that need to be evaluated on their own merits. Genesis belongs with the Epic of Gilgamesh or Hesiod's Theogony, rather than the histories of, say, Herodotus let alone Josephus "Jewish War" or Caeasar's "Gallic War" which are often first-hand accounts. And even those are not trusted absolutely.All the claims of "scientific discovery" are vague and hardly based on clear statements. One that occurs particularly frequently is Isaiah's reference to "the circle of the Earth" as proving that the author knew that the earth was spherical - ignoring the fact that the word refers to a circle and not a sphere - and the Flat Earth Society believed in a *circular* Earth.As for archaeology you may as well throw out everything from Genesis to Joshua. None of the events have been confirmed and the archaology is against many of the major events having happened at all.And no, Creation is not science. If you are reduced to demanding that your opinions must be accepted as fact no matter how wrong-headed then you may as well leave.

quote:

---

Like youve looked..It is a fact that it has predicted the future hundreds of times over. It is an Historical document. And you cant deny it no matter what crap you come up with.

---

In case you haven't noticed, buzsaw (one of our longtime creationist members) has posted several topics on bible prophecies which incidently contained several examples that were examined and discussed. I read those threads with interest, and I'm sorry to say that I was not convinced. The bible is indeed a historical document in that it is very, very old - but it is not accurate, no matter how much you want it to be.Oh, and if you can't show some Christian manners in your debating, I don't see why I should take you in any way seriously.

quote:

---

The Bible has no contradictions or errors. And to make sure everyone plz bombard the thread with the most damaging contradictions (Not taken out of context of course).

---

There is an entire forum dedicated to bible inerrancy threads. Why should we derail this thread by introducing off-topic posts? Unless you feel you can't defend your original assertation (that the teaching of evolution causes social decay) and your only hope is to have it buried in posts made by provoked evolutionists.

quote:

---

Yes it is the foundation of law. Keep in mind that it spans 2000yrs the book. Its got things from the beginning of civilization. Its just todays world that rejects the authenticity of the Bible.

---

Bald assertation. What does its age have to do it being the foundation of anything? I say again; it is NOT the foundation of law, because then it would still be legal to own slaves and stone adulteresses to death.

quote:

---

The relevance is that it had things before there werent discovered. This is all you people talk about evolution/science,evolution/science well im here telling you that the Bible contained science written before it was founded.

---

Bald assertation again - or wishful thinking. You're pretty much reading science into the bible where there is none, in a desperate ploy to raise its validity. Your wanting science to be there will not make it be there, and if you continue with this assertation I can only assume that you are deluding yourself.

quote:

---

Plz dont try to say Creationists are not scientists. It really is getting pathetic. If that Frogguy i talk to hasnt realised that Creation is science also well then this is all pretty hopeless.

---

No, the way that creationists keep parrotting off the same tired lines is pathetic. Creationists do not follow the scientific method - that is, carefully gathering evidence and making hypotheses based on that evidence, then gathering more evidence and modifying their hypotheses if needed. If you can show that this is the case, I will gladly retract my comments.

quote:

---

lol omg The Bible isnt confirmed by archaeaology. Your really messed up jack.

---

That's "Rock Hound" to you. Or IRH. I've never been called jack.Have you done any study at all? Do you know for certain, based on research, reading, examination of archaeological sites, examination of artifacts, or anything similar, that the bible is supported by archaeology? Or is it just too much for your faith to bear if it's all really just stories and metaphor?You're bordering on rude, as well as childish. This is a serious debating forum - using shortened chat-speak is not a good idea. I'm beginning to wonder if you're actually interested in debating in good faith at all. Why should anyone even consider your religion if this is how you act?I eagerly await your response.The Rock Hound

I never called it fact..That does not mean its not science. Evolution is not fact yet you call that science? They are both therefore belief systems. A belief system is a religion. So it is sheer logic that it is the science of one religion vs the science of other. I accept anyones opinion but this must accepted because it is common sense. The ONLY! difference is that one has something to base it on. And Evolutionists do not. That is the only difference between the two. They both involve scientist working in labs doing there experiments. Of course they both involved interpretation to fit your "belief system" right?. Naturally you should agree but again ill take in whatever your response is. And yes Genesis cannot be proven because the flood destroyed it. But luckily the rest of it can and it contains prophecys,and its a historical document, That i guess we will discuss later in the Bible forum.

quote:

---

Evolution is not fact yet you call that science?

---

"Evolution's not a fact it's a theory!" The same tired lines trotted out for refutation... Well, gravity's a theory too. If you don't like it, go just off a bridge.

quote:

---

I accept anyones opinion but this must accepted because it is common sense.

---

This is all you have to offer to convince us?!? That you think it's common sense? Common sense and actual science are light years apart.

quote:

---

The ONLY! difference is that one has something to base it on. And Evolutionists do not. That is the only difference between the two.

---

You have that backwards. Evolution has over 100 years of scientific research to back it up. Creationism has a collection of myths and stories that are about as reliable in science as a rubber hammer.

quote:

---

They both involve scientist working in labs doing there experiments. Of course they both involved interpretation to fit your "belief system" right?.

---

No. Yet again, I must point out that creationists start with a presupposition and force the evidence to fit it, while scientists begin with evidence and develop hypotheses. If you cannot prove otherwise then why do you keep repeating it?

quote:

---

And yes Genesis cannot be proven because the flood destroyed it.

---

The flood never happened. If it did, what was the 'it' that it destroyed? The evidence? But there would be evidence of the flood, and there is none.Pleading with us is not going to convince anyone.The Rock Hound

Assuming that this is a reply ot my message 60, you did indeed claim that it was a fact that the Bible had "hundreds" of fulfilled prophecies.Evolution on the other hand really is a fact.On the other hand a "belief system" is not automatically a religion, nor is evolution any more a belief system than any other major scientific theory. And it has already been pointed out to you that there are Christians who accept evolution.And since the Flood appears rarely early in Genesis - and is one of the major events that archaeology does not confirm - suggesting that the flood destroyed the evidence is just silly and betrays your ignorance of the Bible. How could the flood destroy the evidence that it had happened, let alone the evidence of events that happened later ?

Have you got one other source besides Nostradamus disputed prophecy?..
--------------------------------------------------------------Why should I cite all the prophets , witches , story tellers and
lunatics ( including Nostradamus ) ... I don't believe in prophecies ... period
( and maybe that is based on my own kind of holy sciptures , which you cannot read , because that woul'd be blasphemy and is also my private property )And no
there are no ABSOLUTE truths
(not even this one )
Only the best ones we can get , untill they are falsified ...That doesn't even apply to your blablabla ...
Your doctrine can't be "proven" nor "disproven " and it hasn't even the necessary initial amount of evidences to start with ...Are you a fundie yes or no ?
it's a simple question ...
Care to answer ?