The Davinci Code

[hyperactive]

daoutlawz:

I do not scoff the bible, i do question it though. (perhaps it sounds like scoffing if i attack it). While I have not read the bible (and you got me here in that i have no desire to) I have studied christianity (along with other religions) both to just understand them and for enlightenment. I don't deny that religion can co-exist with science. I have too often seen religion try to crush knowledge counter to its own agenda though. In honesty, I think the best scientists are drawing from somthing other than pure intellect. Call it faith, insperation, or whatever.

I myself base my own theories around logic and science, but admittedly are influenced by eastern, and earthly religions. I admit that many of my core/basic attritibutes towards life, the universe and everything bear logic, philosophy, science, and "spirituality". What you see in them depends on what you are looking for.

As I said, i think of the line of the prophets as philosophers. Where they got their insperation from is not really a matter to me. I can't say since I was not any of them. It is sort of like the old joke about who is really sane. Did they create it themselves in their heads (spoke to themselves), or did a "higher order" being talk to them. I don't dismiss the possibilities of higher order beings. To do so would be plain human arrogance.

No matter what beings are out there, I do not consider them gods. gods are merely a human construct to me. They have no basis in reality. You may worship jesus because you believe in his teachings but someone else could worship Descartes for the same reasons. Remember the bible was written by men. If a man decided to call jesus a god, just like many men have called others gods throughout history, does not make said worshipped man a god except in the mind of a man.

My problems with religion (organized) is that it is a self serving tool to exert power over the masses. I should clarify and state i see any type of faith as completely separate from any type of religion. A person can have a great deal of faith, sprituality and not believe in any organized religion.

To clarify: i also never said I consider evolution as an explanation of everything living or did i say i view it as fact. Like all theories, it works under conditions we can control for. We can not control for the formation of first life (no fossil evidence) so anything we say about it is merely a projection from our current knowledge. I don't in any way accept the idea of some being creating the universe either though. I don't see there being a way for us to fully grasp how the universe formed given our perceptual constraints. An age old question regarding the magical man creating the universe theory is who created him?

One last note on gods: since they are creations in man's mind (to me) Imakes complete sense that they would be anthropomorphized to match what a man would view as his ideal. Wouldn't it be something if some day a higher order creature did show itself to us and we learned it was absolutely nothing of what these fanciful ideas of what a higher order creature is? For man to have cast god in his own image is the foundation of the arrogance religion creates. My personal "bone to pick" with cristianity is in the concept of man being superior to all other life on earth, and having dominion over it. As a beliver in all life being interconnected and equal(systemically, as well as possibly by other means) I find it highly offensive to have somebody claim such a thing.

[daoutlawz]

Good that you show it as your belief. Everyone is entitled to believe what they want.

I myself dont like organized religions either, i follow Jesus the way he says to follow him in the Bible, not by what a 'priest' or any other person might say.

Just on a side note, its also funny how (not you in particular) some (not all) people are waiting for some higher being to tell us where we all came from, like that movie i think it was called 'mission to mars', when i believe God is that higher being and he has already told us the answer.

Either way, everyone has there beliefs. ;)

[hyperactive]

Good that you show it as your belief.  Everyone is entitled to believe what they want.

I myself dont like organized religions either, i follow Jesus the way he says to follow him in the Bible, not by what a 'priest' or any other person might say.

Just on a side note, its also funny how (not you in particular) some (not all) people are waiting for some higher being to tell us where we all came from, like that movie i think it was called 'mission to mars', when i believe God is that higher being and he has already told us the answer.

Either way, everyone has there beliefs. ;)

585608657[/snapback]

all any of us have is our beliefs.

at least you have thought through yours. I would much prefer we disagree on "gods" because we have each thought about our beliefs than we agree becuase one or both of us was just accepting what we are told. We also better understand our beliefs by challenging them (and having them challenged by others) so differences can improve us (so long as we remain open minded and not us challenges as a wall building exercise).

[spacey]

while i haven't read the da vinci code, i have read dan brown's (the author of whom the book this thread is about) other book angels and demons. i must say he seems like a person who doesn't agree with christianity for whatever reason. his characters and books definately reflect this.

there's a line in the beginning that refers to langdon studying religion but not actually having any faith in God to be like a scientist studying cancer but not having cancer. if that isn't a harsh statement, i don't know what it is.

also, even so called characters with any faith are pretty weak. and anything they see as a miracle, is of course later explained as some big misunderstanding. you have a daughter whose father is supposedly your typical good Catholic priest, yet she seems to be more of a naturalist and believes more in mother earth etc. ends up sleeping with langdon after knowing him for like a few days? a day? i forget the timeline.

anyway, my opinion of course is bias too. i'm a christian. and clearly dan brown is not, what i don't really like is how he's trying to just skew things and insert random hersey so he can write a book. though its not his fault really that ppl actually think this stuff is facts... this is an area of thin ice. the bible states that there will be many false prophets and teachers that try and pervert the message of Christianity... who knows.

[daoutlawz]

Not this crap again? This book is classified as "fiction". It is not classified as religious or non-fiction.

The contents of this book has been rehashed over and over again. Forgetting that it is sold as fiction, all of the "conspiracy theories" readers of the book have raised have been thoroughly debunked.

Also, the old "new testament/bible has been translated so many times" objection has also been thoroughly hashed out.

The dead sea scrolls proved how accurate the translations of the old testament are and they also confirmed the existence and beliefs of the Essenes which were influential in the formation of early Christianity. Some believe that John the Baptist may have been one at one time.

The suggestion that the New Testament is not derived from the teachings thoughts of Jewish sects from around 0-30 AD is laughable.

All this stuff has been talked to death. inphlict, you are a little late to the party.

585608479[/snapback]

Thats unfortunately what some people dont get, is that they didnt just find one scroll, or one manuscript, they have found thousands of them and today's king james version is about 98% accurate, 2% is the language differences.

To give people an idea of how serious the 'Scribes' were of the Old Testament and of Jesus' day, whenever they were copying the Scripture (no photocopiers in those days :D ) and they came across the word 'God' in Hebrew or Greek, they would wash their hands before they wrote it, that was every instance the word had to be written, not just once.

[aristotle-dude]

@daoutlawz: Very true. Many of the older translations like the original King James had some differences due to language as the original Greek text of the new testament and the hebrew text of the Old Testament were far richer languages than the King's English. Fortunately, modern translations have better manuscripts to check against. Where there is disagreement between manuscripts used in the translation, foot notes present the alternate wording.

Here is a page on dating:

http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/papyrus/te...anuscripts.html

It also discusses how some of the errors had crept in to some of the manuscripts. Fortunately, there were other manuscripts which were used to correct the errors. Good thing we had RAID with parity eh? :)

Despite what some "liberal" theologians might try to suggest, the translations we have today are very close to the manuscripts from the 100-300 AD period. Fortunately, it appears that we have close to original manuscripts of the Gospel of John which has been dated at 125 AD or earlier. Considering that the events would have occurred less that a hundred years before, I'd consider that to be a pretty accurate copy, if not the original.

Remember that John is the Gospel that concentrates on the divinity of Christ. Having such an old manuscript of John is a threat to both the liberal theologians and the pseudo Christian sects like the JWs and LDS. When you have such an old manuscript, it is a lot harder to suggest that the other gospels have "evidence" of Jesus denying his divinity or suggesting that the Trinity was a creation of the church in the centuries that followed.

[daoutlawz]

Remember that John is the Gospel that concentrates on the divinity of Christ. Having such an old manuscript of John is a threat to both the liberal theologians and the pseudo Christian sects like the JWs and LDS. When you have such an old manuscript, it is a lot harder to suggest that the other gospels have "evidence" of Jesus denying his divinity or suggesting that the Trinity was a creation of the church in the centuries that followed.

585613241[/snapback]

Thats true.

Thanks for the info, it strengthens my faith. :yes:

[hyperactive]

Thats true.

Thanks for the info, it strengthens my faith.  :yes:

585613915[/snapback]

so let me get this right (based on your posts in a few threads):

you don't accept eveolution as absolute fact because we can't prove what really happened to cause the first life even though evolution is accepted by many men.

but

you will accept the writings of one man, a fallible man, who promotes the idea of another fallible man being more than a man.

lets see:

if "god" was all knowing, he would know what he has to say, and what he wants. But there is a line of prophets, with a lack of total agreement in the messages. So god can not be all knowing.

Jesus can not be any more than a man, for he was incomplete. otherwise mohammed would not have been in contact with this "one god".

Faith can provide strength, but it also can blind. Absolute faith blinds absolutely.

The belief in gods is a castback to the primitve and immature mind which needs suchh "order" to function. The enlightment and evolution of man to the next level requires the abandonment of such childhood things.

Christianity in particular is about the worst thing to have happened to man. Even the supposed insights are not all that astonishing given they were being made thousands of years prior to christianity.

[daoutlawz]

You are taking a couple assumptions upon yourself.

1st you again assume Jesus was just a man.

2nd you assume that every religion (even though they might be completely different) talk to the one same God..

Firstly, i dont accept evolution as fact because there are no facts, yet everyone talks about it like there is, tv shows, newspapers, people..And who cares how many people believe in it, dont make it true. Evolution has done nothing for me, God has done everything for me.

Jesus was prophesied to come many centuries before he did (which he did), conquer death forever (which he did) by perfecting the old testament laws (which he did). The 4 Gospels line up together, they talk about the same person over 4 different eye witness accounts. All the epistles line up with the teachings of God, everything in the bible lines up. God is the same throughout, from the old testament to the new, written over a period of about 2000 years with 60+ authors. One pure example is the book of Revelation (New Testament) which is a continuation of Daniel (Old Testament), right at the end of Daniel, he asks what the heck is going on? i dont understand any of this, and the Angel tells him not to worry for another man will come and pick up the pen where you left off. Sure enough, that man was John who wrote revelation. Dont be mistaken, all the prophets of the christian-judeo bible line up all the way through the epistels to the end of revelation, dont mix other religions into it, thats another discussion.

lol, i thought there was no 'absolutes'?

wow, didnt i say you would take any chance to 'scoff' at the bible? How can the bible be so right? Look, everyone here obviously knows what you believe in, and obviously knows that you hate christianity..so why all the argueing?

Seriously, if people think that we are actually getting 'better' or the world is getting friendlier, then those people have to wash their eyes with soap. We are getting worse and worse as the years go by, all people think about these days is money..boil it down, and thats all that is on peoples minds, money. The rumors of wars these days is incredible, we have threads here about the rumors of wars, the world is getting worse guys, not getting better. We are fortunate to live in countries that allow us to think how we want, and to believe in what we want, also we really havnt tasted war, as such, yet. If you ask me, we are screwed. If its not gonna be us, then our kids, or our kids kids. Everyone hates each other, and we will never change that, we cant change that. And if evolution is true, then we have gained this 'programming' at one stage in our development, so we cant lose it, its the opposite of what evolution is, if evolution is true, then all we are going to do is build on it, till we all kill each other.

Jesus already told us it was going to happen like this, and to prepare for it. He said it was going to get worse and worse, like a climax. And guess what, its happening.

I have even asked a question (before i believed) that if God loved us so much, why not show himself to all of us so we can believe? The question would remain that, would people believe then? I would say no, and then i would say if God had to show us himself all the time, it would go contrary to what he talked about in the bible, and then you wouldnt require faith. Faith is the things to hope for that you cant see. And the only thing that strengthens your faith dramatically is the increasing love you have with God, all God wants is for people to love him with all their hearts, thats it.

[hyperactive]

@daoutlawz:

man has been "stuck" in a quagmire for a few thousand years now. Not that it is a big deal, so long as our "technology" doesn't get too far ahead of our primative brains.

We think things are getting worse, but it isn't. It just looks that way because of the increasing populations. Man is still an animal. Religion is one of the great bindings to the primative mind. We can not reach full awareness and fulfillment as long as we defer such things to imaginary creatures.

As a child, one may believe in many an imaginary creature. As one ages and learns more those creatures are relegated to fiction. For man to grow, and for the dangers you speak of to disappear, man must lose this "need" for a higher being. Man is ultimately responsible for his own destiny, and must accept that responsibility in order to reach his potential.

If you are claiming that mohammed does not speak of the same god as the other prophets, then we have more than one "god", rendering all monotheistic religions invalid.

People are all too good at looking for things that support their views, and ignoring or downplaying things that challenge their views. Add in the lack of reasoning and logic connected to believing in "gods" without any evidence ever of such creatures and you begin to see the damage religion does. Rather than accept reality and work together, we get the fiercest of tribalisms. All driven by an illogical belief that the "god" your tribe is worshipping is "the god".

Look at the real issues in the word today that threaten us and you will find this belief in "god" or "gods" closely connected.

Man likes to try and rule the world. He likes to control things. He likes order. Most of all, he likes to justify himself. A powerful creature living in your head that you answer to can give all the justification in the world for any atrocity imaginable.

As for hating cristianity. Hate is a bit strong. I don't hate it. I view it as something that has done a lot of damage to humanity and is holding humanity back. It is a religion that should have died long ago. Religions come and go as man evolves. Perhaps the long lifespan of christianity is the ultimate example of how we have stagnated as a species over the past 1500 years.

I can accept you not accepting evolution as fact. But how can you accept any ancient writings as fact if you apply the same criteria?

The writings in the bible are best viewed as a colourful chronicle of a different time, and as a set of social rules for that same time. Nothing more. The predictions of the bible, as well as pretty much of all of it, is so vague and open to interpretation it really predicts nothing. Any card reader, mystic, or what have you can make vague predictions like found in the bible. Just like the christians, people eat this stuff up. It is part of the psychology of the species. Quite contrary to what you suggest, evolution is our only hope. To get there we must move beyond primative beliefs and desires, not cling to them. They will be our destruction, not our salvation. In that sense, following things like christianity will bring us closer to the character lucifer, than the character god.

[aristotle-dude]

Hyperactive, you can believe whatever the hell you want. It's a free world. You seem to have a need to justify either to yourself or the rest of us what you believe or disbelieve. Why is that?

You seem to be a bit self-conscious of your ideals/beliefs but I do not see the need for you to inflict us with your long winded diatribes. It's like reading some bizzaro world reverse evangelist.

The only reason I jumped into the thread was to attempt to clear up certain misconceptions about Christianity. You believe that Jesus was some regular dude. All I wanted to point out was that Jesus made the claim that he was the son of god. Now you don't have to believe that claim and nobody is forcing you to. What I did want to point out however, is that we have a chronicle of the religious movement which is almost contemporary with the events which which it claims to describe. Now all I would expect this dating of the manuscript to do is to put to rest the myth that it was somehow "invented" centuries later. Regardless of the age of the document, we cannot expect everyone would believe the words in that document even though it is the oldest surviving testimony about Jesus and the movement he started.

As for the words in your post, all I can do is shake my head. Keep telling yourself that stuff, maybe you will believe it yourself some day and you won't feel the need to inflict the rest of us with it.

Sorry but your post reads a bit too much like Mein Kampf for my taste.

Oh and about the evolution thing. It's an interesting theory but you really should not put too much faith in it. There is a great deal of doubt about Darwin's theories and there are all sorts of new "models" being put forward to explain away the inconsistencies between our observations and the previously accepted theories/models. I'm not saying whether evolution occurs or not but given that we have thrown out most of Einstein's theories in the world of physics, I would never put my unwavering "faith" in a theory.

Edited March 15, 2005 by aristotle-dude

[QuarterSwede]

If you are claiming that mohammed does not speak of the same god as the other prophets, then we have more than one "god", rendering all monotheistic religions invalid.

585617846[/snapback]

Not to upset the Muslims on this board but Mohammed got his idea for Allah from the Jews and others of the time. He picked what he liked from all of the religions that passed through where he lived and encorperated it into Islam ... all the way down to praying three times a day toward a holy city. Even the name of the muslim God is taken from an ancient idol named "Allah" the moon god. Even wonder why there is a crescent moon on the flag? Now you know.

Anyway, my point isn't to infuriate those who believe in Allah, and I apologize for doing so if I have. Rather, my point is that it isn't the same god as the god of the Jews and just because another religion has another god, that doesn't make Chrisitianity any less valid. Your logic is severly flawed ... but that's ok because it's all relative right? :pinch:

The predictions of the bible, as well as pretty much of all of it, is so vague and open to interpretation it really predicts nothing.  Any card reader, mystic, or what have you can make vague predictions like found in the bible.

585617846[/snapback]

Some of the phrophecies in the Bible give very specific dates when things will occur. It is true that they don't say that things will happen on May 29th 2010 for example but they do say things such as "in seventy sevens this will happen" (That would be 490 years). Many of the Bible's prophecies aren't vague phrophecies like those of Nostradamus. They were dead on which is partly why Chrisitanity is so intriguing to so many.

Oh and to those of you who think Jesus may not have even existed, an ancient historian named Josephus who was not a believer in God wrote of the crucifiction of Christ just as the Bible details in the gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) only in far less detail (he didn't care). So, that is a non-bibilical reference to the existence of Jesus Christ and the crucifiction. Another reference

Edited March 15, 2005 by Jstphish

[hyperactive]

Oh and about the evolution thing. It's an interesting theory but you really should not put too much faith in it. There is a great deal of doubt about Darwin's theories and there are all sorts of new "models" being put forward to explain away the inconsistencies between our observations and the previously accepted theories/models. I'm not saying whether evolution occurs or not but given that we have thrown out most of Einstein's theories in the world of physics, I would never put my unwavering "faith" in a theory.

585618147[/snapback]

i don't put my faith in theories. Nor do i put it into any other human construct, such as a "god" or "gods".

Whether jesus elevated himself to the "son of god", or another did, the point is that worshipping a man, or any other entity, is dangerous business. If humanity is to advance it must eventually move beyond the crutches of religion.

"inflict"... really? a good term for the actions of religion. The fun of "talking" to the religious is their set belief that they must be right because of their gods. Isn't it great when one has faith because of a "god", and that "god" is what gives one faith! So what came first? hmmm....

You too can believe in whatever you want. "faith" belongs internal to the individual, not inflicted upon the whole of society.

Edited March 15, 2005 by hyperactive

[OrangeSoul]

Jesus was a Prophet, he survived the crucifiction and went onto his other "Sheeps"

Prophet remark source: Old Testament, which Jesus followed

Crucifiction remark: the Bible itself

Went on to find other sheeps: The purpose of his Prophethood and coming on earth

Why?: Because the current Christian belief believes too much in the supernatural, thats why alot of people who are christians become atheists because they cant find God or dont believe God exists after absurd supernatural statements notinated by the Churchpeople

[QuarterSwede]

Jesus was a Prophet, he survived the crucifiction and went onto his other "Sheeps"

Prophet remark source: Old Testament, which Jesus followed

Crucifiction remark: the Bible itself

Went on to find other sheeps: The purpose of his Prophethood and coming on earth

Why?: Because the current Christian belief believes too much in the supernatural, thats why alot of people who are christians become atheists because they cant find God or dont believe God exists after absurd supernatural statements notinated by the Churchpeople

585618862[/snapback]

The fact that you believe Jesus survived a crucifiction shows your utter lack of knowledge of how the Romans did it. Also, there were far too many people who saw it occur or knew it occured and wrote about it, in Biblical as well as non-Bibilical (see Josepus) writings.

I would believe someone who says that it never happened over someone who says He survived it. That's just utter nonsense.

[hyperactive]

The fact that you believe Jesus survived a crucifiction shows your utter lack of knowledge of how the Romans did it.  Also, there were far too many people who saw it occur or knew it occured and wrote about it, in Biblical as well as non-Bibilical (see Josepus) writings.

I would believe someone who says that it never happened over someone who says He survived it.  That's just utter nonsense.

585619546[/snapback]

a lot of people claim to have seen aliens, UFOs, and the loch ness monster too.

Still we have no evidence of any of them either.

"believe" what you will. All I find dangerous and damaging to the advancement of man is the double standard the religious use: skepics of science and man(which is what should happen), but immunity to skeptisism of their religion.

There are more than one way to explain things from the ancient texts. Blind devotion to the idea of the "god" is just that, blind.

[daoutlawz]

@hyperactive

I really dont know what you want to get out of this discussion anymore, you are constantly giving crap to anyone who believes in religion(especially christianity), you are obviously (probably without realising) creating a division between yourself and people who believe in a God. You are always talking about "when people get rid of these stupid religions" that we will finally have peace, yet you are constantly saying that people who believe in a religion havnt evolved or are childish (ie. putting them down, discrimination, stereotyping), and this is your method of being friendly or getting peace?

You are not giving any evidence to disprove Christianity and you are not giving any evidence to support the belief of evolution. All you are doing is talking about what you think is right.

aristotle-dude said it nicely: "It's like reading some bizzaro world reverse evangelist".

All you are doing is promoting the theory of Evolution, just like a christian evangelist would.

I have never looked down upon anyone just because of what they believe (unlike yourself), I have never on this forum scoffed at any religion or any theory because of what I think (unlike yourself). You seem to think that it is your duty to imply to everyone who believes in the supernatural that they are stupid. Thats not very nice now is it? Is this your plan of peace/friendship?

You seem to be suprised that Christianity has 'survived' this long, there is an obvious reason, that you cant see my friend, and Christianity isnt dying, its getting stronger and bigger.

I just have one question, What makes you and me so different? Besides the obvious.

[jackwanders]

The problem with this entire 'religion' versus 'evolution' debate is two-fold. First, you can't disprove Christianity. Christianity is not an idea or theory which can be disproven. More generally, the existence of God cannot be disproven or proven either. Hence faith. Second, evolution cannot be proven either. Theories cannot be proven, only supported or disproven. There is a world of evidence that supports the evolutionary process, but all that evidence can easily be explained away by simply saying that's how God intended it. I saw one person claim that DNA similarities don't prove evolution because if God is going to create two species that are kind of similar, of course the building blocks of those species are going to be similar as well.

Also, there seems to be some confusing about what evolution actually talks about. Evolution, as a process, happens. It's almost too common-sense to deny it. Living things both adapt to their environment and occasionally undergo unintended genetic mutations, which may or may not aide it in its survival. Mutations which aide in survival are more likely to propogate through a species than those which do not. The problem comes when people try to claim that evolution can't explain the first life on this planet, and therefore the whole thing falls apart. Evolution, however, does not attempt any such thing. Evolution only talks about the change of species, not the creation of life itself.

Personally, I think we'll see religion accept evolution sooner or later as the theories of how evolution works become more solid. Evolution does not negate God. It does not negate Jesus or his teachings. It does not negate your faith. Evolution turns one story in the Bible from a literal transcription of events to an allegory. Instead of the earth being created in 7 days, it was created in 7 'God days', which just so happen to be about 4 billion earth years.

Faith in a higher power goes so far beyond 'creationism' versus 'abiogenesis/evolution' it's sad to see so many get stuck on such a silly debate.

Faith - :yes:

Religion - :no:

[hyperactive]

@hyperactive

I really dont know what you want to get out of this discussion anymore, you are constantly giving crap to anyone who believes in religion(especially christianity), you are obviously (probably without realising) creating a division between yourself and people who believe in a God.  You are always talking about "when people get rid of these stupid religions" that we will finally have peace, yet you are constantly saying that people who believe in a religion havnt evolved or are childish (ie. putting them down, discrimination, stereotyping), and this is your method of being friendly or getting peace? 

You are not giving any evidence to disprove Christianity and you are not giving any evidence to support the belief of evolution.  All you are doing is talking about what you think is right.

aristotle-dude said it nicely: "It's like reading some bizzaro world reverse evangelist".

All you are doing is promoting the theory of Evolution, just like a christian evangelist would.

I have never looked down upon anyone just because of what they believe (unlike yourself), I have never on this forum scoffed at any religion or any theory because of what I think (unlike yourself).  You seem to think that it is your duty to imply to everyone who believes in the supernatural that they are stupid.  Thats not very nice now is it?  Is this your plan of peace/friendship?

You seem to be suprised that Christianity has 'survived' this long, there is an obvious reason, that you cant see my friend, and Christianity isnt dying, its getting stronger and bigger.

I just have one question, What makes you and me so different? Besides the obvious.

585619646[/snapback]

What makes us different? nothing.

the language i use is colourful, but not meant as personal. It is not saying "you are stupid for...." It is saying that the concept of "gods" is a creation in the human mind to fulfill a need, just a children create imaginary beings in their minds to fulfill needs. There is a difference between the metaphorical reference to a child;s stages of development and being childish. I view humanity as being in its infancy, for more reasons than just the acceptance of theories promoting the supernatural. If you read all my posts (across a few threads on this) you would see I do not dismiss the possibilities of higher dimensional beings, more advanced beings, etc, nor do I think there is anything negative in thinking there are such possibilities. It is in imagination that great things are born.

I m not promoting evolution. Evolution, and any theory that casts gods in the role of creation, are just that, theories. They are just tools for explanation and are as fallible as their creators.

I don't have a need to generate evidence for evolution's explanation of the beginnings of life because I am not concerned about the beginnings of life. If one wants to put forward a theory on the beginnings, such as you have with christianity, than you should show proof. The point is that there is no proof, nor could there be. I see nothing bad in learning from these paranormal theories, but i see danger in blindly following them.

To summize: my problem is with the acceptance of ANY theory for ANYTHING blindly.

Sorry if you took the language as personal, it was not meant that way. Unfortunately, forums have their limits to communiction.

[daoutlawz]

Sorry if you took the language as personal, it was not meant that way.  Unfortunately, forums have their limits to communiction.

585619757[/snapback]

At least we can agree on one thing :D

[hyperactive]

At least we can agree on one thing :D

585619795[/snapback]

:D

More than one thing more likely. ;)

[hyperactive]

@daoutlawz:

since you put a lot of effort into coming to your conclusions, here is something I came across today that might be of interest to you (since you had been asking on evolution):

The Fossil Fallacy 

Creationists' demand for fossils that represent "missing links" reveals a deep misunderstanding of science 

By Michael Shermer 

 

Image: BRAD HINES 

   

Nineteenth-century English social scientist Herbert Spencer made this prescient observation: "Those who cavalierly reject the Theory of Evolution, as not adequately supported by facts, seem quite to forget that their own theory is supported by no facts at all." Well over a century later nothing has changed. When I debate creationists, they present not one fact in favor of creation and instead demand "just one transitional fossil" that proves evolution. When I do offer evidence (for example, Ambulocetus natans, a transitional fossil between ancient land mammals and modern whales), they respond that there are now two gaps in the fossil record.

This is a clever debate retort, but it reveals a profound error that I call the Fossil Fallacy: the belief that a "single fossil"--one bit of data--constitutes proof of a multifarious process or historical sequence. In fact, proof is derived through a convergence of evidence from numerous lines of inquiry--multiple, independent inductions, all of which point to an unmistakable conclusion.

ADVERTISEMENT (article continues below)

We know evolution happened not because of transitional fossils such as A. natans but because of the convergence of evidence from such diverse fields as geology, paleontology, biogeography, comparative anatomy and physiology, molecular biology, genetics, and many more. No single discovery from any of these fields denotes proof of evolution, but together they reveal that life evolved in a certain sequence by a particular process.

One of the finest compilations of evolutionary data and theory since Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species is Richard Dawkins's magnum opus, The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution (Houghton Mifflin, 2004)--688 pages of convergent science recounted with literary elegance. Dawkins traces numerous transitional fossils (what he calls "concestors," the last common ancestor shared by a set of species) from Homo sapiens back four billion years to the origin of heredity and the emergence of evolution. No single concestor proves that evolution happened, but together they reveal a majestic story of process over time.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We know evolution happened because of a convergence of evidence.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consider the tale of the dog. With so many breeds of dogs popular for so many thousands of years, one would think there would be an abundance of transitional fossils providing paleontologists with copious data from which to reconstruct their evolutionary ancestry. In fact, according to Jennifer A. Leonard, an evolutionary biologist then at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History, "the fossil record from wolves to dogs is pretty sparse." Then how do we know whence dogs evolved? In the November 22, 2002, Science, Leonard and her colleagues report that mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) data from early dog remains "strongly support the hypothesis that ancient American and Eurasian domestic dogs share a common origin from Old World gray wolves."

In the same issue, molecular biologist Peter Savolainen of the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm and his colleagues note that even though the fossil record is problematic, their study of mtDNA sequence variation among 654 domestic dogs from around the world "points to an origin of the domestic dog in East Asia" about 15,000 years before the present from a single gene pool of wolves.

Finally, anthropologist Brian Hare of Harvard University and his colleagues describe in this same issue the results of a study showing that domestic dogs are more skillful than wolves at using human signals to indicate the location of hidden food. Yet "dogs and wolves do not perform differently in a nonsocial memory task, ruling out the possibility that dogs outperform wolves in all human-guided tasks," they write. Therefore, "dogs' social-communicative skills with humans were acquired during the process of domestication."

No single fossil proves that dogs came from wolves, but archaeological, morphological, genetic and behavioral "fossils" converge to reveal the concestor of all dogs to be the East Asian wolf. The tale of human evolution is divulged in a similar manner (although here we do have an abundance of fossils), as it is for all concestors in the history of life. We know evolution happened because innumerable bits of data from myriad fields of science conjoin to paint a rich portrait of life's pilgrimage.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Michael Shermer is publisher of Skeptic (www.skeptic.com) and author of The Science of Good and Evil. 

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa...F3983414B7F0000

[Catharsis]

There are a whole lot of theories flying around here. The DaVinci Code simply rehashes an extremely old heresy called Gnosticism. Let's just use some plain common sense to dispel just a small portion of the lies of The DaVinci Code. Also, let's point out that you buy this book in the FICTION section of a book store. Is one looking for Truth? Or is one simply looking for anything to escape Jesus, the one who bought them and wishes none to perish?

1. There is no reputable historian, Christian or secular, that thinks Jesus didn't exist. That's just plain nonsense. He's as historical as all 50 presidents of the United States.

2. The painting DaVinci painted claimed to portray Mary being the Holy Grail, which is also preposterous. First of all, you have to ask yourself: Was Mary white? Was Jesus white? Were the apostles white? The answer is no. They were Mediterranean Jews for crying out loud. Where's John in the picture? Was DaVinci there at the last supper? Were they eating at a table? I mean, come on. Could someone please show me something that is accurate about that painting?

3. The DaVinci Code holds to the claim that Constantine "upgraded Jesus' status almost three centuries after Jesus' death" for political reasons. First of all, this is historically untrue. The first few centuries have martyred Christians as proof. Why would the apostles choose to be mocked, beaten, pushed off a building, boiled in oil, crucified updside down, etc. for someone who wasn't God?

4. From that point, the question may be raised (a common, easily answerable question), "Did Jesus claim to be God?" This is a powerful and unrefutable "Yes." There are several recorded times in the four gospels of people worshiping Jesus, yet He did not tell them to stop. A good Jew would not let people think He is God. Even angels know not to do that. Also, in John 8:58-59, we find Jesus make an astounding claim: "Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.' Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple." Tell me, why would the Jews try to stone Him when He said this? He claimed to be God. How? When God spoke to Moses at the burning bush, He said His Name was "I AM". In fact, this is what Yahweh means when literally translated. Other modern translations have translated it "Jehovah." To the Jews, Jesus had committed blasphemy, which was punishable by death. There are many, many more claims of Jesus' divinity.

5.The DaVinci Codeu> says that the Council of Nicaea passed the vote for Christ's deity by a "relatively close vote." In reality, however, only five out of over 300 bishops protested the creed. "Relatively close" indeed.:rolleyes:s:

There are manmanyi> more distortions of history and truth in Gnosticism anThe DaVinci Codeu> -- way too many to list here. For an easy, comprehensive list of refutations oThe DaVinci Codeu>, check out The DaVinci Deception by Erwin W. Lutzer.

Edited March 16, 2005 by King Rilian

[Catharsis]

a lot of people claim to have seen aliens, UFOs, and the loch ness monster too.

Still we have no evidence of any of them either.

"believe" what you will.? All I find dangerous and damaging to the advancement of man is the double standard the religious use: skepics of science and man(which is what should happen), but immunity to skeptisism of their religion.?

There are more than one way to explain things from the ancient texts.? Blind devotion to the idea of the "god" is just that, blind.

585619643[/snapback]

Let me ask you a simple yes or no question: Do you know everything?

Also, is your brand of skepticism along the lines of David Hume, or your own?

I also agree with your statement: "Blind devotion to the idea of the "god" is just that, blind." However, my devotion is not to an idea, and is also not blind.

[Catharsis]

After sorting through the self-praise of that article, all I could really find note-worthy was this statement, and I don't see how this proves evolution at all:

Finally, anthropologist Brian Hare of Harvard University and his colleagues describe in this same issue the results of a study showing that domestic dogs are more skillful than wolves at using human signals to indicate the location of hidden food. Yet "dogs and wolves do not perform differently in a nonsocial memory task, ruling out the possibility that dogs outperform wolves in all human-guided tasks," they write. Therefore, "dogs' social-communicative skills with humans were acquired during the process of domestication."

DUH. It's called adaptation, not evolution. Evolution is just one more religion you have to have faith in to believe, considering the lack of hard evidence. Who's the god in evolution? Mankind.