+267 It is possible for both evolution and God to exist, amirite?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Have you ever read Genesis? It says many things which go against evolution. Not compatible.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Human beings wrote the bible. Humans get things wrong.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Well, if you don't believe that the bible has credibility, go ahead and believe evolution, BUT, don't say that you believe in God if you don't believe 100% in what the bible says; it's the word of God, given to man through man, guided by the Holy Spirit.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

JLove is just saying that human's wrote the bible after jesus' crucifixion, so it's what man says God says, not directly what god says simply because of time period.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

the New Testament (what you're talking about) was written by eye-wittnesses and people who experienced what they taught. In the Old Testament, the creation story (what I'm talking about) was written by Moses, who was guided by God to free Israel from slavery, who was on the mountain when the Law was written, who saw the shoulder of God, who talked constantly with that God, whose face people could often not look directly at because of a radiance it had from being in the presence of God, who was guided by God Himself to write the first 5 books of the Old Testament.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

lets eat grandma interpret it as Let's eat, grandma! or Let's eat Grandma! people interpret differently, and how do you know Moses has the right interpretation, that YOU have the right interpretation, or that anyone does? and Moses still gets circumcised twice.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

How do I know if Moses had the right interpretation? He walked with and spoke to God! How do I know if I have the right interpretation? I happen to know that the Bible is fact, because I believe it to be so. You may want to attack me for my 'idiotic' blind faith, but that's also something talked about in the Bible, so I guess you can write that off as mistranslation too. The point is; the Bible says plenty about Believing in God, about the Bible being God's Word, and about God's words creating the world; so saying that you believe in God and about something that contradicts what is written in the Bible goes against Christianity completely.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

i'm sorry for my wrongful phasing. it's easier for me to say i'm Christian but really i'm not "christian" i believe in God. however i believe the bible os not accurate, God created everything, however he uses evolution to tweak his creations. He cannot answer prays, only change the winds, but if you do pray to him he can help, not save. the bible may cover some of his thoughts and ideas, but really man fucks everything up, so chances are man FUCK UP the bible too, it has been translated so many times that even if oringially his words were correct when we changed it to kings james and again to the present dialect we probably fucked it up, so unless you have the ORIGINAL DIALECT IN THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE IT IS GOING TO BE FUCKED UP BY MAN!

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I'm sorry that you put so much faith in the ability of humans to err so greatly in so short a period of time over such an important issue. The bible was in latin/greek for centuries, and was only translated when Martin Luther came along and printed the Bible in German. If humans messed it up from Latin to German to modern German, or from Latin to English to modern English, then we have some talented screw-ups in our species. The ancient Catholic Church had many faults, but keeping accurate scriptures in latin (the original language in which much of the New Testament was written) was not one of them. You think God to be so weak? Why would He create a world and then leave it to run on it's own, then come back 4000 years later to die for everything that went wrong? I mean, why not just stay away if you're going to leave something for that long? And you think that after coming back that once, He just left again? It doesn't make sense.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

weak is different from what i said. he doesn't intervene in your life at every corner, its more of observing. and you know what, what if he has come down more than just we know. who said he can't come down to visit instead of original creation, his son, and the rapture [novel God is Dead has a similar idea, but it's not the same] and as far as interpretation, there are words in languages that don't even have a translation to another. in spanish there is no direct translation for "i did" to english, so little things like that can screw up a translation. and no, i don't have fait in man kind due to people like you who are so suborn they can't see anything but what they think.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

That's kind of like a non-omnipresent God who doesn't love people enough to care for their needs. It may not be weak, but it doesn't show the kind of power that I know God to show. I'm just saying that People would have had to screw up Really Hard to mess up something which was preserved for centuries to the point that what was originally meant was lost in translation.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

in the chinese language there is no word "virgin" that applies to men, only a word that applies to women. this might be the type of misinterpretation he said above

by Anonymous 13 years ago

(séyung): Did you know that most european languages (english included) are latin-based? This means that most of what we read now is just modernized slightly from the ancient latin (which there are still copies of, and which translators sometimes use to double-check the point of certain passages of scripture). There are missionaries who go spend their entire lives in countries to overcome difficulties such as the one you mentioned. There people who learn the languages of tribes all over the world and tell them a different part of the Bible as a story every day because they have no written language. There are people who devote their lives to accurately translating the Bible into every language which does not have the Word of God in it's own language.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

there are known mistranslations in the bible, even today. "camel through the eye of a needle" is just one that i could think of right now. it was originally "thick rope through the eye of a needle". the latin word for "thick rope" looks a lot like the english word for camel, thus the awkward loss of the original meaning.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

That's a possibility, but there's also a well-known pass in Israel known as "the eye of the needle" which camels had to crawl through on their knees because it was too low for them. (I can't remember if it was a pass or some kind of gateway, but camels had to crawl through it.)

by Anonymous 13 years ago

it's people like you who make me ashamed to be Christian. right now you are being closeminded, a jerk, and a know it all. if you ever wonder why people stereotype Christians it's because of people like you. If god can accept everyone, and listen to everyone why can't you? you're failing at exactaly what you're preaching right now.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

(zachattack4<3): Amen to that!

by Anonymous 13 years ago

(zachattack4<3): @148267 (Anonymous): I did not mean to sound like a know-it-all, nor like a jerk, but I firmly believe what I say and will not change my views. I apologize for any unnecessarily condescending remarks; I only meant to argue the strongest point I could, bringing up as many things in favor of my own argument as possible, as any good debater would. However, God says to Love everyone, but not to accept them; Jesus himself said " I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." Matthew 10:34 As a Christian, I thought that I shouldn't "conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of [my] mind." Romans 12:2 I try to use logic and the Bible as it should be used, for; "all Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

by Anonymous 13 years ago

your a talking ass. im sure you could find that in the bible

by Anonymous 13 years ago

so you don't believe in evolution? genius! hahaha how dumb can someone be?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I have scientific problems with evolution, not just religious ones. For example; where are all of the in-between fossils, how can they prove what they think about the origin of life or the origin of the universe, and the biased research (studying to find an answer for evolution, not studying to find the answer). Good science, as stated by the scientific method, is observable, repeatable, and measurable. We cannot observe changing in species today (yes, there are slight changes, but no change from one species to another), cannot repeat the creation of life, and cannot measure fossils which have yet to be discovered.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

just because every fossil ever found isn't placed on display for you to see doesn't mean they don't exist. i think you read the bible so much you haven't even looked at the research available. do you not believe in DNA? and DNA mutations, because that right there is evolution, the strongest mutations are the ones passes on. why do you think red heads are dying out? god hates red heads? then why did he give them red hair? no. it's because they are such a recessive gene that it takes to red heads to make a red head now a days. and what are trans-gender people? does god just want a person with a vagina and testicles? or did he "mess up" because that just sounds like evolution to me. and who are trans-gender people supposed to marry? they can't marry and man cuz they have man parts, they can't marry and woman because they have woman parts, and they can't marry another transgender because that would be homo. bet theres no passage in the bible talking about that.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Point of interest: The place where Moses heard God speak to him from the burning bush (Mount Sinai) is actually home to plants which are used to create a powerful hallucinogenic. When these plants are burned and inhaled they can cause seeing of light as well as powerful feelings of religion and spirituality... Just something to think about... the Old Testament could be the product of a powerful trip...

by Anonymous 13 years ago

God didn't only speak to Moses through the bush; there was a "tent of meeting" which traveled with the Israelites in the desert, and Moses would go in there to speak with God and come out with his face glowing so brightly that people forced him to wear a veil so that he wouldn't blind people. Maybe a hallucination caused Moses to go back to Egypt, but what about the plagues? And for the record, Moses only wrote the first 5 books of the OT.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

what if Moses speaking to God was just a hallucination?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

"What if's;" well what if I chose to believe every what if out there? I would believe in aliens, in santa clause, in every conspiracy theory, that monsters do live under my bed... Joshua wrote the 6th book of the Bible, which opens up with: "After the death of Moses the servant of the LORD, the LORD said to Joshua son of Nun, Moses' aide: 2 "Moses my servant is dead...." I think that two people hallucinating in a row, after growing up in separate nations and only Moses going up on Mount Sinai for the Ten Commandments, is rather unlikely.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Who said "God" had to follow Christianty? Sorry if you hadn't noticed, there are plenty of other religions, you don' t have to be a Christian to follow a God. So just blatantly saying "not believing in the Bible is the same as not believing in the God" is just..Ignorant. I'm pretty sure Muslims believe in a God. Oh wait.. they follow Allah, Not your type of God, so they must automatically believe in evolution. -_-

by Anonymous 13 years ago

@148020 (Anonymous): @148021 (Anonymous): I never said anything about other religions because I only represent Christianity in this argument. If there are any muslims on this site who wish to have their say in this matter, they can do that themselves. The Bible is the Christian word of God, (technically believed by muslims, but to them Mohammed's word supersedes much of what the Bible says) and as such I defended it with an argument for the Christian God.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Please do not say you "represent" christianity,you are being ignorent and close minded,the opposite of what the religion says.It is people like you that give us a bad name.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I believe that genesis doesn't have to be taken literally, word for word. especially because of the ambiguity of the hebrew language. it's quite possible that God created the world through evolution.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

That can be dangerous grounds; what else might you decide is figurative or mistranslated? The prophesies? The Law? The reason that Christianity talks about faith so much is that faith matters, and part of that is taking all of what the Bible says literally. For example, believing in a 6 day creation, the prophesies, and the books of the Law.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

take the 10 commandments,lets use tho shall not kill shall we. God kills hundreds if not thousands, so what it really means is tho shall not murder, but if it's justified...but then what makes it justified. if you want to go 100% by the bible God is a total hypocrite. and the bible totally contradicts itself. read about moses and circumcision, apparently he got circumcised twice. and yes, i am Christian too.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Ummm... the bible actually says 'thou shalt not murder,' and that's what it means. God killed hundreds/ thousands? when? The angel of death killed egyptians, the freed slaves killed the people in the land promised them, the army of Israel killed many of their nation's enemies, and so on. Murder is undeserved death, but the Law provided by God permitted for death as a penalty for many crimes. I don't make unsubstantiated claims here, so I would enjoy not having to put up with them.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

the flood after man kind became too horrible, and only Noah, and his sons and wives and the animals lived. I'm sure many deserved to be murdered, but many didn't.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Before the flood, it mentioned that there was only one righteous man in the whole world and his name was... yep, you got it, Noah. God purified his creation through death, because the penalty for sin is death.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I heard that it USED to say in Deuteronomy, (somewhere) that if a women were to be married and not still a virgin, she was to be executed? I could be wrong, to which i would be an idiot, But if it did say that.. Would it mean that we could justify the killing of that women, because the bible said so?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Observe these two- http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/09/18/gay-people-can-quote-the-bible-too http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deut.%2022&version=NIV -and you will see that what you heard was a misquote.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I'm amazed at how fast you found out which quote I was talking about... Just wondering, have you read the WHOLE bible> O.o

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yes, a few times. And I spend too much time on the internet so I knew what you were talking about (the misquote).

by Anonymous 13 years ago

the bible sometimes goes against itself

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Really, where? Where it says two things about God which sound contradictory (God is love, God is just)? Well, God is both, when He needs to be. Where it says all sorts of stuff in the Old testament about the Law and then in the New Testament states that we are free from the Law? We were freed by what Jesus did, so that's true too (but we shouldn't sin because we are free from the Law, that would show that we ARE still bound to the Law... it's complicated, read Romans if you want full explanation). Or is it contradictory somewhere else? Just tell me where, and I'll do my best to explain how something seemingly contradictory can be true.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

could you please find the exact quote that states evolution is rubbish (going back to the original amirite)?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." John 1:1-3 "And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light." "And God said, 'Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water...' And it was so." "And God said, 'Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.' And it was so." "Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds." (notice in this one it distinguishes different species of plant life, stating that they all came from God, not some common ancestor) ~Continued~

by Anonymous 13 years ago

"So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind." (also note here the distinct mention of God creating separate species) "God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds." (created differently, different species from the beginning) "Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image...' So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." (man was created, not formed from other things/animals) The things in quotes past the first section in the first part of my reply all come from Genesis 1.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

yeah. many aniamls at first. that doesn't mean they didn't change over time. just means that a lot were made at one time. they could have changed again AFTER god made them.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

So you believe that God was powerful enough to create life (putting the debate over HOW aside for the moment) with a variety that is astounding, smart enough to create a world with such complexity that humanity doesn't know how much we don't know about the world around us, yet still able to make a technical mistake in how He says the world was created?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Deus Ex Machina

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I don't believe in God, or any god. So, I am a firm believer in evolution. There is a lot of proof supporting it. I don't care if anyone else thinks it's false or believes in god [because religious flame wars bug me a bit] but I don't.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

The theory of evolution says organisms that share a common species like monkeys and humans have similar traits even thought they are very different. Also, that organisms adapt to their environment and the strongest of the species survive in a process called natural selection. This could be the work of God and there is no proof either way.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

then why do we have tail bones?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

the tail bones support the muscles that keep you from crapping your pants at random inconvenient times

by Anonymous 13 years ago

it's also where we should have tails, and some people ARE born with tails. what happens when DNA fucks up and someone is a midget or albino? or do you not even believe in DNA?? what are fossils then? God's little toys for us to find? why do whales have the remnants of hindquarters?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Actually, monkeys were thought of to be what we came from due only to appearence. Although dolphin actually have the most similar vocal cords. And God and evolution can exist at the same time.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

i am christian, and i believe that God is tweaking his creations via evolution. It's like in sculpture, you change it as you go, just like God.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

The bible is not a science textbook. It is a holy book filled with symbolism and wise teachings. To say the bible disproves evolution or evolution disproves the bible is stupid and pointless, because both were made with different intents in mind.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Hey, I'm a muslim, so to put my point of view on things, I think this is true. The Qu'ran goes along with Modern Science, it talks about how life came from the sea, dark matter, the number of stages the earth was created in, and even the shape of the universe's expansion. I believe wholeheartedly that God created man, but that doesn't necessarily mean that man/other animals couldn't have also evolved. We don't know that God just suddenly said, "poof" and everything became exactly like it is now, he could do it in a variety of ways. I'm not sure about how Christianity should view this, but the original bible was radically different from what it is today. There are over 10,000 different types of bibles today, so who's to say that everything in there isn't written by men?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Wow, I did not know that the Qu'ran was Modern and "scientific like that... I always assumed it to be "old-fashioned (take no offence) But yea, thanks for typing that.. really blew my mind. O.o

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yeah, one of the problems with many muslims nowadays is that they add in their own culture into Islam, making many people think it's barbaric or something. For example, the Taliban's horrible mistreatment of woman is totally against Islamic teachings; woman are supposed to be revered, much more respected than men.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

thats very cool, an ancient religion perusing science, and it wouldn't have the whole translation issues the bible has. i honestly don't get how people accuse muslims or terrorism, they're (mostly) good people and every culture has a few rotten apples (*cough*christian crusades*cough*)

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yeah, I totally agree. I think most people of every religions are good, and we shouldn't judge them on the radicals of that religion. I think most people forget that after 9/11, muslims probably suffered more than they did, because suddenly all trust towards them disappeared for something they had nothing to do with.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I'm a very devout christian, and I agree 100% with everything you said :)

by Anonymous 13 years ago

actually, nobody really know how d.n.a started.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

the old testament in the bible isnt wrong but it isnt the exact events, im a devout catholic and i believe in evolution, i just think that God knocked over the first domino so to speak setting evolution and such into motion and the stories of the seven day creation and the noahs ark sory are the isrealites interpertation of what happened because they ovbiouslx couldnt check the whole world when they said it flooded and they wernt writing the bible when God created man

by Anonymous 13 years ago

"Devout Catholic?" Then you should recognize this scripture: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through Him all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made... Does that leave any question in your mind as to whether or not God simply spoke and then things were? Does that leave any room for interpretation about if evolution and God are compatible? NO. Please don't try to make the two seem compatible so that you can fit in in the religious community and in the scientific community. "You are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth." <---also a verse you should recognize.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Why can't they be compatible? Please explain to me where exactly in the bible it says evolution is wrong. I am a very firm christian, and I believe in evolution. You don't have to choose one or the other, because the fact of the matter is, the two can be compatible.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Please explain what you mean by 'firm Christian' and 'devout catholic.' I seem to misunderstand that to mean that you believe in the Bible; you don't take literally what it says in Genesis, John, and 1 timothy 3:16 (All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching...)

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I don't take the bible literally, because it's not MEANT to be taken literally SCIENTIFICALLY. The bible is NOT an explanation of exactly what process God used to create the world- its not a science textbook. It's an explanation of God's ultimate love for us, and the rules he wishes for us to follow. It's full of symbolism (if you want examples, you need only ask) and teachings, not time lines and scientific theories.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yes, there are some obviously symbolic parts of the Bible, such as parables and dreams, but other than that the Bible is a history book about God's people, God's son, and God's work in the world after the resurrection. If you can't believe a part of the Bible, you call God a liar; for God himself said that the Bible is truth. You may believe science over God's Word, but that means that you don't believe God's Word entirely. Is that something a devout, firm Christian would do?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You misunderstand me. I would never even dream of calling God a liar. I'm simply saying that God and Evolution can both coexist peacefully. For example, in the bible it says God took six days to create the earth and rested on the seventh day. I believe that. However, who are we to say how long one of God's day's were? Humans invented the 24 hour day, who's to say God's day was the same as ours? It's entirely possible to God one day was millions of years. Jesus said "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." (Matthew 19:26) So likewise, isn't possible that when "God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds." that he didn't use evolution? Perhaps when he said "let there be land animals" the animals in the water began to evolve and walk on land? Why not? Anything's possible with God is it not?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Everything is possible with God, so I could just as easily argue that He did what He did in 6 days just to show that he could, but that' beside the point. If time was irrelevant to God, and the days were millions/billions of years, wouldn't God still be resting right now? what's so hard about taking literally what God said was one day?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

What's so hard with accepting that a day to God could be millions of years? And yes, maybe he is still resting now. Have any life-altering changes happened to the world yet? Completely new species or plants? No? Oh...

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I would accept it if the Bible didn't say otherwise. So, you say that God was resting during the flood, during Abram's trip to the promised land, during Israel's slavery, during the exodus, during the journey of the Israelites through the desert, during the time of the Prophets, during the crucifixion, during the resurrection, and during the empowerment of the apostles? yeah, no life-altering changes. He's been pretty busy for a resting God; ever heard of miracles? they still happen today (that was part of the empowerment of the apostles).

by Anonymous 13 years ago

No where in the bible does it say 'one day for God was 24 hours.' Likewise, no where in the bible does it say 'one day for God is not millions of years'. It's ambiguous. Ah. But the period of rest is referring to creation is it not? What exactly was God CREATING that he hadn't already during all those events you just mentioned? I most certainly have heard of miracles, and have been blessed enough to have several preformed in my life.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

It says "there was evening and there was morning the first/second/third/fourth/fifth/sixth/seventh day." that sounds like 24 hours to me. Genesis 2:2 "on the seventh day he rested from all his work." And what about Eve? evolutionarily speaking, the woman would have had to come before the man correct? So how can you make an excuse for her coming after Adam? or was that figurative too?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Again, I say, the 24 hour day was a HUMAN invention. No one, not me, not you, can say for sure how long a day was for God, or even what God considered to be a day. Could you explain how evolutionarily speaking Eve would've had to come before Adam? I'm afraid I don't understand.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

The female part of the species is the part that makes the babies, so a mother is a requirement for a man such as Adam. Technically, both a male and female are required at the same time to reproduce, so there would have had to have been some humanoid mother and father, making God just some casual observer of the creation. But how do YOU explain the story of Eve being Adam's rib?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You're a Fundamentalist Christian aren't you? You take everything the bible says very literally. I don't. I believe the bible is full of symbolism, and is not to be taken word for word literally. So y'know what? I don't believe Eve was born from Adam's rib. I believe that that story is SYMBOLIC only. Which yes, it is possible for the bible to be taken symbolically. Many wise christian scholars argue that it's foolish to take the bible word for word. I'm happy to provide names should you ask for them. Because we differ on our belief on how the bible should be interpreted, we're stuck in a never ending argument. You'll never convince me, and I'll never convince you. The way I interpret the bible supports evolution. The way you interpret the bible disproves evolution. It's all in the way you interpret the bible, and there's no way to say for sure which method of interpretation is correct (though, of course, we each have our own belief on which way is correct).

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I am a Christian who believes every word in the Bible. I'm sorry that you feel the need to conform to this world and must ignore certain scriptures to do so. I hope that your faith serves you well in your life, seeing as you aren't doing much to serve your faith here. Yes I'm being harsh to you; you're a Christian who can't be taught, rebuked, or trained in Righteousness through the scriptures (2 tim 3:16). You ignore the Word of God in respect to evolution because you want to avoid persecution, but In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted 2 tim 3:12. If I can never convince you, then I apologize, for I must not have argued strongly enough to convince you of God's Word.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I'm sorry, but that post deeply offended me. I too, am a Christian who believes every word of the bible, I just interpret it differentley. This is not a crime, nor is it 'not serving my faith'. Again, I repeat, where exactly in the bible does it say 'evolution doesn't exist'? Thus far, I have received answers that haven't convinced me. You're right that all Christians face persecution. In fact, you could argue that you're persecuting me by telling me I'm 'not doing much to serve my faith' and that you haven't 'argued strongly enough to convince you of God'd word'. Please tell me what divine power you have over me to say that I'm not being true to my faith? And I'm a Christian who can't 'be taught rebuked or trained'? Excuse me? Maybe your view is right and maybe mine is right, but you don't see me telling you you're not being true to your faith do you?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I'm just saying that God's Word is God's word and isn't meant to be twisted to fit our own interpretations.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Who's twisting it?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You're ignoring parts which you deem ignorable, twisting the overall message to fit your own beliefs.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I disagree.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Then am I twisting God's word, in your opinion?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

No. You're simply interpreting in a different way. There's a difference between interpreting and twisting.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Is there? If you 'interpret' things enough, you put your own view into what the original meant, and might change the meaning. The only safe way to interpret things is by an authority on the matter, and as you know the highest authority in every respect is God, and He has already given us his 'interpretation' of things in the Bible.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Does he specifically say whether to take the bible literally or symbolically? I don't think so.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

All scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching... can we teach people about the beginning of the universe Symbolically; that God Metaphorically breathed life into Adam because he was really born from an almost-human almost-monkey creature, that Eve only Symbolically came from Adam's rib, and still say that All scripture is useful for teaching? If the bible says something, it can be taught as fact, because it is.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

"history book" (your exact words) not a fucking science book

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Isn't history just as accurate as science? history textbooks speak of dates, battles, heritage, major events, and some minor event, and if they're not accurate, they're no good as a textbook. The bible speaks of dates, battles, heritage, major events, minor events, and a Very Historic part of human history; the creation of the world - all with the accuracy of a history textbook.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

No. No it's not. There's a lot of things about history we don't know. History is a set of facts garnered from what people have written (meaning it has biased viewpoints - the winner writes the story type thing) whereas much of science can be verified and tested.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

and history is totally biased. if you read about slavery, a lot of it is antislavery. if you read about naking (in ww2) it won't say much about the japanese vs the chinese. and what history have you read about the genocide of the indians? it won't mention the facts we don't like, like the fact we completely wiped out an entire race of indians. and look at the texas school board. they're taking madison out if their text books becasue they didnt like him. yeah, totally 100% fact that madison never existed. what we don't like we cut out, proving history text books aren't accurate.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

@152759 (Anonymous): Obviously not all of them are biased, or you wouldn't even be aware of the facts which were left out of some of them. I'm not saying that history isn't somewhat biased, just that the Bible isn't. For example; there are many books in the Old Testament about Israel's sins and impending doom as foretold by the prophets. If it was biased, wouldn't they conveniently leave those parts out? In the books of the Kings it rarely mentions a righteous king, and yet there are records of all of the kings and what they did. In the New Testament, it shows the faults of the Apostles; Peter's denial, Thomas' doubt, Saul's persecution of the Christians, and so on. It talks of the early church and all of it's faults in the letters to the early churches. All in all, it doesn't sound very biased to me.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

yeah, there are plenty of facts i'm not aware of because they are biased. the winners write the history. an example is when we purged the native americans there few or none or destroyed texts from them so all we know is the the verbal history, but that is not taught in school because might is right and we are an imperialist society no matter what you say. each of the stories of the bible have are written from a certain perspective and are omniscient thus they immediately cannot be trusted 100% as fact. as you previously stated the entire old testament was written by moses, and are from only HIS point of view. one of the basic rule of interpreting texts is that you cannot fully trust the narration, and must instead take into account what he is trying to accomplish. In this case moses is trying to "infect" the rest of the world with his religion.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I stated the first five books of the old testament were written by Moses. The sixth book opens by saying "After the death of Moses the servant of the LORD, the LORD said to Joshua son of Nun, Moses' aide: "Moses my servant is dead..." There are 39 'books' in the Old testament with about 30 authors to all of them. The Old Testament was written to one nation - Israel - and was not meant to leave that Nation. There were strict guidelines about who could become a 'son of Abraham' and who couldn't (the males had to be circumcised and the family had to follow the law). It was never meant to infect the world, it was meant to stay contained in one geographical area. Then Jesus came around and made it acceptable to preach to the gentiles (non-Jews). Neither Moses nor anyone else in the Old Testament wanted to interact with the gentiles more than necessary. What part of the narration is not trustworthy? Please point me to some part of it which may have been biased.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

yeah, ONE NATION. that means ONE group of people wrote one part of it. Simply by the fact that it is written by one religion and the world is made up of thousands of religions. it was totally biased against the Egyptians (for obvious reasons but the point remains that the emperor was the one controlling everyone, and there were plenty of slaves that had nothing to do with it, yet yet were cast in an extremely negative light). As for strict rules, actions of this religion (the average worshipper, and specific rulers) has shown this bias. As for staying in one area, christianity and islam are the only religions that specially state to spread their god's word. this also shows the biases. example: christians completely ignored the cultures and religions in ancient china, and started a war over it (the boxer rebellion) killing thousands. do you think the crusades were the right thing to do? such single mindedness and disrespect cost so many thousands, (continued)

by Anonymous 13 years ago

perhaps millions of lives over the history of humanity. Somehow, this lessens the "good" message of this religion and illustrates how it shouldnt have such an impact on politics, science and other such progressive movements. and seeing as you were unable to reply when i asked before, what is your opinion on DNA, genetic mutations and transgender people? i would like a reply this time.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Have you read the Bible? Read through it and look for things said against that one nation, written by that same one nation. There's condemnation for how they live their lives through and through. It was against the Egyptians because they enslaved a people who had saved them from a famine (Jacob's son Joseph led Egypt through famine before the Israelites came in, then the Egyptians enslaved them later). I only said they stayed in one area before Jesus; "Then Jesus came around and made it acceptable to preach to the non-Jews." The Boxer Rebellion was a result of the 'open door policy' and poor economy. Religious spread had little to do with what happened there. The crusades were European raids of everywhere between their own country and a set point, which happened to be Jerusalem. There was little religious motive behind what they did; just religious pretense. Christianity's message has not changed and neither has human nature. Continued.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

The message of Christianity is that there is a God of love who died so that we may be forgiven, not 'go conquer Jerusalem and raid whatever you want.' But people will use any excuse they can to further their own profit and glory; it's human nature, so many 'crusades' were carried out because they were the most acceptable way of furthering a king's glory. Why wouldn't I believe that DNA exists? Of course it does. As for genetic mutations, I do not deny that they happen or that they can pass on to the next generation. What I do deny is that these mutations formed all of the different kinds of life which we may observe today on this earth. There aren't enough supposed 'in-between' fossils to support evolutionist's claims of a slow change in species over time to form other species. As for transgendered people, I have not looked into the matter too much as of yet, but I'll get back to you as soon as I feel I have enough information to form a solid opinion.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Actually, if you properly study evolution, many scientists support the theory of punctuated equilibrium, which suggests there were long periods of nonevolution, followed by brief bursts of rapid change. Under this theory, the lack of 'in-between' fossils (by the way, several scientists believe there are enough, but that is a different matter) is irrelevant. Oh, quick question, how old do you believe the earth is? Do you agree with scientists that it's 4.5 billion years old?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Short periods of rapid change? So mutations just stopped globally for long periods of time and started again? Aren't mutations primarily random? outside influences have an effect, yes, but the random mutations should still show in the theoretical periods of non evolution. I have said before that I take the Bible literally, and based off of the genealogies throughout I'd say about 6000 years.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

When scientists say 'rapid change' it means thousands or millions of years (a short amount of time for the Geologic Time Scale) Punctuated equilibrium doesn't refer to just mutations. Yes, mutations do play a small role, but it's all about the theory of Natural Selection. When an environment stayed constant, the species also remained constant. When the environment changed (for instance, Noah's flood) the organisms adapted and changed with it. If you would like more details, I would be happy to provide them - I've only explained the bare basics. Actually, the theory of punctuated equilibrium ties in nicely with my theory that a day to God was millions of years (which, I'll have you know that opinion was formed before I knew what evolution was). Then how do you explain radioactive dating? It has PROVED that organisms existed billions of years ago.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Before we continue our debate on Evolution, may I ask what parts of the Bible you DO believe in? I will answer your points in due time, but for now I would just like a vague idea of what your Christian beliefs encompass and which parts of the Bible you do believe in.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

All of them. Every single last word in the bible is true. I fully agree with you that you can't just pick and choose what parts of the bible you want to believe in. It's all or nothing. We are in agreement so far yes? We worship the same God, read the same holy book, and have both been raised in the way of the Lord. Agreed? What differs between us - again the same point I've made before - is our interpretation. I believe in an interpretation that matches up with evolution, because I strongly believe God wouldn't make religion and science contradict each other. Could he have? Absolutely. After all, everything's possible with God. Do I think he made science and religion contradict themselves? No. This conclusion I've drawn (you have obviously drawn different ones) is the basis for my belief that science and religion can coexist peacefully. ((TO BE CONTINUED))

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Like any book, people interpret things differently based on what they already believe and the ways they've been raised. I believe that there isn't a single person on this earth who interprets the bible 100% correctly. I believe only God himself can tell us the correct way to interpret the bible. Until God discloses that information, every person will interpret the bible a little bit differently, because everybody's different. I anxiously await your answer to my questions.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

1 Timothy 3:16, Romans 12:2-3, John 1:1-3 Genesis 1-2. You speak of natural selection and changes in the environment which cause organisms to change to adapt to it. But from what I understand of evolution, the changes in the environment would have to be either caused by mutations or or natural disasters, correct? So these changes in the environment which cause further evolution would be caused by evolution or would kill more than create; narrowing the pool of species instead of spreading it out. For natural selection dictates which survives and which dies, and the evolution would have to happen between the periods of disaster for the creatures to have adapted by the time the next change in the environment occurred. The rapid evolution would then need to occur before the change in the environment for the narrowing of the species through natural selection to result in an expanding pool of species... cont.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

... narrowing of the species through natural selection to result in an expanded pool of species; which means that either evolution is a constant and there should be more evidence of it, or evolution is pre-emptive to disaster, which is scientifically impossible. The narrowing of the species through disaster would, in fact, imply that the world began with numerous and diverse species which was narrowed throughout the history of the world slowly. So, a theory which stated that all species began simultaneously would best fit a theory like that; and I think we both know where I'm going with this. formation of diverse species in an almost instantaneous period of time, or, creation in 6 days.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Nice choice in bible verses. However, as I interpret them differently, they do not sway me in the least from my opinion. I'm impressed with the way you managed to shape your argument, leading it quite nicely back to your belief. I congratulate you for that. However, your explanation of evolution and natural selection leaves something to be desired. Changes in the environment can be caused by mutations or full scale natural disasters, but there can be many other methods of changing environment. (a small forest fire, the sudden lack of a food source, over population, a minor change in the gene pool are all just as effective at changing the environment, causing little or no extinction) The theory of natural selection (which, by the way, is only part of evolution) states that those best suited to thrive in their environment survive, while those less fit die, thereby increasing the chances of the species for survival. ((CONTINUED))

by Anonymous 13 years ago

When a natural disaster occurs, those that are best suited for survival survive, and adapt to their new environment. Yes, as you pointed out, that restricts the amount of species, but then, by the process of speciation, new species form and adapt to their environment. In fact, scientists believe 99% of all the species ever created are now extinct. Basically, species were created, then narrowed down through the process of Natural Selection, then rebuilt up using evolution and speciation, etc. until we reached the point we are at today. Also may I point out that evolution follows the process of creationism: First came the land. Then the oceans. Then the plants. Then the animals. Then the people. Both theories follow the same basic path. ((CONTINUED))

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I’m glad you brought up your 6 day creation theory, because it brings up a point I was unable to address before. If, as you believe it did, the earth took only 6 days (or 144 hours) to be created, please explain this to me: It has been positively proven through radioactive dating and the fossil record, that dinosaurs became extinct long before the first human walked on the earth. Please explain to me, how is it possible that generations of dinosaurs lived, reproduced, and then became extinct in a mere 24 hours? Also, if you would be so kind as to define what determines a day for you, I would appreciate it very much. Also, on a side note, did you know that the Pope supports evolution? These are not just the ideas of a teenage girl, but of a person who’s devotion to God was so true that he received the highest position the Catholic Church can offer. I apologize for my extremely long reply, and I thank you for taking the time to read it all.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

There are two things which I wish to address here: First, If 99% of all species which existed are now extinct, shouldn't there be more fossils of extinct species than existing ones? Your theory that a minor change in the environment can cause some change in the species is notably accurate, for it is things like that which cause many changes which scientists have observed today. However, small changes elicit small genetic mutations; the law of Equal and Opposite reactions. So it would take some large disaster to cause the large-scale type of evolution which would lead to species branching out into other species, as I stated earlier. Again I will say that these large scale catastrophes would narrow the gene pool more than expand it. Second, the flood (a layer of water about as vast as the oceans [Gen 1:6] falling from the sky is what I think caused the Dinosaurs to go extinct. Continued.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

If there were only 2 humans to begin with, but countless species of dinosaur, don't you think that it's logical that we've found many dinosaur fossils but very few (0) fossils of humans who lived at the same time? A day is the same then as it is now (although a day was considered to start in the evening, not midnight, back then). 24 hours. As a side note, water came before land. (Genesis 1:2). I'm not sure if that's important to the evolutionary theory, but I just thought I'd point that out. Don't worry about giving me a long reply; I enjoy a thorough answer and hope you don't mind typing them.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

No actually, because in order to form a fossil the conditions must be exactly right. For a fossil to form the organism must settle in water and be buried by layers of particles such as sand, and then compressed all in a relatively short period of time. If these conditions are not met, then a fossil will not form. That is not necessarily true. Small things can cause the creation of a new species. Scientifically, if two organisms refuse to mate, then they are members of different species. Something as small as preferential mating can create a new species. For example, when Darwin went on his journey on the Beagle in 1831 he observed a vast variety of finches on the Galapagos Islands. Finches on these islands don't flying over water, and as a result they were in geographic isolation. Darwin collected different finches from each of the islands, all of which looked slightly different, based on the environment they had adapted to. ((CONTINUED))

by Anonymous 13 years ago

To his surprise, the finches from the different islands refused to mate, thus indicating that they were members of different species. One simple, simple factor - the placement of water - created several different species of finches. Therefore, it is logical to draw the conclusion that small changes can and will produce new species, WITHOUT mass extinction. Myself, I don't really have a belief of how exactly the dinosaurs died - only that they did. But thanks to radioactive dating, scientists have proven that dinosaurs lived for millions of years, which is a bit more then 24 hours. Unless you can disprove radioactive dating (one of my questions from above), you cannot argue that the dinosaurs lived and died all in 24 hours. So basically, a day is determined by the sun and moon is that correct? I don't mind typing them out at all, on the contrary, I've very much enjoyed our debate.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

But proportionally speaking, there still should be more fossils of nonexistent species than there currently are if 99% of species are now extinct. So because Darwin found similar species of birds near each other, they evolved differently? There are many different kinds of sparrows even in the area in which I live, but can I claim that they all came from a common ancestor because they look similar but don't interbreed? Couldn't they have been created differently and, because they are somewhat similar, moved to a region close to each other because of similar biological needs? Radiological dating takes the amount of radioactive material in a substance (fossil, for example) and, using known radioactive decay rates, calculates the age of the substance. Do scientists know if decay is linear or exponential for a fact? Do scientists foresee every variable in the system? Could some factor have influenced the amount of radioactive material in the substance? Continued

by Anonymous 13 years ago

The first day, light and darkness were separated, "and there was evening, and there was morning, the first day." only on the fourth day were the sun, moon, and stars created. Now that I have room; the issue of the Pope. If what others believed affected what I believe, don't you think I'd be convinced of evolution by now? He can believe whatever he wants to believe because as far as I'm concerned Christ is the only head of any church with whom I must be concerned.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

(Apollo):I'm so sorry I took so long to reply. My life is becoming very busy I'm afraid. Again, not really, because of the need for just right conditions. Organisms that lived in, say, the desert where unlikely to be preserved, as were organisms in mountains and volcanos and such. And we've found millions of fossils already. So no, I don't think that proportionally speaking there should be more fossils. Well, that was a big debate of the time. But thanks to DNA technology and the fossil record, it has been proved that these species had a common ancestor. But they don't have the same biological needs. In fact, there needs are entirely different. Have you ever been to the Galapagos Islands? They're so beautiful, and so entirely different. One has a desert climate, one has a rainforest climate, etc. which happens to be the reason the Finches involved separately. ((continued))

by Anonymous 13 years ago

They know, for a fact, that the decay is linear. I will not claim that radioactive dating is foolproof - is anything really? But it's pretty darn close. And it is accurate. Scientists use elements such as Potassium and Carbon for radioactive dating. The decay of these elements is constant, and can't be altered by the 'addition of elements' (impossible biologically) or the 'leaking' of elements (which would produce a shorter life rather then a longer one). Through multiple experiments and repeated testing, scientists have PROVEN that radioactive dating can be relied on. And I never really believed it would convince you. However, I'm simply trying to add credibility to my argument that religion and evolution can peacefully coincide by pointing out that a whole religion (Catholicism) more or less supports evolution. ((contiuned))

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Unfortunately, I'm afraid I'm going to have to bow out of our debate. It's been really fun debating with you, and I wish I could continue, but as I mentioned earlier, my life has become extremely busy with teaching sunday school, college prep courses, volunteer work, a job, summer sports, and family vacations. I'm afraid I don't have the time or energy to properly defend my views, and I won't for a very long time. So thank you for the debate, and I hope to see you, if not in this world, then in the next. God Bless.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Well, in that case farewell. I enjoyed this debate and hope you got as much out of it as I did. God bless.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

you still haven't proved to me that the bible is, in fact 100% unbiased. to me when you talk about egyptians enslaving the people you haven't taken into account who wrote it. if slavery was still the norm today we would write wonderful pieces of literature about it, but it isn't. no matter what you say the bible will be presented as biased. is there a story from the point of view of a native seeing everyone around him being kill by the crusaders? does it have a story from someone living in an colonized country? does it have the point of view of a nonchristain or another faith? because just not including that one point of view makes the bible inaccurate, possibly inappropriate, hypocritical, wrong. parts of the bible may be true, but you honestly don't think that ANY part of the bible can be left to interpretation? that it's intended to be taken word for word? that maybe god thought that the people "made in his image" are too moronic to see symbolism, but cont'd

by Anonymous 13 years ago

have a jolly good time murder other people? get a life. maybe you're ment to read and study the bible, but know it word for word. that's wasting the life "god gave you" and as far as your goal to convert people, you have proved the point that the bible asks for people to spread the religion, and right now you're doing a crappy job of it. your turning yourself into a crazy christian stereotype. i hope "God" appreciates you making people stereotype and get pissed off at christians. :)

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Have you read the Bible? Read through Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ecclesiastics, and really if you have the time all of the old Testament books after Lamentations. Once you have read those, come back to me and tell me the Bible is biased towards Israel. The only part of the Bible left open to interpretation are the prophesies about the end times (which have not happened yet), and that's just speculation. Once they have happened, I doubt that anyone would try to interpret them differently than the way it will have happened. There are some obviously symbolic parts of the Bible, but those usually don't have multiple interpretations; Jesus' parables for example. When he spoke, he spoke symbolically, but meant only one thing by what He said. ~Continued~

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at with the part about having a jolly good time murdering people. Nowhere in the Bible does it endorse such behavior, and in fact, the bible goes so far as to say "that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment." (matthew 5:22) I happen to have a life, and study and read things other than the Bible. I also happen to believe the Bible 100%. Have I ever said that I want to convert people? I say what I believe when asked or when it is relevant to my argument; whether or not you believe it is your choice, BUT, if you try to tell me that part of what I believe is false I will defend it with all that I have. Perhaps you misinterpret my asking of you to read the Bible; there's much in there which shows the lack of bias - too much to copy onto here - so I asked you to read it to see for yourself.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I quote you: "People always say that just because it's the internet, you can't change people's minds. And maybe I can't, but I have to try. If I knew that I could change just one person's mind, I would stay awake for a week debating this because that's how much I believe what I say. And even if no-one does change their mind tonight, I may plant some seed of thought in their minds which may some day grow into a seed of doubt which may some day grow in to a change in their beliefs. I pursue truth strongly, and feel that by sharing some of the truth which I have found I help others who haven't yet found what it." if that doesn't sound like trying to convert people then maybe you should rethink your goals. and i will keep saying it, because the bible doesn't have stories from the people affected in ALL ways it is biased. deal with it. you know what? you are planting seeds that make people doubt their faith, only problem is, is that i am christain, but you have cont'd

by Anonymous 13 years ago

made me bring up all these points that is making disbelieve the bible even more. "Adj. 1. biased - favoring one person or side over another bi·as [ b əss ]" "noun (plural bi·as·es or bi·as·ses) Definition: 1. preference: an unfair preference for or dislike of something a bias in favor of internal candidates 2. electronics voltage applied: the voltage applied across an electronic device, especially a transistor or valve, to determine the conditions under which it operates 4. statistics distortion of results: the distortion of a set of statistical results by a variable not considered in the calculation, or the variable itself" the bible TOTALLY FAVORS ONE SIDE. DON'T EVEN TRY TO DENY THAT! if you do i don't think you understand the term "Biased" and im not gonna stop reminding u.transgender. does god like having people who can fuck themselves or what?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yes; I am that convinced in my way of thinking. in that I see the Bible as absolute truth and will stand for that until until everyone I know who claims to believe in God also believes God's Word. I believe strongly that the truth of the matter is that the Bible is God's word, that God's word contains no error, that it is not open to interpretation; all of those things are things which I would stay awake for as long as necessary to convince someone of. You still have a choice whether to believe me or not; I just argue as strongly for what I believe as I can, seeing as it's relevant to what we're debating here. If you need to insist that the bible is biased because it is written from only one point of view, then there is nothing more I can say. I will say that the Bible does not need the perspective of other people groups because it already condemns the kind of behavior which you want others to condemn (the crusades, genocide, unfair treatment...). Cont.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

So why would you need still another perspective condemning the same thing? The message is out there already; people just need to start listening to it. I am still looking into the matter of transgendered people. I do not wish to rush into debating anything which I do not fully understand; I can give you my pre-emptive conclusions if you wish, but they are still vague and shallow compared to what I feel necessary.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

"the crusades, genocide, unfair treatment..." were done in the name of the bible. maybe not unfair treatment directly, but the crusades were, and so was many genocides, and those people must have found something in the bible to justify it. and you have to admit you're trying to "plant seeds" seeing as i copied that word for word what you said. and i truely look forward to your reply on transgender. and as far as the lack of mid-fossils, I'm sorry that scientists don't personally track you down to show you, but there is proof. we share 95% of our dna with a banana, so maybe god is 95% banana?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

If I went out and killed someone in YOUR name, without your direct order or even consent, I would not only be wrong for killing the person but for claiming to do it in your name. The same is true of those crusades/genocides and the Bible. As far as my planting of seeds, I have quoted scripture and supported all of my arguments with as much logic as I can muster; and that is all I can do for that. I've told you it will take some time for the transgender question, and maybe I should have clarified that I meant a week or more; there are some people wiser than I who I wish to consult on the matter; Bible verses which I need to try to find and see if they're in context, and research (which I have now completed) as to all aspects of what the term transgender can mean. I have seen many of the fossils, but they could easily have been malformed humans/ malformed monkeys. Human bone structure even today is highly varied, and lack of DNA in fossils means that ~Continued~

by Anonymous 13 years ago

means that we don't know what species those fossils are and cannot claim them to be some link between us and some chimpanzee. The fact that we share so much DNA with a fruit goes to show that similarities in DNA does not imply anything; but instead shows us that although things may appear similar in one respect they may not be similar in any other respect.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Okay, so about the question of transgendered people. From what I can tell there are two basic types; those who are completely one gender but wish to be the other, and those who are not completely either one gender or the other. The first case is simply a kind of identity crisis; they just need to be more comfortable with who they were born as. The second case is what I think you were asking about though. I'm sure that each case is a little different and it's hard to speak in general terms about a thing like this, but when a person is born with both gender of body parts, they usually have a personality that is more one gender or the other, so they could just go through life as their dominant gender, fall in love with whoever they may, and marry whoever they may. Chances are, they wouldn't be able to have children, but there's adoption for people who can't have kids of their own. Have I answered your question completely or did I miss the point of what you asked?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

you hit and missed if you know what i mean. adn yes, i was talking about the second type. why would god make people like this? i find that god wouldn't be that cruel to someone who has never done anything except being conceived, whch isnt exactly their fault, so unless god is sadistic in some ways, its a genetic mutation that has nothing to do with any religion, only evolution.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

For starters, let me say that I have no problem believing that genetic mutations can cause differences to a species; I just don't think they can cause species to change into other species. Mutations like that don't imply evolution, they just show that mutations happen. So because some people are born with certain problems, you don't believe in a God? Is it cruel to be made different? If so, can we blame this cruelty on God? If so, does the cruelty of a God mean that it doesn't exist?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

NO WHERE in the bible does it say that after God made everything they couldent have changed,adapted etc.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

the old testament in the bible isnt wrong but it isnt the exact events, im a devout catholic and i believe in evolution, i just think that God knocked over the first domino so to speak setting evolution and such into motion and the stories of the seven day creation and the noahs ark sory are the isrealites interpertation of what happened because they ovbiouslx couldnt check the whole world when they said it flooded and they wernt writing the bible when God created man

by Anonymous 13 years ago

There can be no such thing as God and evolution working together. If you believe in evolution and God you are retarded and obviously can't see the truth right in front of your eyes (EVOLUTION)

by Anonymous 13 years ago

careful not to come across as self-righteous. there are valid Christians who believe God created evolution (I'm not one of them, but just for the record). But as long as you "confess with your mouth 'Jesus is Lord' and believe in your heart God raised him from the dead" does it really matter? I've picked apart this whole issue and came to a conclusion, but if we're going to heaven in the long run, why hate on each other for irrelevant stuff?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Apollo seems to be the only one here who is arguing in favor of Christianity. I feel bad. Somebody support him.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

im Christian, but he's being such an ass i kinda want to argue against him.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

LOL, thx for the suppport :)

by Anonymous 13 years ago

^sarcasm. I say what's in the Bible and back it up with logic if necessary. I have a problem with people who claim to believe in God but don't believe his every word, so I may come off as harsh, but that's my goal occasionally.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

When you (apollo) made quotes of God making things in it's own kind, you're forgetting God couldve made a process of which they were created. I am Jewish and I do believe in evolution. I don't see how it can't be both where does it bluntly say that it's not true. It's not a textbook. It says God created all living things and things around us. It couldve been a process. So I know no one has like cussed but don't be a close minded dumb ass it is possible to believe both. And to someone saying something about a girl not being a virgin married it just is shown by disrespect she does not die atleast she doesn't die in Jewish law and btw those laws were created by human kind we were given the commandments to give us a basis not to follow so literally the rest of the laws about stoning people and killing people that was created by human kind so don't say God made that law those laws created by human kind were to go by the modern surroundings stop being so stupid people and understand peopl...

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Well, yes and no. Macroevolution isn't compatible with ANY major religion's version of the creation of the world. HOWEVER, microevolution is totally compatible with the belief that a God created us and everything we see. The original post should have been clearer as to what type of evolution they were referring to.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

In my mind God likes dinosaurs and hangs out with them all the time. I think they can coexist peacefully. When I was younger I was very involved in Catholicism. I left for my own reasons, but I still have the utmost faith in God Himself. I think He could have made the dinosaurs and such and then things changed, like all things do. I like to think that He planted a seed and simply watched it change or evolve over time.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Personally, I see that Apollo is just standing up for what he believes in. I really like him, mainly because he is very Biblically oriented, which is supposed to be the foundation of the Christian's life. And I don't believe that my great God would allow important mistakes in the Book that He knew his people would be believing in. Besides that, believing in creation is definitely a major issue in the Christian's theology. Believing that we were specially created in the image of God is significant in our faith. Animals can't have a relationship with God, which is one of the main differences between the animals and us. God made us on an entirely different day than the rest of the animals, which is just another example of how special we are to God. In evolution, we're no different from the animals, which would make us no more important to God than animals.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Flaming Paradise? Thank you! You're seeing my way of thinking! I'm peacealizalove that made a comment and it can agree with yours completely except for the Christian part but I believe all religion is the same people just follow and iterpret it different

by Anonymous 13 years ago