Did you evolve?

[solid400]

... The animal described here sounds a lot like a brontosaurus to me.

Sorry to bust your bubble but the Brontosaurus never existed, if you want people to take you seriously you should be more careful.

 

[encomiast]

Maybe the writer of the dinosaur story was high on mushrooms and saw a gigantic lizard or something... you can never know 3500 years afterwards, that's why I wouldn't take the bible so seriously
No offense, just a thought from an agnostic.

Another thing is that the bible of course had to be translated, and translations are always prone to slight errors and especially to misinterpretations. There have been many different translations of the Bible, so how can anyone be sure that the one he/she is reading is really reproducing exactly what the writers thousands of years ago wanted to say? Interesting articles on Bible translations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_version_debate

Many people even believe that all the phenomena described in the Bible were caused by aliens. One of the adherents is a German guy called Erich von Daeniken (www.daniken.com) who wrote many books about it. E.g. he tried to explain the lightnings coming from the ark of the covenant using static electricity caused by a special alloy the ark was made of (according to him), built by aliens of course. Very interesting stuff indeed, you might want to take a look at it. IIRC Daeniken also claims that life was brought to earth by aliens. He applies his alien theories to all geological findings, like the relics of Maya architecture.

 

[Nick M]

There have been many different translations of the Bible,

Which is why Hebrew scholars are always pointing out things like "elephant" in modern english translations is incorrect. There are different Hebrew words.

No brontosaurus? So Jack Horner and other palentolgists made up the dinosaur thing? And never dug anything up? Interesting.:nono:

Wiki is not an authority. Anybody can submit. There is even a page on the 7M.

Many people even believe that all the phenomena described in the Bible were caused by aliens

:nono:

I am not even going to give a response.

 

[solid400]

The brontosaurus was a mistake, wrong head on the wrong body. It was actually an Apatosaurus. The skull of the original brotosaurs was pieced together from a 3 different dig sites and weren't part of the same dinosaur. So once again, you are incorrect. There hasn't been a brontosaurus for 31 years.

 

[Nick M]

I guess they should't put them in public school text books then. And of course, it changes nothing. The poster misstated somebody elses position, which I showed to be false. The same thing has happened with "cavemen". But the difference was, Nebraska man, Piltdown man, etc, were intentional. And very incomplete.

That invalidates his argument.

wrong head on the wrong body

Behemoths head was not described anyway. And is not relevant.

I just read info from Steven Gould, quoted many times by me. The only thing incorrect is the name. Not withstanding the wrong head. Some reports said 1909, much longer than 31 years. So if you want to be taken seriously, you need to be more careful. In 74, the name was changed from the record. The huge skeleton was still found. Nor does my calling it a different name invalidate anything. Is it a grasshopper or locust? I don't give a shit.

In fact, like its relative Diplodocus, Apatosaurus was a grazing animal with a very long neck, and a long tail that served as a counterweight. Fossilized footprints indicate that it probably lived in herds.

Sounds familiar doesn't it.

Thanks for info. Next

There have been many different translations of the Bible, so how can anyone be sure that the one he/she is reading is really reproducing exactly what the writers thousands of years ago wanted to say?

Actualy, there is not much of a difference between " he is over there" and "he is there". If you ever took a foreign language you would know that many sayings or phrases in one tounge, is not directly translatable to another.

Maybe the writer of the dinosaur story was high on mushrooms and saw a gigantic lizard or something

Well, by what I have read and seen at the natural history museums is that many dinosuars are at best a cousin of reptiles. This logic sounds a bit like the logic that says a missle hit the pentagon. The only thing open to interpritation is if you want it to be.

ark of the covenant using static electricity caused by a special alloy the ark was made of

The ark was made of wood. Its seat was gold.

built by aliens of course. Very interesting stuff indeed, you might want to take a look at it. IIRC Daeniken also claims that life was brought to earth by aliens. He applies his alien theories to all geological findings, like the relics of Maya architecture.

So was it aliens or evolution? Did Mr Spock "beam up" Jesus?:biglaugh:

THESE ARE THE POSITIONS OF ATHIESTS THAT STUDY EVOLUTION, AND KNOW IT DID NOT HAPPEN. THIS IS ACTUALLY NOTHING NEW. I am glad you brought it up. How did the ancient worlds and structures get here, that we really know nothing about, and are all info regarding who did it and why is complete speculation. Easy, they all perished in the flood.

 

[SupraDerk]

Dear god this threat is still kicking??

One huge problem I have with translations and the "evolution" of religion is...if you look at the church today, you see them making changes that incorporate the times to help them control the masses and keep the church going. Take this example...the gay bishop. (no offense if you're gay, just trying to make a point) The bible says that homosexuality is sooooo wrong and that you're going to hell if you practice it and God doesn't love you and blah blah blah, but here you have the church accepting a gay man to be a Bishop in New Hampshire. Explain that.

Kind of makes you think what else has been "overlooked" over the past 2000 years to make it what it is today.

And I'm out...

 

[Nick M]

if you look at the church today, you see them making changes that incorporate the times to help them control the masses and keep the church going. Take this example...the gay bishop. (no offense if you're gay, just trying to make a point) The bible says that homosexuality is sooooo wrong and that you're going to hell if you practice it and God doesn't love you and blah blah blah, but here you have the church accepting a gay man to be a Bishop in New Hampshire. Explain that.

The Catholic church has been doing, "their own thing" for some time. I explain that as that Church not doing what they should, and disobeying the word.

For the record, all sin sends you hell. Homo's behavior is called an abomination, just like molestation, rape, murder, and beastality. Don't worry, the left will slowly push for that to be "accepted behavior" also.

 

[encomiast]

Actualy, there is not much of a difference between " he is over there" and "he is there". If you ever took a foreign language you would know that many sayings or phrases in one tounge, is not directly translatable to another.

LOL.... did you ever take a foreign language?
Uhm, yeah, I didn't ever learn a foreign language, I knew English since I was born :biglaugh:
Just FYI, I learned English, French and Latin at school, so I kinda know my way around translating back and forth between different laguages.
You can come across so many details and meanings between the lines which can't even be reproduced exactly between two so relatively similar languages like English and German, moreso between Romanic and Germanic languages, I can only try to imagine how many problems arise when translating from ancient Hebrew + Aramaic to any other language with completely different roots.

A simple example: German: "Ich gehe zur Party, wenn Peter heute Abend nach Hause kommt". English version 1: "I'll go to the party when Peter comes home tonight". Version 2: "I'll go to the party if Peter comes home tonight". See the difference? Same sentence in one language, two different meanings in the other language. The German word "wenn" can both be "if" and "when" in English.
And it can get much more complex than that, trust me.
Hell, I watched many movies and series in German as well as in English and I sometimes even completely disagree with what the German translators made of the English original because the translations were either too literally or too free and thus distorting the original meaning (IMO).

And yeah, anyone can post on Wikipedia, I know. But in the same way anyone can correct misinformation on Wikipedia. As opposed to "normal" websites, which can be set up by anyone but corrected only by the original authors (in most cases).
And even if there are (and there are) slight errors in detail on many Wikipedia pages, you aren't seriously claiming that the articles I linked to and what they are referring to are completely made up, are you? There are also many external links at the bottom of the articles for more information.

So let me quote an example from the "Bible version debate" article:

In Biblical Hebrew "feet" is a euphemism for "genitalia" (usually of the male sort). So in Ruth 3:14 we have the quote "So she lay at his feet until morning." Formal equivalence makes it the reader's responsibility to determine what "feet" means in the context. Dynamic Equivalence might render the passage "She made love to him until the morning." The context is therefore provided by the translation itself. The problem with Formal equivalence is that it might demand too much of some readers. The problem with Dynamic Equivalence is that the reader encounters the text with most of the decisions already made.

That's similar to the German-English example I gave above. And especially the meaning of words in ancient languages are difficult to get thousands of years later.

The ark was made of wood. Its seat was gold.

Ok, you win

So was it aliens or evolution? Did Mr Spock "beam up" Jesus?:biglaugh:

Who knows? Do you know? Have you been there?

 

[Nick M]

Uhm, yeah, I didn't ever learn a foreign language, I knew English since I was born

You are right, you already mentioned that. And since you do, you know exactly what I am saying.

1: "I'll go to the party when Peter comes home tonight". Version 2: "I'll go to the party if Peter comes home tonight". See the difference?

And I contend those aren't the types of errors. More like I had said. Sometimes adjectives, which can be synonymns can be mixed up. That is what Hebrew scholars are for.

"You will not kill" is not a commandment. " You will not murder is" Very similar words, and probably not done on purpose. And of course, it isn't related to the topic.

People are entitled to their opinions. And others are entilted to challenge it.

 

[encomiast]

You are right, you already mentioned that. And since you do, you know exactly what I am saying.

Sorry, I'm afraid I lost you there... just to clarify, I started learning English at the age of 12, and I don't think I ever mentioned something like that before. Doesn't matter anyway.

And I contend those aren't the types of errors. More like I had said. Sometimes adjectives, which can be synonymns can be mixed up. That is what Hebrew scholars are for.
"You will not kill" is not a commandment. " You will not murder is" Very similar words, and probably not done on purpose. And of course, it isn't related to the topic.

Yep, I didn't mean to give a 1:1 example, just to give an idea of common translation issues in general. And I also didn't refer to the commandments, but rather to your Brontosaur story which IMO could be anything from a dream/"vision" to an unprecise translation. That's what originally triggered my demur, sorry for not making that clear. Which brings us back to the evolution topic.
And by bringing in the Hebrew scholars, you agree that there are still many parts in current bible translations that need to be sorted out or at least reviewed, if I got that right?
That's why I personally wouldn't interpret everything in the bible literally, since you basically can't know if everything has been reproduced (or can even be reproduced at all) in the sense of the original writer.
But to each their own.

People are entitled to their opinions. And others are entilted to challenge it.

Ack. And this oftentimes results in interesting and cultivated discussions like this one
Thanks for keeping it cool.

 

[kwnate]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlYxtezSEZs

/thread

 

[SupraDerk]

HAHAH! I knew what video that was before I even watched it!! When I saw that episode I was searching the internet high and low to try and find that clip, but couldn't

 

[Nick M]

Sorry, I'm afraid I lost you there... just to clarify, I started learning English at the age of 12, and I don't think I ever mentioned something like that before. Doesn't matter anyway.

You are not English, American, or Austrailian, as you pointed out. So you had to learn a foreign language. And not everything is directly translatable.

 

[Fuzz420]

Evolve thats for chumps

I transformed

Me>>>>>Optimus Prime

 

[lanky189]

TRANSFORMERS: FUZZ420 IN DISGUISE!

 

[Shytheed Dumas]

The Catholic church has been doing, "their own thing" for some time. I explain that as that Church not doing what they should, and disobeying the word.

For the record, all sin sends you hell. Homo's behavior is called an abomination, just like molestation, rape, murder, and beastality. Don't worry, the left will slowly push for that to be "accepted behavior" also.

Hold on a minute. For the record, I'm quite sure it's the Episcopal Church that have the gay bishop not the Catholic Church.

 

[Joel W.]

LouKy: Here is a news story from yesterday on that subject.
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/195/story_19548_1.html

Openly Gay Priest Heads to Africa to Combat AIDS
By Renee K. Gadoua
Religion News Service

SYRACUSE, N.Y., July 11 - A New York priest who is one of the few openly gay Catholic priests in the world will spend 18 months in Lesotho, southern Africa, ministering to people with HIV and AIDS.

But your right, unfortunately when I think of the Catholic Church, the word pedophile comes to mind..:3d_frown:

 

[JustAnotherVictim]

::fundy:: :runaway: ::dead horse::

 

[Fuzz420]

TRANSFORMERS: FUZZ420 IN DISGUISE!

Now i can change back

To a rowboat,nobody will ever see it coming

 

[japhilipson]

"For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." Carl Sagan

I don't know the context of this quote. But if Sagan was talking purely about his lack of belief in the existence of God, then he may have been delusional. Afterall, he called something which he could neither prove nor disprove delusional. So much for great scientific minds following scientific processes.

Back to the original topic. I don't know the answer and don't have proof. My feeling is that both theories are not mutually exclusive. A believer doesn't need proof of how we became. That is the nature of faith and God works in mysterious ways.