Top Ten Creationist Arguments

[Candybar]

Top Ten Creationist Arguments


"We hear the same Creationist arguments SO OFTEN, we decided to assemble our 10 favorites and address them here. Feel free to use this video as a response to the Creationists in your circle."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSxgnu3Hww8

An interesting opportunity to review the best ten arguments against evolution and science, and the responses thereto.

The next to time you come up against any of these, just remember YOUR world view is based upon evidence.

[Lavinya]

I'll just grab some popcorn and watch, if you don't mind. :hat:

[Mr. Moto2]

How about some peanut butter?...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504

[WillowInFlight]

How funny!!!

[Lavinya]

How about some peanut butter?...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504

Trade you some pasta sauce for that P-Nut butter: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VauSPWbOin0&feature=related:laugh:

[tootie]

I swear I glanced at the title and thought it said "Top 10 Craziest Aruguments". Yep, I need another Mt. Dew. :laugh:

[Lady_Jean_La]

President George Washington was an Episcopalian. He was a member of the Episcopal Church, the American province of the Anglican Communion, which is a branch of Christianity, and which is usually classified as Protestant.

http://www.adherents.com/people/pw/George_Washington.html

[ninetoes]

Well, maybe it's time these issues that eternal discussion and debate in the USA ought to take a place in our weekend threads slightly higher than a review of electric can openers. IMO

LOL someone on a message board may change my opinion as to which can opener I purchase, but I can promise, no one on a board will ever change my opinion on creationism.

[MsBondJamesBond]

I'll just grab some popcorn and watch, if you don't mind. :hat:
I have a sudden, unexplained craving for a Snickers. :blush:

[ninetoes]

So you are just like everyone else here? Or do SOME people who come here and post here have open minds ?

I have no idea?? What is everyone else here like?

I have my belief and faith. Nothing will ever change that. Call it what you will, doesnt matter to me.

[SavannahStar]

LOL someone on a message board may change my opinion as to which can opener I purchase, but I can promise, no one on a board will ever change my opinion on creationism.


~~~:beer:~~~

[JennyM]

So you are just like everyone else here? Or do SOME people who come here and post here have open minds ?

It doesn't matter to me what people believe in as long as only evolution is taught in science class in public schools.

[Brady]

I agree. I do not want our kids taught that the earth is flat, etc.

[tiptop]

I'm a Deist who believes in both creationism and evolution. I think God got the ball rolling and doesnt interfer much. We can invite him to participate in our lives if we chose, but it's all evolution since the beginning. A winding-up of a world whose time methodically clicks by. His involvement in our lives is just that; and has no bearing on the world as a whole.

[Citygirl]

A pretty deep subject I guess not many are in the mood to discuss..maybe too late in the day or maybe no one in the mood to argue about religion this weekend..
I have no wish to argue with anyone and won't read any biblical links..but I believe we evolved.
I guess by the thread title you expect some "arguments"..sorry to disappoint.

[ninetoes]

I think the public schools should teach whatever the government tells them to teach. Doesnt really matter to me one way or another. Our kids were taught evolution at school, and we taught them creationism at home. They were then free to believe what they chose. Thankfully, both chose creationism.

[JennyM]

Well, then, this is an important issue for you, and one where you might find your local school board disagreeing with you, if you live in certain areas of the country. How do you go about ensuring that the children in your area get only evolution taught in science classes?

What about colleges?

Do you know that there are degree granting colleges in the USA where the teaching of the scientific research into evolution is not included in undergraduate biological science departments? Graduates of these colleges can go on to becoming public school teachers. Should we be insisting upon a teaching of modern scientific research into evolution for all colleges to be able to award a credible Bachelor's degree in science?

Here's something to watch and consider when you have some free time, just watch a few minutes of it if you don't have the time now.

Creationism, "creation science", and "intelligent design" threatens the future of our sound scientific educational system for our children.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PE3Qvfm8jU0

I am sure there are plenty of teachers out there who believe in creationism which is fine with me as long as they don't teach it as fact in public schools.

Do you know which public schools still teach creationism?

[tiptop]

If "God got the ball rolling", what (or who) got God "rolling"?


I dont know, do you?

[Brady]

I'm a Deist who believes in both creationism and evolution. I think God got the ball rolling and doesnt interfer much. We can invite him to participate in our lives if we chose, but it's all evolution since the beginning. A winding-up of a world whose time methodically clicks by. His involvement in our lives is just that; and has no bearing on the world as a whole.

I believe in spiritualism and think that some things in the bible are taken too literally...many of the lessons should be understood as more symbolic for the progression of our spiritual selves.

[JennyM]

I think the public schools should teach whatever the government tells them to teach. Doesnt really matter to me one way or another. Our kids were taught evolution at school, and we taught them creationism at home. They were then free to believe what they chose. Thankfully, both chose creationism.

That's exactly the way it should be. Good for you!

[Wukong]

I am confused by the position you take, Candybar. You ask if there are no open minds here, but then say you will not open any links if they are religious.

Tiptop stated a position that is open minded in it's concept that may be a way to reconcile the two sides; in where God created the heavens and earth, included all the ingredients for life to evolve, and let time do the rest...fully aware of the eventual outcome. God can still be in our lives without upseting the evolution theory.

Maybe an open minded discussion along these lines may be to your liking? Or are you just stuck on the scientific view only?

[tiptop]

I believe in spiritualism and think that some things in the bible are taken too literally...many of the lessons should be understood as more symbolic for the progression of our spiritual selves.

Yes, over the years I've come to believe this too. Some stories serve as a vessel to bring you to God.

[Moondust]

I believe in spiritualism and think that some things in the bible are taken too literally...many of the lessons should be understood as more symbolic for the progression of our spiritual selves.

This, I'll totally agree with...:thumbup:







Carry on...:seeya:

[Pashie]

I wake up in the morning, and I'm still here. I don't care if I was created, or if I evolved, I'm just glad to be here. :biggrin:

[MsBondJamesBond]

I am confused by the position you take, Candybar. You ask if there are no open minds here, but then say you will not open any links if they are religious.

Tiptop stated a position that is open minded in it's concept that may be a way to reconcile the two sides; in where God created the heavens and earth, included all the ingredients for life to evolve, and let time do the rest...fully aware of the eventual outcome. God can still be in our lives without upseting the evolution theory.

Maybe an open minded discussion along these lines may be to your liking? Or are you just stuck on the scientific view only?
City Girl said she wouldn't open biblical links.

[JennyM]

I have given you some links on this thread, several are long and require time to go through. But if you live in Texas, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Kansas, South Carolina, Georgia or several other states in that area of the nation, I would do some research, if I were you. Alaska might also require some investigation.

There are several places where you can research this out.

Best resource of them all is here:

http://ncse.com/

Showing my ignorance here but I know you know the answer to this question. Is this something that is decided by each state or by each school district?

[Pashie]

*slowly creeps out the backdoor* :blink:

[ninetoes]

*slowly creeps out the backdoor* :blink:

LOL Im right behind you.

[Wukong]

My mistake, Candybar. Apparantly I mistook someone else's post for yours concerning not opening links.

How about the rest of my post? I am just trying to understand where you are coming from so I can join in. Is this a debate about evolution vs. creationism in the scool, or is it a discussion of the existence of God and whether he created the heavens and earth.

By the way, I am not stating my position...just always interested in discussion. I am an engineer by the way, very scientific in nature.

[Moondust]

*slowly creeps out the backdoor* :blink:

LOL....wait up......:chicken:













I knew this was a thread started for the sole purpose of arguing...:rolleyes:

[JennyM]

LOL....wait up......:chicken:


I knew this was a thread started for the sole purpose of arguing...:rolleyes:

Aren't they all?

[tiptop]

My mistake, Candybar. Apparantly I mistook someone else's post for yours concerning not opening links.

How about the rest of my post? I am just trying to understand where you are coming from so I can join in. Is this a debate about evolution vs. creationism in the scool, or is it a discussion of the existence of God and whether he created the heavens and earth.

By the way, I am not stating my position...just always interested in discussion. I am an engineer by the way, very scientific in nature.

Totally understand. I am torn between my love of physics and the human emotion!

[SavannahStar]

Aren't they all?

No. Not at all.

[MsBondJamesBond]

*slowly creeps out the backdoor* :blink:

*gets comfy with a bag of ginger chews*


:tonguewag:

[ttcRider]

well that was a lot of fun....:laugh:

[JennyM]

No. Not at all.

I have to argue with you there, Savannah. :laugh:

[tiptop]

What is the point of science, other than to think about questions to which we have no immediate answers? Immediate and final answers to questions like how we got here are inherently dogmatic and closed-minded, don't you agree?

lol, so you dont know either........ :tongue:

[MsBondJamesBond]

I have always believed in God. I believe He created heaven and earth.
He has blessed me tremendously and my prayers are always answered.
I am a descendant of Adam and Eve. I did not mutate from flowers, birds dinosaurs or anything else weird.
We were created in His image. And he did good.

Scotts Valley!

I've lived on both sides of the hill and am quite familiar with your town.

Back O/T, how about that Adam and Eve. Nice couple. :thumbup:

[LisaM22]

"What Darwin never knew"

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/beta/evolution/darwin-never-knew.html

to watch the video click the "Watch What Darwin Never Knew" link

[Citygirl]

Can you point to WHERE I SAID THAT I "will not open any links if they are religious" YOUR WORDS..............where did I say this???

If you want to make stuff up, and accuse a poster of saying something I didn't say... fine. That's YOUR issue. Not mine.

Again, I challenge you to point out to where I stated what you CLAIM I stated.. namely that I "will not open any links if they are religious".

Please point to the post and the words exactly.

Science does not allow for closed minds. Nor does it allow for lies.


Wow..you like to argue, huh? A poster just made a mistake..sheesh..they didn't slander you..I would suggest to lighten up a bit, but maybe that was the motivation by startin the thread..you think you know a lot about this subject and just want to argue with those of us that disagree with you.

[JennyM]

Hey, Wu Kong, we all make mistakes, even scientists.

I have to admit, I am not a scientist, and I don't play one on TV, either.

I don't really mind either topic..you can talk about what you want to talk about.

I don't think I tried to limit discussion. Some people wanted to go to talking about God creating the heavens and Earth. I wanted to point out what a major political issue we have here, one that is taking up lots of time and energy in the educational system of our nation, and short-changing a full scientific education for many unsuspecting children who grow up in cities and towns and go to religiously based colleges where the study of the scientific research area of evolution, in all its manifestations, from geology to microbiology, is limited.

That, I see, as a major mistake in educational policy, to allow religious dogma to supplant the pursuit of any scientific discipline.

Approach the issue from any perspective you wish. As I say, it's a free and open topic of discussion on several levels.

Are you trying to say that private religious colleges have no right to teach what they want to teach?

[Bottrell]

I have to wonder who created Xanax. :sneaky:

[franker01]

Scotts Valley!

I've lived on both sides of the hill and am quite familiar with your town.

Back O/T, how about that Adam and Eve. Nice couple. :thumbup:

Evidently there were rumors that Eve had some issues but all in all it appears to have worked out alright.

:smile:

[Lady_Jean_La]

I dont know, do you?

I'm guessing the same one who got the Big Bang rolling. :thumbsup:

[MsBondJamesBond]

Are you trying to say that private religious colleges have no right to teach what they want to teach?
Certainly biblical colleges are going to teach creationism. What else would anyone expect? Take Bethany Bible College in Scotts Valley for instance. I'm sure Creationism is all the rage there.

[Patriot]

~~~:beer:~~~

Clinking with you >>>> :beer:

[Lavinya]

Munch, munch.. :tongueside:

[Bottrell]

Munch, munch.. :tongueside:
I got some White Chocolate Moose Munch from Christmas wanna scooch over? I'll share.
:tongueside:

[JennyM]

Certainly biblical colleges are going to teach creationism. What else would anyone expect? Take Bethany Bible College in Scotts Valley for instance. I'm sure Creationism is all the rage there.

They have every right to teach what they want. I don't see someone who believes in evolution attending such a college, which is their right as well.

[Moondust]

:thumbsup:....What Natalie Said.....:thumbsup:

Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!!! :beer:

[tiptop]

Hey, Wu Kong, we all make mistakes, even scientists.

I have to admit, I am not a scientist, and I don't play one on TV, either.

I don't really mind either topic..you can talk about what you want to talk about.

I don't think I tried to limit discussion. Some people wanted to go to talking about God creating the heavens and Earth. I wanted to point out what a major political issue we have here, one that is taking up lots of time and energy in the educational system of our nation, and short-changing a full scientific education for many unsuspecting children who grow up in cities and towns and go to religiously based colleges where the study of the scientific research area of evolution, in all its manifestations, from geology to microbiology, is limited.

That, I see, as a major mistake in educational policy, to allow religious dogma to supplant the pursuit of any scientific discipline.

Approach the issue from any perspective you wish. As I say, it's a free and open topic of discussion on several levels.

I agree with you. It should be explained that we do not know definitively and all theories should be taught.

As to your query earlier about immediate and final answers squashing thought (my words), well - I would like to offer this; I think it depends on the subject. Einstein's theory that light bends was proven via a solar eclipse. Given that proof, we were able to move on in our thinking, in a certain "right" direction. That's how we advance in physics and many other sciences.

[MsBondJamesBond]

I've always heard that Eve is a bit of a troublemaker. :laugh:Darned serpent.

[Lavinya]

I got some White Chocolate Moose Munch from Christmas wanna scooch over? I'll share.
:tongueside:

Of course! :drool: Thanks! Is the betting window open? :sneaky:

[SavannahStar]

:thumbsup:....What Natalie Said.....:thumbsup:

Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!!! :beer:

Huge ditto. My jaw was dropping. Wonderful post!

[franker01]

1. If God is powerful enough to create EVERYTHING in existence, he's surely capable of creating rocks to appear as if they're as old as he'd like them to be. Remember too, Genesis starts with the creation of man.

2. Science may have proved that "theory" of evolution in that things evolve over time, but science has NEVER proven that every single living thing stemmed from a single celled bacteria. I contend that it's IMPOSSIBLE to prove it's not possible (science must be able to prove something not possible, not the other way around), thus that fact alone should have voided it technically from ever being a theory to begin with. Rhetorical nonsense? Hell, even Darwin said if the fossil record isn't there, he would have had to conclude his theory is wrong. The fossil record is simply not there to explain the entire evolution process. It's just not there and no amount of wishing and hoping is going to make it so.

3. Hell, even scientists today claim that we did NOT evolve from the monkey. We are NOT Homo Sapiens (yet the OP I'm sure latches onto someone else's work and jumps up and down clapping, but I'd say whoever did it should get updated science before making such an *** of themselves). Science as we know it today says that man and ape stemmed from the same ancestors. Man went one way and ape went another. But, I guess expecting someone who is trying to tout this nonsense to KNOW this, is obviously asking too much.

4. Well, I can't comment on this but I have NEVER in my life heard anyone argue about the evolution of the human eye.

5. Atheism is a religion? Like someone who believes in God actually cares what an atheist believes? I don't know a Christian who would worry about getting caught up in the semantics of tossing a label onto someone who disagrees with them. If you want to call it a religion, have at it. If not, that's your prerogative. I don't see any point worthy of debate here.

6. When it comes to Global Warming, I will absolutely be quoting certain scientists, but frankly, when it comes to who believes in God, neither side gets brownie points for coming up with a list of members who believe as they do.

7. IMO, it's actually easier to believe in a God than evolution.

8. I'm not sure why someone claiming to be so intelligent (and I imagine whoever produced this video believes as much), would mention the background of the US as it relates to Evolution. They are absolutely separate issues entirely. While one may fight for religious causes as it relates to government, it not a fight to prove or disprove the theory at all. I contend however that it's people like the OP or the those making the video that truly do not understand the separation of church and state. If my kids want to pray in school, they already have the right to do that. What's not allowed is, the school is not allowed to mandate that my child pray to a God that's chosen by anyone else. But, those who do not believe in God try to exert that it means more than that. It simply does not. You remember that little thing, don't you? Where the colonies were founded so one could worship whatever God they chose WITHOUT facing religious persecution? Your side might want to delve into this theory a bit.

9. As for the 2nd law of thermodynamics, OP, would you please explain to me how this PROVES evolution has occurred? :lol: I guess by asking this, we learn how truly informed the atheists are on the subject. I love how it's the atheists who actually bring this into the equation though. It's like, stop pointing that finger because you have 3 pointing back at yourself when you do so.

10. YOUR FAVORITE! :lol: (talking about the guy in the video, 10 was his favorite ROFLMAO):
I'm sorry, I didn't know how Adolph Hitler's beliefs in anything prove a thing where evolution is concerned, OR any of his other beliefs for that matter. Unless of course, you're trying to prove that he was a madman? It may be relevant at that point.

This is all you got to convince the world that creationism is wrong? This is the atheist who did the videos idea of PROOF? How rich!

I'm just sayin.....

Personally, I think it's the atheist that have the problem, not the other way around. These arguments are silly at best and many are absolutely absurd and irrelevant.

My facetiousness came from the idiocies of the guy who did the video. Many of my words stemmed directly from his ridiculousness. Why do you OP feel threatened by what I or anyone else who believes in God, thinks? Are you that insecure?

You're free to believe as you wish and I think everyone else also has that same right to decide for themselves; WITHOUT facing persecution for it.

Well stated points, IMO.

Plus you have the satisfaction of not having to doubt what you believe.

:smile:

[ninetoes]

Certainly biblical colleges are going to teach creationism. What else would anyone expect? Take Bethany Bible College in Scotts Valley for instance. I'm sure Creationism is all the rage there.

I would expect as much. Eastern Nazarene College in Quincy teaches creationism. That was a given by all who considered attending.

[MsBondJamesBond]

Huge ditto. My jaw was dropping. Wonderful post!She even gave Adalena a run for her money in the lengthy post department.

[Lady_Jean_La]

1. If God is powerful enough to create EVERYTHING in existence, he's surely capable of creating rocks to appear as if they're as old as he'd like them to be. Remember too, Genesis starts with the creation of man.

2. Science may have proved that "theory" of evolution in that things evolve over time, but science has NEVER proven that every single living thing stemmed from a single celled bacteria. I contend that it's IMPOSSIBLE to prove it's not possible (science must be able to prove something not possible, not the other way around), thus that fact alone should have voided it technically from ever being a theory to begin with. Rhetorical nonsense? Hell, even Darwin said if the fossil record isn't there, he would have had to conclude his theory is wrong. The fossil record is simply not there to explain the entire evolution process. It's just not there and no amount of wishing and hoping is going to make it so.

3. Hell, even scientists today claim that we did NOT evolve from the monkey. We are NOT Homo Sapiens (yet the OP I'm sure latches onto someone else's work and jumps up and down clapping, but I'd say whoever did it should get updated science before making such an *** of themselves). Science as we know it today says that man and ape stemmed from the same ancestors. Man went one way and ape went another. But, I guess expecting someone who is trying to tout this nonsense to KNOW this, is obviously asking too much.

4. Well, I can't comment on this but I have NEVER in my life heard anyone argue about the evolution of the human eye.

5. Atheism is a religion? Like someone who believes in God actually cares what an atheist believes? I don't know a Christian who would worry about getting caught up in the semantics of tossing a label onto someone who disagrees with them. If you want to call it a religion, have at it. If not, that's your prerogative. I don't see any point worthy of debate here.

6. When it comes to Global Warming, I will absolutely be quoting certain scientists, but frankly, when it comes to who believes in God, neither side gets brownie points for coming up with a list of members who believe as they do.

7. IMO, it's actually easier to believe in a God than evolution.

8. I'm not sure why someone claiming to be so intelligent (and I imagine whoever produced this video believes as much), would mention the background of the US as it relates to Evolution. They are absolutely separate issues entirely. While one may fight for religious causes as it relates to government, it not a fight to prove or disprove the theory at all. I contend however that it's people like the OP or the those making the video that truly do not understand the separation of church and state. If my kids want to pray in school, they already have the right to do that. What's not allowed is, the school is not allowed to mandate that my child pray to a God that's chosen by anyone else. But, those who do not believe in God try to exert that it means more than that. It simply does not. You remember that little thing, don't you? Where the colonies were founded so one could worship whatever God they chose WITHOUT facing religious persecution? Your side might want to delve into this theory a bit.

9. As for the 2nd law of thermodynamics, OP, would you please explain to me how this PROVES evolution has occurred? :lol: I guess by asking this, we learn how truly informed the atheists are on the subject. I love how it's the atheists who actually bring this into the equation though. It's like, stop pointing that finger because you have 3 pointing back at yourself when you do so.

10. YOUR FAVORITE! :lol: (talking about the guy in the video, 10 was his favorite ROFLMAO):
I'm sorry, I didn't know how Adolph Hitler's beliefs in anything prove a thing where evolution is concerned, OR any of his other beliefs for that matter. Unless of course, you're trying to prove that he was a madman? It may be relevant at that point.

This is all you got to convince the world that creationism is wrong? This is the atheist who did the videos idea of PROOF? How rich!

I'm just sayin.....

Personally, I think it's the atheist that have the problem, not the other way around. These arguments are silly at best and many are absolutely absurd and irrelevant.

My facetiousness came from the idiocies of the guy who did the video. Many of my words stemmed directly from his ridiculousness. Why do you OP feel threatened by what I or anyone else who believes in God, thinks? Are you that insecure?

You're free to believe as you wish and I think everyone else also has that same right to decide for themselves; WITHOUT facing persecution for it.

10. I've always believed when you throw Hitler into an arguement you have lost. imo

[JennyM]

4. Well, I can't comment on this but I have NEVER in my life heard anyone argue about the evolution of the human eye.

5. Atheism is a religion? Like someone who believes in God actually cares what an atheist believes? I don't know a Christian who would worry about getting caught up in the semantics of tossing a label onto someone who disagrees with them. If you want to call it a religion, have at it. If not, that's your prerogative. I don't see any point worthy of debate here.

7. IMO, it's actually easier to believe in a God than evolution.
.


4. Now you can say you've heard it.

Evolution of the Eye
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

5. I don't think atheism is a religion either. I know a lot of Christians who care about what atheists think. Missionaries who go to foreign countries to convert non-believers, preachers who stand on corners shouting their beliefs, Mormons going door to door handing out their Watchtower books. Christians are called to spread the good word. I would think you know about that.

7. It does appear to be easier for you to believe in God over evolution.

[TimH]

I've always heard that Eve is a bit of a troublemaker. :laugh:

psst...bad blood in that family! They've got two kids - boys. Did ya hear one of 'em has "issues"? Trust me...he's trouble. We'll be hearing about him for a looong time to come.

But you didn't hear that from me!

:laugh:

[TimH]

She even gave Adalena a run for her money in the lengthy post department.

CW will slap my hand if I just... :lol: :lol: !

[MsBondJamesBond]

CW will slap my hand if I just... :lol: :lol: !
There're only so many hours in a day and I'm only one woman. :blushing:

[JennyM]

I have not dismissed anything. I think a person has the right to choose for themselves.

Persecuted? You mean when Christians are asked to remove any semblance of God from everyday life, but the same isn't asked of the Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and on, and on, and on.... Why does everyone feel so threatened? Why do you feel threatened if Christianity is taught in our high schools. My kids learned all about the other religions (although it was social studies and not science class), but no Christianity at all.

I wouldn't raise a fuss over any of this because I believe it's my job to teach my children my Christian values. I'm not threatened for them to learn that others disagree.

Actually I think social studies is a great place to learn about different religions, not just Christianity. I wouldn't have a problem with that at all. I do find it hard to believe your children took a class on religion and Christianity wasn't mentioned.

[JennyM]

Goodie, I've heard it. It changes nothing for me. Actually, I heard it the first time in the video, thanks though.

I'm sure it doesn't.

[tiptop]

I'm not sure I follow your logic about "all theories", I prefer theories with evidence.

Don't you think that, in light of the finalization of the mapping of the human genome, much like the eclipse that proved Einstein right, we have advanced in the scientific research of the "theory" of evolution, just as much as the eclipse advanced the "theory" of bending light and relativity?

Within the last 10 years, roughly, we have been able to map and locate so many many parts of both human and animal/plant genomes. Now we "know" about the actual path evolution took, all from the DNA. Those who continue to act as though that evolution never happened, that a supreme being is responsible for creating humans exactly "in his image", seem, to me, desperately lacking in a basic understanding science, just as many misunderstood the roundness of the Earth before Columbus.

Didnt you say your dont want religious dogma taught in schools? I say teach that, along with evolution and any other theory that will inevitably occur in the coming years; and let the individual make up their own mind.

I spoke of something specific; Einstein's theory on the bending of light. It was proven via a solar eclipse. You could see it. Evolution will never be proven to the satisfaction of all because of it's religious connotations. Just as creationsim will never be proven to the scientist.

[Pashie]

I agree. Why would an atheist think that proved anything?

I think you missed the point being made by that in the video.

It's so much easier to NOT believe in God, than to believe, and have to get so riled up and feel the need to blast those who don't.

[MsBondJamesBond]

:tonguewag: :laugh:

Adalena is a good gal though.

I see some of you have read her. :laugh:

[MsBondJamesBond]

Amazing to me that these anti religious' ideas' seem to surface right around Christmas time or the day before the Sabbath.
Things that make you go hmmmm.
Most likely it's the Devil at work. :sneaky:

[JennyM]

I think you missed the point being made by that in the video.

It's so much easier to NOT believe in God, than to believe, and have to get so riled up and feel the need to blast those who don't.

Good point. I tend to dismiss angry Christians and angry Atheists. They cancel each other out. I prefer peaceful conversations where you can learn about another person's beliefs. I like understanding what someone believes in, even if I disagree with them.

[JennyM]

Most likely it's the Devil at work. :sneaky:

:seeya: ,,,,,,

[daniel green]

snipped

Persecuted? You mean when Christians are asked to remove any semblance of G-d from everyday life, but the same isn't asked of the Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and on, and on, and on.... Why does everyone feel so threatened? .

Excuse me? :huh:

Nobody is trying to take our creator out of anything. And it bothers me highly that anyone would slam us born and reared into different faiths in such a way.

My children have, over more years than I care to count, been at "holiday" parties at schools (both public and private) where they have worn Santa hats, exchanged Christmas presents, all of that. Or attended Easter egg hunts or brought Easter baskets home they made in art classes.

It is not about being threatened. How nasty to say such a thing. It is about being inclusive.

However, that is not the subject of this thread. But, as a person of faith, who has raised children of faith, and who attends religious services weekly, it bothered me too much to let it go unanswered.

I cannot tell you how many times at a school sporting event, for instance, my children have bowed their heads respectfully when the Lord's Prayer is said. The picture you paint could not be further from the truth.

ETA: As the grand-daughter of people who were actually, literally persecuted based on their religion, in the Holocaust, I find your post even more offensive.

[JennyM]

Well, it's a high school class, and I'm sure they didn't learn about ALL religions. They did learn about the ones I mentioned though. I concur that social studies classes is where the compromise should come into play.

Religion is a personal decision. Being so, it's a parent's job to teach those beliefs at home. We should ALL be thankful that the schools don't have the right to mandate any religion to our children.

It is a parent's job to teach to their children what they believe in, totally. :thumbup:

[tiptop]

Excuse me? :huh:

Nobody is trying to take our creator out of anything. And it bothers me highly that anyone would slam us born and reared into different faiths in such a way.

My children have, over more years than I care to count, been at "holiday" parties at schools (both public and private) where they have worn Santa hats, exchanged Christmas presents, all of that. Or attended Easter egg hunts or brought Easter baskets home they made in art classes.

It is not about being threatened. How nasty to say such a thing. It is about being inclusive.

However, that is not the subject of this thread. But, as a person of faith, who has raised children of faith, and who attends religious services weekly, it bothered me too much to let it go unanswered.

I cannot tell you how many times at a school sporting event, for instance, my children have bowed their heads respectfully when the Lord's Prayer is said. The picture you paint could not be further from the truth.


I know you are Jewish daniel, and have often wondered how things like this are handled in the "Christian" world. If children politely said NO THANK YOU, or what. I know you dont speak for everyone, but interesting insight, thanks.....

[LisaM22]

It is a parent's job to teach to their children what they believe in, totally. :thumbup:

I agree, what ever happened to Sunday school.....

[JennyM]

Excuse me? :huh:

Nobody is trying to take our creator out of anything. And it bothers me highly that anyone would slam us born and reared into different faiths in such a way.

My children have, over more years than I care to count, been at "holiday" parties at schools (both public and private) where they have worn Santa hats, exchanged Christmas presents, all of that. Or attended Easter egg hunts or brought Easter baskets home they made in art classes.

It is not about being threatened. How nasty to say such a thing. It is about being inclusive.

However, that is not the subject of this thread. But, as a person of faith, who has raised children of faith, and who attends religious services weekly, it bothered me too much to let it go unanswered.

I cannot tell you how many times at a school sporting event, for instance, my children have bowed their heads respectfully when the Lord's Prayer is said. The picture you paint could not be further from the truth.

ETA: As the grand-daughter of people who were actually, literally persecuted based on their religion, in the Holocaust, I find your post even more offensive.

In a country that is 75-80% Christian I do find it a bit ludicrous when a claim is made that they're being persecuted.

[ninetoes]

Excuse me? :huh:

Nobody is trying to take our creator out of anything. And it bothers me highly that anyone would slam us born and reared into different faiths in such a way.

My children have, over more years than I care to count, been at "holiday" parties at schools (both public and private) where they have worn Santa hats, exchanged Christmas presents, all of that. Or attended Easter egg hunts or brought Easter baskets home they made in art classes.

It is not about being threatened. How nasty to say such a thing. It is about being inclusive.

However, that is not the subject of this thread. But, as a person of faith, who has raised children of faith, and who attends religious services weekly, it bothered me too much to let it go unanswered.

I cannot tell you how many times at a school sporting event, for instance, my children have bowed their heads respectfully when the Lord's Prayer is said. The picture you paint could not be further from the truth.

I sure hope that isnt at a public aschool. I know public schools here cannot have the Lords Prayer at any event. Easter and Christmas are no longer the proper terms either. We have winter holiday and spring break. Spring break does not always fall around easter. They do still allow winter and spring parties, but no gift exchanges or mention of santa, the easter bunny or anything like that. No christmas carols are allowed at the winter concert. Halloween was also done away with many years ago. No costumes, no party.

[tiptop]

It is a parent's job to teach to their children what they believe in, totally. :thumbup:

I agree, but unfortunately that doesnt always happen. So many variables involved. Some kids forced into church never return as adults. Some kids receive no guidance at all. Some reach out for praise and acceptance and wind up in "cults."

[JennyM]

I agree, what ever happened to Sunday school.....

It still exists in most churches.

[franker01]

Well, it's a high school class, and I'm sure they didn't learn about ALL religions. They did learn about the ones I mentioned though. I concur that social studies classes is where the compromise should come into play.

Religion is a personal decision. Being so, it's a parent's job to teach those beliefs at home. We should ALL be thankful that the schools don't have the right to mandate any religion to our children.

Yep.

Actually I believe the founders were more concerned with preventing the Government from establishing a state religion (the European model) than preventing the expression of religion.

So while the schools have no right to espouse any particular religion or any religion at all, it certainly is the right of parents to pass their religious traditions down to their children.

IMO

:smile:

[JennyM]

I agree, but unfortunately that doesnt always happen. So many variables involved. Some kids forced into church never return as adults. Some kids receive no guidance at all. Some reach out for praise and acceptance and wind up in "cults."

Yes, that's all true.

[tiptop]

Yes, that's all true.

So if the parents fail in their assignment, what are children to do?

[JennyM]

So if the parents fail in their assignment, what are children to do?

They're left on their own to seek out their faith or beliefs.

[daniel green]

I know you are Jewish daniel, and have often wondered how things like this are handled in the "Christian" world. If children politely said NO THANK YOU, or what. I know you dont speak for everyone, but interesting insight, thanks.....

Some say no thank you, most just go along. I think it is difficult for someone who has not raised non-Christian, but religious, children in a Christian country to see just how pervasive it is.

During Nov-Dec, one cannot go to a store or mall without being innundated by Christmas, Santa, gift-giving, Christmas programs on tv, Christmas music on the radio, Christmas trees everywhere, etc. During Easter, it is less so commercially, but it is routine for children to be involved at public schools (and a whole lot of pvt ones) to take part of egg hunts, etc.

Look at the White House, decorated for Christmas and with the Easter egg roll.

It is difficult. But, not threatening. My children and grand-children have enjoyed the festivities, as I did, as a guest. My 2 1/2 yr old grand-daughter was singing the parampapampum part of the Little Drummer Boy the other day. :wub:

So it is part of every day life, to be involved in and be part of something that is part of Christian celebration in this country.

PS. The most difficult time was when my younger son (now 18) played football and the pre-game meals were begun with prayer and, always, very personal Christian players led by one of the players. My son was unsure what to do, but asked me not to mention it to the coach, and I didn't. Though my first instinct would have been to talk about it with him.

In lower school, both my youngest children attended a private day school and the lower middle school principal sent an email home which began with "During the Advent season." On that one, I did call the school and I know our Rabbi, whose children attend there, made a visit to the school.

My grand-daughters attend a Jewish pre-School which is open to everyone and have several Christian class-mates. The Holy Days are celebrated with, for instance, apples and honey for Rosh Hashanah and lighting candles for Chanukah. And, on Fridays, they have a Shabbat (Sabath) meal and children bring in change to give to charity. And the Christian families at the pre-school enjoy it very much. I think it is something like that, in reverse, bringing up a Jewish child in a Christian country. Not sure if I explained that well.

[SaraSidle]

10. I've always believed when you throw Hitler into an arguement you have lost. imo


ITA makes sense to me. Highly logical

[JennyM]

It's Jehovah's Witnesses that hand out Watchtowers.

You're right. I apologize.

[MsBondJamesBond]

It's Jehovah's Witnesses that hand out Watchtowers.Yep. Mormon's just go door to door. Of course they're happy to give you a Book of Mormon.

[daniel green]

I sure hope that isnt at a public aschool. I know public schools here cannot have the Lords Prayer at any event. snipped.

Yes, it was. At a public high school, led by players. Even by coaches.

[franker01]

It's Jehovah's Witnesses that hand out Watchtowers.

Yes.

IMO, they can be very annoying since I really don't have the "Proselytize Me" shingle hanging outside but I am kind of in awe of and do respect their spirit and belief.

:smile:

[LisaM22]

So if the parents fail in their assignment, what are children to do?

it is not the job of the government to feed our children religious dogma, they will have to search out the truth for themselves

[tiptop]

They're left on their own to seek out their faith or beliefs.

Which really brings us back to the beginning. Most of us have an innate sense of being whether we ever went to church or not as a child.

[ninetoes]

Yes, it was. At a public high school, led by players. Even by coaches.

They wouldnt get away with anything like that here. Our football team had a tradition of once they ran onto the field, they all bowed on one knee for a silent prayer. No one led any prayer, and the public was not asked to be silent or anything. A member of the public complained, so the team is no longer allowed to have their silent prayer.

[daniel green]

They wouldnt get away with anything like that here. Our football team had a tradition of once they ran onto the field, they all bowed on one knee for a silent prayer. No one led any prayer, and the public was not asked to be silent or anything. A member of the public complained, so the team is no longer allowed to have their silent prayer.

This is in the school cafeteria, as I said, during pre-game meals. I was on the committee to bring/serve food to the boys, so I heard them.

I am sure they would have stopped had I spoken to either the coaches or the Principal, but my son asked me not to do so.

[JennyM]

Which really brings us back to the beginning. Most of us have an innate sense of being whether we ever went to church or not as a child.

I think if a person isn't exposed to religion until they're older and they can think more logically they're much less likely to believe in God. Someone who is brought up in a religion from a young age is much less likely to question their beliefs. That is why it's important for parents to start early indoctrinating children with their beliefs.

[franker01]

They wouldnt get away with anything like that here. Our football team had a tradition of once they ran onto the field, they all bowed on one knee for a silent prayer. No one led any prayer, and the public was not asked to be silent or anything. A member of the public complained, so the team is no longer allowed to have their silent prayer.

Luckily I don't live in an area that coddles anti-religious bigots.

:smile:

[ninetoes]

I think if a person isn't exposed to religion until they're older and they can think more logically they're much less likely to believe in God. Someone who is brought up in a religion from a young age is much less likely to question their beliefs. That is why it's important for parents to start early indoctrinating children with their beliefs.

Did you consider it "indoctrination" when you raised your children in your Jewish faith?

[ninetoes]

Luckily I don't live in an area that coddles anti-religious bigots.

:smile:

Shoot, our elementary kids arent even allowed to celebrate birthdays at school anymore, because some religion doesnt believe in birthday celebrations.

[TimH]

Yes, it was. At a public high school, led by players. Even by coaches.

And speaking of players and coaches...anyone watching the Texas Tech game!

Reading the Texas papers (only the comments sections of course) is like reading certain threads here on IS...got to put on your flame-proof undies to survive, and only God knows what the real truth is. :laugh:

Honestly...some of you folks reallllllly need to lighten up! You're wound so tight you're going to give yourself a heart attack. Here...have a shot of JD. It'll do you good to relax some. :laugh: Mrs. H would suggest chocolate, but me...I don't think it's strong enough. :laugh:

In my not so humble opinion, of course.

[daniel green]

And speaking of players and coaches...anyone watching the Texas Tech game!

snipped.

Nope, but I did love the FL-Cinci game last night. I am a big Tebow fan.

[tiptop]

Where did you get the idea that "dogma" contains evidence? I don't advocate the teaching of dogma, because dogma, by definition has no proof to offer along with what the dogma cloaks itself as "theory".

You might want to look again at what Einstein was "proving" with the bent light in the eclipse, it was the "theory" of relativity.

http://www.simonsingh.net/1919_Eclipse.html

You might also want to review what constitutes a "theory" in the realm of science, and what constitutes an hypothesis.

"As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena."

http://www.fsteiger.com/theory.html

Someone posting above here advanced the "theory" that God created fossils and put them in the rocks, so that that "theory" would support the concept that God created the world as it is today...all birds fish, mammals, etc as they are now...and, I guess, just put those fossils in there to confuse the scientists. Well that's a great "theory" but there's no evidence for it, and lots of evidence against it, like carbon dating, DNA paths etc.

Given the relatively short time we have to educate productive members of society, and given that creation "science" lacks evidence to validate their "theories", I'm more inclined to think of creation "science" as religious "dogma", and leave it out of the school curriculum.

I dont think I need to look at anything more than you are looking for an argument. I know what I am talking about when it comes to Einstein and physics. You are too busy googling to realize I am on your side in the discussion.

[franker01]

Shoot, our elementary kids arent even allowed to celebrate birthdays at school anymore, because some religion doesnt believe in birthday celebrations.

Sad.

:sad::sad::sad:

[JennyM]

Did you consider it "indoctrination" when you raised your children in your Jewish faith?

Every religion indoctrinates their children.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Indoctrination

1 : to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments : teach
2 : to imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle

[Patriot]

Luckily I don't live in an area that coddles anti-religious bigots.

:smile:

It's a little of both here, franker. Our school teams start each game with a prayer. Nothing specific, just a prayer to God to keep all players safe and for good sportsmanship etc. Not endorsing any particular religion. But the coaches do not participate - they aren't allowed to. It's a student decision. Any student who does not want to participate of course does not have to - but in all the years my children have been in the sports programs, I've never seen a student choose not to get on their knees and bow their head if for nothing else, at least out of respect.

[franker01]

Nope, but I did love the FL-Cinci game last night. I am a big Tebow fan.

Just when I thought I'd give you a chance and you go and make a statement like that!

LOL

[TimH]

Nope, but I did love the FL-Cinci game last night. I am a big Tebow fan.

Got my smirkie face on here....'Bama STOMPED Florida. :laugh:

If they don't do the same to Texas on Thursday, I won't be sharing my JD with anyone here anymore. :crying:

[daniel green]

Just when I thought I'd give you a chance and you go and make a statement like that!

LOL

We don't agree even on Tebow? :blink:

[daniel green]

snipped But the coaches do not participate - they aren't allowed to. It's a student decision. Any student who does not want to participate of course does not have to - but in all the years my children have been in the sports programs, I've never seen a student choose not to get on their knees and bow their head if for nothing else, at least out of respect.

That's how it's been for my sons, as well.

However, it is an issue, I am sure, for kids who are not believers.

[franker01]

We don't agree even on Tebow? :blink:

No, Tebow is fine.

UC fan.

[MsBondJamesBond]

Luckily I don't live in an area that coddles anti-religious bigots.

:smile:I live in a town that clings to it's redneck heritage and still allows Christmas songs and decorations in schools. We even had a moment of silence (one could pray should they choose) at a high school awards ceremony recently. See, anti-PC enclaves still exist. Even in California.

[MsBondJamesBond]

And speaking of players and coaches...anyone watching the Texas Tech game!

Reading the Texas papers (only the comments sections of course) is like reading certain threads here on IS...got to put on your flame-proof undies to survive, and only God knows what the real truth is. :laugh:

Honestly...some of you folks reallllllly need to lighten up! You're wound so tight you're going to give yourself a heart attack. Here...have a shot of JD. It'll do you good to relax some. :laugh: Mrs. H would suggest chocolate, but me...I don't think it's strong enough.

In my not so humble opinion, of course.
How about a compromise? Hot chocolate with a kick! :w00t:

[franker01]

I live in a town that clings to it's redneck heritage and still allows Christmas songs and decorations in schools. We even had a moment of silence (one could pray should they choose) at a high school awards ceremony recently. See, anti-PC enclaves still exist. Even in California.


Isn't "redneck" a derogatory term?

Do you have pet terms that you use for other racial and/or socioeconomic groups?

:confused::confused::confused:

[ninetoes]

I live in a town that clings to it's redneck heritage and still allows Christmas songs and decorations in schools. We even had a moment of silence (one could pray should they choose) at a high school awards ceremony recently. See, anti-PC enclaves still exist. Even in California.

I have to laugh at your use of the word redneck. My husband works for the state, and was emailing with a friend via his state email account. He was telling someone about a set of coffee mugs he has that has have Jeff Foxworthy "you might be a redneck" lines on them. Anyway, the state monitors emails via a word filter, and his email was tagged for being racist because he used the word redneck. He was given a reprimand for sending emails with racist terms in them.

[MsBondJamesBond]

Sad.

:sad::sad::sad:Hardly. Birthday parties are a waste of time better spent on teaching

[franker01]

Hardly. Birthday parties are a waste of time better spent on teaching

That sounds like a real fun attitude!

:biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:

[MsBondJamesBond]

Isn't "redneck" a derogatory term?

Do you have pet terms that you use for other racial and/or socioeconomic groups?

:confused::confused::confused:It's my rural town, it's my town's culture and I like it.

[MsBondJamesBond]

I have to laugh at your use of the word redneck. My husband works for the state, and was emailing with a friend via his state email account. He was telling someone about a set of coffee mugs he has that has have Jeff Foxworthy "you might be a redneck" lines on them. Anyway, the state monitors emails via a word filter, and his email was tagged for being racist because he used the word redneck. He was given a reprimand for sending emails with racist terms in them.
Great way for your husband to use state resources.

[franker01]

It's my rural town, it's my town's culture and I like it.

So if you lived somewhere in Southern Mississippi you'd feel free to throw the N word around?

:confused::confused::confused:

[ninetoes]

Great way for your husband to use state resources.

oh for heavens sake, he emails daily to others in the state. simply added a bit of friendly conversation on the email.

[JennyM]

I have to laugh at your use of the word redneck. My husband works for the state, and was emailing with a friend via his state email account. He was telling someone about a set of coffee mugs he has that has have Jeff Foxworthy "you might be a redneck" lines on them. Anyway, the state monitors emails via a word filter, and his email was tagged for being racist because he used the word redneck. He was given a reprimand for sending emails with racist terms in them.

Redneck isn't a race.

[ninetoes]

Redneck isn't a race.

I didnt think so either, but according to our state, it is a racist term. The word hillbilly is also on the racist term list.

[MsBondJamesBond]

So if you lived somewhere in Southern Mississippi you'd feel free to throw the N word around?

:confused::confused::confused:Hardly. But you keep at twisting words now, k.

[MsBondJamesBond]

oh for heavens sake, he emails daily to others in the state. simply added a bit of friendly conversation on the email.
OIC :blushing:

[franker01]

Redneck isn't a race.

Gay isn't a race, either.

What's your point?

:confused::confused::confused:

[JennyM]

I didnt think so either, but according to our state, it is a racist term. The word hillbilly is also on the racist term list.

Do you have a link of the list?

Here is California's list. Redneck isn't on it.

http://www.avss.ucsb.edu/LISTS/race.htmb

[JennyM]

Gay isn't a race, either.

What's your point?

:confused::confused:

The point is that it's not a racist term because it's not a race. Keep up. hammer

[ninetoes]

Do you have a link of the list?

Here is California's list. Redneck isn't on it.

http://www.avss.ucsb.edu/LISTS/race.htmb

He may in his state account, but I wouldnt post from his state account on this board.

ETA: That isnt a list of racist terms

[MsBondJamesBond]

Gay isn't a race, either.

What's your point?

:confused::confused::confused:
Gay is a perfectly acceptable term, isn't it? Or do you think there's something wrong with that?

[franker01]

Hardly. But you keep at twisting words now, k.

I'm very sorry but just because you seem to be incapable of defending your position please don't accuse me of "twisting words".

:smile:

[ninetoes]

Gay is a perfectly acceptable term, isn't it? Or do you think there's something wrong with that?

No, it isnt. Using the word gay results in suspension at public schools

[Patriot]

Do you have a link of the list?

Here is California's list. Redneck isn't on it.

http://www.avss.ucsb.edu/LISTS/race.htmb

I think you've misunderstood. What you posted is a 'race origin' list. What nine specifically referred to was a "racist term" list. That would be two very different lists with two different purposes.

[Lady_Jean_La]

I agree. Why would an atheist think that proved anything?

I guess he could only think of 9 and threw that one in!? :confused:

[JennyM]

He may in his state account, but I wouldnt post from his state account on this board.

ETA: That isnt a list of racist terms

Hey, you're right!

http://www.rsdb.org/

[franker01]

I don't want to go OT but what was the name of Beck's last book again?

:confused::confused::confused:

[JennyM]

No, it isnt. Using the word gay results in suspension at public schools

It's not on the list of racist words.

http://www.rsdb.org/

[MsBondJamesBond]

No, it isnt. Using the word gay results in suspension at public schools
Perhaps when school children use it in a derisive, bullying manner. I think we are all adult enough to know that the word, gay, is the common and accepted term for people attracted to the same sex, particularly males.

[JennyM]

I think you've misunderstood. What you posted is a 'race origin' list. What nine specifically referred to was a "racist term" list. That would be two very different lists with two different purposes.

You're right, I did.

[JennyM]

Sort of like God threw those fossils in the rocks to confuse the scientists?

I gotta admit, that one makes me giggle.

[Lady_Jean_La]

Isn't "redneck" a derogatory term?

Do you have pet terms that you use for other racial and/or socioeconomic groups?

:confused::confused::confused:
It wasn't, then it was, now its not. Of course it can be. imo

[JennyM]

It's my rural town, it's my town's culture and I like it.

To be fare to you, it's not really racist, it's a stereotype. Like this article says.

"Racism, by its simplest definition, is the belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. People with racist beliefs might hate certain groups of people according to their racial groups."

Is "Redneck" a race? Of course not. Its a stereotype."

http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-120539

[ninetoes]

It wasn't, then it was, now its not. Of course it can be. imo

I think much depends on where you are. The term "Mexican" isnt accepted here. It is considered derogatory. The acceptable term would be Hispanic.

[franker01]

It wasn't, then it was, now its not. Of course it can be. imo

I think it is - not that I care much about the whole Words-as-Kryptonite thing.

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

[JennyM]

I think much depends on where you are. The term "Mexican" isnt accepted here. It is considered derogatory. The acceptable term would be Hispanic.

Where I am the term "Mexican" is acceptable but "Hispanic" is not.

[daniel green]

We have wandered very far afield from the thread topic, but just to clear something up.

The term "Mexican" is no more derogatory to describe a person born in Mexico than, say, Greek is to describe a person born in Greece.

And, though the term "Hispanic" to describe someone from any Spanish-speaking country is OK, it is not the preferred term, which is Latino/a.

When one dismissively or ignorantly calls anyone from a Latin-American country "Mexican," well, that is a problem.

[MsBondJamesBond]

I think much depends on where you are. The term "Mexican" isnt accepted here. It is considered derogatory. The acceptable term would be Hispanic.

And here, in California, the accepted term would be Latino to encompass those of Latin American dissent. And Mexican is not a dirty word. If one is from Mexico, they are Mexican.

[Lady_Jean_La]

I think much depends on where you are. The term "Mexican" isnt accepted here. It is considered derogatory. The acceptable term would be Hispanic.

WOW!:scared:

[franker01]

Where I am the term "Mexican" is acceptable but "Hispanic" is not.

Where I am the term "Mexican" is acceptable as well as the terms "Guatemalan" and "Incan". "Dominican" is not acceptable and neither are "Peruvian" or "Colombian". The jury is still out on "Bolivian", "Chilean" and "Mayan".

:smile:

[MsBondJamesBond]

WOW!:scared:Yeah. I think Mexicans would be dismayed to learn that Mexican is a derogatory word. :unsure:

[ninetoes]

And here, in California, the accepted term would be Latino to encompass those of Latin American dissent. And Mexican is not a dirty word. If one is from Mexico, they are Mexican.

Most of the Hispanics here are from mexico, but I sure wouldnt call any of them a mexican. Not if I valued my health, anyway.

[JennyM]

We have wandered very far afield from the thread topic, but just to clear something up.

The term "Mexican" is no more derogatory to describe a person born in Mexico than, say, Greek is to describe a person born in Greece.

And, though the term "Hispanic" to describe someone from any Spanish-speaking country is OK, it is not the preferred term, which is Latino/a.

When one dismissively or ignorantly calls anyone from a Latin-American country "Mexican," well, that is a problem.

"Many Hispanics/Latinos would agree that the usage of Hispanic or Latino, both, or neither, is a personal preference."

http://hispanic.com/blogs/hispaniccom/archive/2007/04/22/hispanic-latino-or-both-is-there-a-difference-between-the-terms-hispanic-latino.aspx

[JennyM]

Most of the Hispanics here are from mexico, but I sure wouldnt call any of them a mexican. Not if I valued my health, anyway.

That's how it was where I grew up, too.

[tiptop]

Most of the Hispanics here are from mexico, but I sure wouldnt call any of them a mexican. Not if I valued my health, anyway.


OK, serious question here. Why would people from Mexico not want to be called Mexicans? Is it an American thing? Is the connotation from the states enough to shy them away from it?

[MsBondJamesBond]

I suspect that the tone in which the word, Mexican, is used would have something to do with the way it's received.

[Sara6000]

Never mind.....

[AnnieKins]

Aren't they all?

You really think that? :scared: Wow.

[daniel green]

Tiptop--it is outrageous to think that "Mexican" is a derogatory term for someone from Mexico. Simply ridiculous.

[JennyM]

Never mind.....

Get us back on topic, Sara!

[ninetoes]

OK, serious question here. Why would people from Mexico not want to be called Mexicans? Is it an American thing? Is the connotation from the states enough to shy them away from it?

I have no idea why, I just know the way it is.

[ninetoes]

I suspect that the tone in which the word, Mexican, is used would have something to do with the way it's received.

sorry. most times I type with one hand, so dont bother with the shift key very often.

[franker01]

Tiptop--it is outrageous to think that "Mexican" is a derogatory term for someone from Mexico. Simply ridiculous.

Don't you think the people from Mexico should be the ones to decide that?

:confused::confused::confused:

[JennyM]

Tiptop--it is outrageous to think that "Mexican" is a derogatory term for someone from Mexico. Simply ridiculous.

If I remember correctly, I believe they wanted to be called Mexican-Americans. To just call them Mexican when they were born in America was insulting.

[Lady_Jean_La]

Get up back on topic, Sara!

There must be some way to merge all these topics. Actually, I think evolution is much like this thread! :thumbsup:

[tiptop]

I have no idea why, I just know the way it is.

I guess it depends on where you live. We dont have many here in my midwestern county, but they dont mind being called Mexican.

[ninetoes]

Tiptop--it is outrageous to think that "Mexican" is a derogatory term for someone from Mexico. Simply ridiculous.

JennyM
Registered User Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 156

Quote:
Originally Posted by ninetoes
Most of the Hispanics here are from mexico, but I sure wouldnt call any of them a mexican. Not if I valued my health, anyway.

That's how it was where I grew up, too.
__________________
My name is not Smith or Jones. LOL!


In one post you say it was the same where you grew up, in another you say its outrageous to believe it. what is your honest opinion on the matter?

[franker01]

If I remember correctly, I believe they wanted to be called Mexican-Americans. To just call them Mexican when they were born in America was insulting.

So if they were born in Mexico they'd prefer American-Mexicans?

:confused::confused::confused:

[AnnieKins]

4. Now you can say you've heard it.

Evolution of the Eye
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

5. I don't think atheism is a religion either. I know a lot of Christians who care about what atheists think. Missionaries who go to foreign countries to convert non-believers, preachers who stand on corners shouting their beliefs, Mormons going door to door handing out their Watchtower books. Christians are called to spread the good word. I would think you know about that.

7. It does appear to be easier for you to believe in God over evolution.

:laugh: Probably not.

[MsBondJamesBond]

If I remember correctly, I believe they wanted to be called Mexican-Americans. To just call them Mexican when they were born in America was insulting.Unless one was born in Mexico.

[AnnieKins]

I have not dismissed anything. I think a person has the right to choose for themselves.

Persecuted? You mean when Christians are asked to remove any semblance of God from everyday life, but the same isn't asked of the Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and on, and on, and on.... Why does everyone feel so threatened? Why do you feel threatened if Christianity is taught in our high schools. My kids learned all about the other religions (although it was social studies and not science class), but no Christianity at all.

I wouldn't raise a fuss over any of this because I believe it's my job to teach my children my Christian values. I'm not threatened for them to learn that others disagree.

Preach it, Sistah! :thumbsup:

(Lavinia, pass the popcorn.)

[Lady_Jean_La]

Yes, exactly. i saw it. But I'm more interested in the orignial poster's topic, and immigration and such is off topic, too. Except we are all God's creatures and made in his image. Growing up and "indoctrinated" as some say, I could never understand, for instance If Adam and Eve had 2 sons, where did other women come from, and was told they had a daughter, so okay but then what? for the progression of people; and the millions all around the globe? It must have take more than a few thousand years; and did the dinasauer part come before or after them. How long after Adam and Eve was Noah's Ark. No one could give me the answers. How long after Noah's Ark was Mary and Joseph and Jesus? I know it was Roman Times, and they came after the Greeks etc.

I remember when I was young reading the begats and I wasn't sure what it meant. Ancestry would have been much easier with the Internet. imo

[Pashie]

Wow! This thread went really off track since I was here last night! :scared:

*goes back from whence she came*

[ShooFly]

I don't thnk it's off track to ask the question I did. How do Creationists reconcile what I asked?:confused:

[Pashie]

I don't thnk it's off track to ask the question I did. How do Creationists reconcile what I asked?:confused:
LOL I'm sorry Shoofly. My post came after yours, but I was not talking about your post. I had just finished catching up from where I left off last night, when I posted. I was talking about all that came before your post!

I wonder how they would answer your question as well!

[ShooFly]

LOL I'm sorry Shoofly. My post came after yours, but I was not talking about your post. I had just finished catching up from where I left off last night, when I posted. I was talking about all that came before your post!

I wonder how they would answer your question as well!

Oh, thanks Pashie. you wonder too?

[GossipGirl]

I've never gotten an answer when I ask, if Adam and Eve were the first people and if we are all from the "first couple", doesn't that mean that there was a whole lot of incest going on? I'm not trying to be mean, it's just that how do creationists reconcile that?:confused:

That's what I'm thinking which is why I view all religions as just made-up stories to provide a citizenry with rules and community prior to a legal system.
Religion was invented by men, not God.
And, if he did actually invent it, it would have been his first one, the one recorded as the oldest.
Hinduism, which came about around 3300 BC.
Abraham, the founding father of Judaism, lived in 2000 BC. The first 5 books of the Old Testament were written in 600 BC.
Hinuism is a lot older, couple of thousand years.
Hindu's believe that the Universe goes from times of being created to times of nothingness. The in-between times are known as the days and nights of Brahma, who is the Hindu god of creation.

so, therefore, who really knows?
which story from which religion is correct?
More to the point, does it even matter?
Religion serves a much bigger purpose.


GG

[Nic99]

I've never gotten an answer when I ask, if Adam and Eve were the first people and if we are all from the "first couple", doesn't that mean that there was a whole lot of incest going on? I'm not trying to be mean, it's just that how do creationists reconcile that?:confused:

I thought this answers your question quite well. Not sure what you think. It is from a Christian's point of view

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qincest.html

[Pashie]

Oh, thanks Pashie. you wonder too?

I do wonder Shoofly. I wonder about lots of things, but gave up asking questions a long time ago. They always seem to degenerate into some sort of argument. I just don't have the time or energy to defend myself over questioning things.

And if someone tells me one more time that I am going to h-e-double hockey sticks, for not buying all of it, they're gonna have to pay for my bus ticket there dangit! :laugh:

[ShooFly]

Honestly, I haven't got the slightest idea how the literal creationists do that. I think some creationists think there were actually more than one Adam and Eve couple, thus more than one family. I don't know of any evidence of that in the Bible, but I don't know about everything in the Bible, my reading there is limited to what I learned in Sunday School many years ago.

Let me see if I can find any answers.

Thanks Candybar. It's an interesting question, imo....and it needs an answer, imo. It is the ONLy answer, incest, I mean...unless there are provisions "in the Bible", the creationists would have to make it up.

[ShooFly]

That's what I'm thinking which is why I view all religions as just made-up stories to provide a citizenry with rules and community prior to a legal system.
Religion was invented by men, not God.
And, if he did actually invent it, it would have been his first one, the one recorded as the oldest.
Hinduism, which came about around 3300 BC.
Abraham, the founding father of Judaism, lived in 2000 BC. The first 5 books of the Old Testament were written in 600 BC.
Hinuism is a lot older, couple of thousand years.
Hindu's believe that the Universe goes from times of being created to times of nothingness. The in-between times are known as the days and nights of Brahma, who is the Hindu god of creation.

so, therefore, who really knows?
which story from which religion is correct?
More to the point, does it even matter?
Religion serves a much bigger purpose.


GG

Also there were people on the planet before Hinduism...
I don't believe in the creationists theory. I hope one of them posts here to explain it.

[GossipGirl]

The Bible is riddled with incest, Abraham and Sarah were essentially brother and sister, which Abraham admits to, as Cain and his wife were also brother and sister.
All going back to that original Adam and Eve.
Don't forget Lot and his daughters.
Nachor and Melcha (niece and uncle),
Jochabed and Amram (great aunt), and
Amnon and Thomar. (brother who raped sister).

GG

[GossipGirl]

Also there were people on the planet before Hinduism...
I don't believe in the creationists theory. I hope one of them posts here to explain it.

They can't. It's as explainable as that story the Mormons' tell about tablets buried in the ground in Palmyra NY, only seen by Joseph Smith after he had a visit from an angel he named Moroni.

GG

[ShooFly]

The Bible is riddled with incest, Abraham and Sarah were essentially brother and sister, which Abraham admits to, as Cain and his wife were also brother and sister.
All going back to that original Adam and Eve.
Don't forget Lot and his daughters.
Nachor and Melcha (niece and uncle),
Jochabed and Amram (great aunt), and
Amnon and Thomar. (brother who raped sister).

GG

Oh my.:scared: And none of this was condemned? but necessary?:confused:

[ShooFly]

They can't. It's as explainable as that story the Mormons' tell about tablets buried in the ground in Palmyra NY, only seen by Joseph Smith after he had a visit from an angel he named Moroni.

GG
An angel named Maroni?:scared: Well you know your stuff, GG..

I, like you, believe that these are stories/myths and are symbolic, not literal...the creation myth. I think humans want to understand, so as to control, their environment....so I don't need convincing, but I wonder if any creationist will post their view on this, because they take the bible literally.....

[Nic99]

The Bible is riddled with incest, Abraham and Sarah were essentially brother and sister, which Abraham admits to, as Cain and his wife were also brother and sister.
All going back to that original Adam and Eve.
Don't forget Lot and his daughters.
Nachor and Melcha (niece and uncle),
Jochabed and Amram (great aunt), and
Amnon and Thomar. (brother who raped sister).

GG

Yes, and that is because in order for man and woman to procreate there were what we call today 'incestuous' relations, but, their genes were pure at the time and it isn't until the population became larger and faulty genes came more apparent through procreation that people then began relations outside their families, and it was known as incenst if one had sexual relations within a family. You are looking at incest as we have known it for hundreds of years, but look at it from the beginning; incest was not known then and it was just man and woman and there had to be 'incestuous' relations at the beginning to procreate.

[ShooFly]

Yes, and that is because in order for man and woman to procreate there were what we call today 'incestuous' relations, but, their genes were pure at the time and it isn't until the population became larger and faulty genes came more apparent through procreation that people then began relations outside their families, and it was known as incenst if one had sexual relations within a family. You are looking at incest as we have known it for hundreds of years, but look at it from the beginning; incest was not known then and it was just man and woman and there had to be 'incestuous' relations at the beginning to procreate.

Your "explanation" makes no sense, to me. How could "incest" not be known? and where do you gleen that info? How could the genes "be pure"? what does that mean in relation to incest? If anything, genes would be almost identical to the "first" parents??? I mean that would be the most risky, seems to me. And if you are quoting the bible, can you provide that here?

[Nic99]

Your "explanation" makes no sense, to me. How could "incest" not be known? and where do you gleen that info? How could the genes "be pure"? what does that mean in relation to incest? If anything, genes would be almost identical to the "first" parents???

Incest wasn't even known as a word then. That is what I mean. The genes were pure because they were the first man and woman God created and didn't have any faulty genes as they procreated over time faulty genes came into it, as they would over time.

[GossipGirl]

I know, I would love it if they would stop by!
There used to be a great Religion board here, back when I was GardenGirl, but it all eventually closed up because it was so volatile.
If you can survive the brutality of a religion forum, you can survive anything!!
They can be very harsh.
However, they turned me around from a half-believer to an atheist.
I think religion plays a role in society and it's more about a sense of gathering, community, sensitivity, love and forgiveness, a bright spot in a storm if you will. But, I don't discount it at all, I can see that there are many religions all over the world, and they certainly serve a wonderful function in lives.
Atheists are more practical in their thinking, believing it's all just good chemistry and physics and a Universe much larger than our tiny Milky Way galaxy.
Laws of Attraction work tho, so there's something to be said for them.

I learned most of what I know from the other board and having to spend a lot of time on sites getting info so I could post with some sort of semblance of working brain cells.
Many know much more than I.

GG

[ShooFly]

Incest wasn't even known as a word then. That is what I mean. The genes were pure because they were the first man and woman God created and didn't have any faulty genes as they procreated over time faulty genes came into it, as they would over time.

And how do you know this? Again, I ask for a reference from the Bible, which is the "rule" here. NOt trying to give you a hard time, but your explantion sounds more like an excuse, with no biblical reference. Someone with a biology background, or genetics would need to explain your view. IMO, it would seem like the closer to the original gen le, the more likely for aberation....where further down the line, diluted genes, and less chance...but that is just an opinion, not knowing a geneticists' view. It still boils down to a literal interpretation in the bible, which so far, has not been provided.

[Pashie]

Yes, and that is because in order for man and woman to procreate there were what we call today 'incestuous' relations, but, their genes were pure at the time and it isn't until the population became larger and faulty genes came more apparent through procreation that people then began relations outside their families, and it was known as incenst if one had sexual relations within a family. You are looking at incest as we have known it for hundreds of years, but look at it from the beginning; incest was not known then and it was just man and woman and there had to be 'incestuous' relations at the beginning to procreate.

If it all started with only 2 people procreating, how can they go outside their families...wouldn't everyone be related? All one big happy incestuous family?

[Nic99]

And how do you know this? Again, I ask for a reference from the Bible, which is the "rule" here. NOt trying to give you a hard time, but your explantion sounds more like an excuse, with no biblical reference.

Okay, please have a read of this link. There are a lot of explanations to many of your points on there (with biblical references) too numerous to print out, so have a read and see what you think.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c004.html

[Nic99]

If it all started with only 2 people procreating, how can they go outside their families...wouldn't everyone be related? All one big happy incestuous family?

You could say that of us now couldn't you really. I am talking hundreds of years after Adam and Eve.

[ShooFly]

I know, I would love it if they would stop by!
There used to be a great Religion board here, back when I was GardenGirl, but it all eventually closed up because it was so volatile.
If you can survive the brutality of a religion forum, you can survive anything!!
They can be very harsh.
However, they turned me around from a half-believer to an atheist.
I think religion plays a role in society and it's more about a sense of gathering, community, sensitivity, love and forgiveness, a bright spot in a storm if you will. But, I don't discount it at all, I can see that there are many religions all over the world, and they certainly serve a wonderful function in lives.
Atheists are more practical in their thinking, believing it's all just good chemistry and physics and a Universe much larger than our tiny Milky Way galaxy.
Laws of Attraction work tho, so there's something to be said for them.

I learned most of what I know from the other board and having to spend a lot of time on sites getting info so I could post with some sort of semblance of working brain cells.
Many know much more than I.

GG

I believe religion has a function for some, as you describe. I don'tknow if there is a god or isn't one and I am okay with that. IF there is one, he/she would be all forgiving....so no worries on my part. I think man twists religion to suit his needs, after he created it.

[Moondust]

Great posts, Gossipgirl....you are very insightful...:smile:

[ShooFly]

If it all started with only 2 people procreating, how can they go outside their families...wouldn't everyone be related? All one big happy incestuous family?
That's it. No matter the explanation, IF you are a creationist. They are saying incest is okay because it wasn't called incest then. uh huh. okay.

[Nic99]

That's it. No matter the explanation, IF you are a creationist. They are saying incest is okay because it wasn't called incest then. uh huh. okay.

How do you think man and woman procreated? Men and women didn't just appear on earth en-masse? I'm not in anyway saying incest is okay, far from it, I am just trying to explain how things started imo.

[ShooFly]

If it all started with only 2 people procreating, how can they go outside their families...wouldn't everyone be related? All one big happy incestuous family?
There would be no other families to go outside of with.

[ShooFly]

How do you think man and woman procreated? Men and women didn't just appear on earth en-masse? I'm not in anyway saying incest is okay, far from it, I am just trying to explain how things started imo.
I believe in evolution, that's how I explain it. I don't think we all came from Adam and Eve. They are symbols for religious/spiritual theory. Nic, I do appreciate your efforts here. :-)

[Pashie]

You could say that of us now couldn't you really. I am talking hundreds of years after Adam and Eve.
Even thousands of years after "Adam and Eve" everyone would be related. There would be no separate families. All blood lines would lead back to those two. So I guess yes, you could say that of all of us now....if that's how you believe.

[Nic99]

Even thousands of years after "Adam and Eve" everyone would be related. There would be no separate families. All blood lines would lead back to those two. So I guess yes, you could say that of all of us now....if that's how you believe.

Biblical laws against incest were not written until Moses. Prior to that, there is no way of knowing whether incest would have been considered sinful.

Furthermore, there is a possibility that God created more than one pair of humans. The Bible only tells us about Adam & Eve, but it also says that Cain found a wife "in the land of Nod."

[crocdog1]

Well, maybe it's time these issues that eternal discussion and debate in the USA ought to take a place in our weekend threads slightly higher than a review of electric can openers. IMO

Candybar, please post this on the Religious Forum when the Boards are open for regular business.

[GossipGirl]

Yes, and that is because in order for man and woman to procreate there were what we call today 'incestuous' relations, but, their genes were pure at the time and it isn't until the population became larger and faulty genes came more apparent through procreation that people then began relations outside their families, and it was known as incenst if one had sexual relations within a family. You are looking at incest as we have known it for hundreds of years, but look at it from the beginning; incest was not known then and it was just man and woman and there had to be 'incestuous' relations at the beginning to procreate.

Not true at all. Absalom put his brother Amnon to death for raping their sister.
Samuel.

http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=2 Samuel+13&version=9

These were crimes and everyone knew it.
GG

[ShooFly]

Biblical laws against incest were not written until Moses. Prior to that, there is no way of knowing whether incest would have been considered sinful.

Furthermore, there is a possibility that God created more than one pair of humans. The Bible only tells us about Adam & Eve, but it also says that Cain found a wife "in the land of Nod."

Possibility? LOL..sorry but that blows the Creationst theory re Adam and Eve...where did the wife come from in Nod? Were her parents before t Adam and Eve or after? or at the same time? So god created several sets of parents? So the creationists belive there were other "first humans" then?

[ShooFly]

Not true at all. Absalom put his brother Amnon to death for raping their sister.
Samuel.

http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=2 Samuel+13&version=9

These were crimes and everyone knew it.
GG

Thank you GG.

[Pashie]

Biblical laws against incest were not written until Moses. Prior to that, there is no way of knowing whether incest would have been considered sinful.

Furthermore, there is a possibility that God created more than one pair of humans. The Bible only tells us about Adam & Eve, but it also says that Cain found a wife "in the land of Nod."
But why would that not be written in the bible? It can't be both ways. Either Adam and Eve were the first people on earth, and created life, or they didn't.

[ShooFly]

I hope this discussion continues, but I have to leave now. Thanks everyone.

[ShooFly]

Its a possibility, we were only told of Adam and Eve.
It's a possibility. I'm sorry NIC, but if you ar a creationist, the Bible is literal. It seems you are trying to explain something, that isn't possible, without incest, IF you believe the Bibles' version of events.

[ShooFly]

But why would that not be written in the bible? It can't be both ways. Either Adam and Eve were the first people on earth, and created life, or they didn't.
Yup. Now I gotta go.lol

[crocdog1]

Biblical laws against incest were not written until Moses. Prior to that, there is no way of knowing whether incest would have been considered sinful.

Furthermore, there is a possibility that God created more than one pair of humans. The Bible only tells us about Adam & Eve, but it also says that Cain found a wife "in the land of Nod."

IMO, if you are a Protestant Fundamentalist, you believe in THE BIBLE literally--PERIOD... [caps,size and bold for emphasis]

There is nothing else to say about it.

I found out about this irrefutable, set in stone, concept from some of my very strong-willed fundamentalist neighbors.

[Nic99]

It's a possibility. I'm sorry NIC, but if you ar a creationist, the Bible is literal. It seems you are trying to explain something, that isn't possible, without incest, IF you believe the Bibles' version of events.

Yeah, sorry, I didn't explain myself very well there. I'm trying though, you gotta give me that...... Cain's wife who he found in Nod must have been a decendant from Adam and Eve somewhere along the line. I mean these people lived for hundreds of years, so Cain could have met her hundreds of years after he was born.

[Nic99]

You have a good point. Either they are the only couple, and the Bible is true, or they are not the only couple. It's mystifying, to say the least.

The story of Adam and Eve seems to be a story of how man (and woman)f fell from the grace of God in the Garden of Eden. If there were more than one couple, why do we only hear about one couple, and did all couples fall when only Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil?

Adam and Eve were the only couple. Sorry to confuse you, I posted way too quick.

[GossipGirl]

Biblical laws against incest were not written until Moses. Prior to that, there is no way of knowing whether incest would have been considered sinful.

Furthermore, there is a possibility that God created more than one pair of humans. The Bible only tells us about Adam & Eve, but it also says that Cain found a wife "in the land of Nod."

As he was the son of Adam and Eve, the only other option was a daughter of them. Now, we hear they had many children after Cain and Abel, but we must also presume they came along the entire time. When Cain killed Abel they were farmers, so they must have been adults and may well have had families of their own. Cain was replaced by Seth in his parent's minds, and ran off to Nod to escape being killed by what one must assume were various nephews, and uncles and other family members.
Adam lived 932 years and had many sons and daughters, so one might think they could have had a few hundred children.
They were only in the garden of eden for a short time, and once they ate of the fruit, they were kicked out and the tree of life was shut down by God. Eve got pregnant after they left.

GG
who sees there was a lot of incest going on

[Pashie]

Yeah, sorry, I didn't explain myself very well there. I'm trying though, you gotta give me that...... Cain's wife who he found in Nod must have been a decendant from Adam and Eve somewhere along the line. I mean these people lived for hundreds of years, so Cain could have met her hundreds of years after he was born.
So you are saying human beings way back when, could live for hundreds of years???

[GossipGirl]

cain's wife could have been a grandaughter or niece or daughter.
Related nonetheless.
GG

[GossipGirl]

So you are saying human beings way back when, could live for hundreds of years???

It's in the Christian bible. Genesis.
GG

[Pashie]

It's in the Christian bible. Genesis.
GG

This is where logic ceases to exist IMO.

[Nic99]

So you are saying human beings way back when, could live for hundreds of years???

Human beings prior to the flood lived up to 900 years+. Adam lived for 930 years (Genesis:5)

[Moondust]

Given that rather incredible longevity, how long have human beings been on the planet Earth? 6000 years? Longer? How is that determined from the Bible?

I have arrow heads older than that.

[Nic99]

Given that rather incredible longevity, how long have human beings been on the planet Earth? 6000 years? Longer? How is that determined from the Bible?

Approximately 6000 years imo. Eden - Flood was 2000 yrs, flood - Jesus Christ 2000 yrs - today 2000 yrs. This is done by working out life charts starting with Adam and refer to Genesis:5.

[GossipGirl]

Thanks Candy!

They calculate from creation up to today by giving 5 days for creation until Adam (can't say he was really 'born' as he appeared a full grown man of 20), and from Adam through Abraham, and from Abraham to today.

from Adam to Abraham is 2000 years and from Abraham (2000 BC) to today is the 4000.

Non-Christians date the earth at more like 4-5 billion years old.

GG

[crocdog1]

Approximately 6000 years imo. Eden - Flood was 2000 yrs, flood - Jesus Christ 2000 yrs - today 2000 yrs. This is done by working out life charts starting with Adam and refer to Genesis:5.


According to Republican Right Wing Creationists, the earth was formed 6,000 years ago.

This is what they want to teach our school children.

http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/07/07/az-senator-says-earth-is-6000-years-old/

As I mentioned earlier, the fundamentalists believe, literally, word-for-word in THE BIBLE.

Just My Humble Opinion