No, it's still incorrect.  It's the one that starts "I'm confused then..." in this post:
http://vegweb.com/index.php?topic=29571.msg340440#msg340440

Let's be on the same page:  Evolution is what happens when genetic variations (i.e. mutations) cause certain individuals to selected over others and to propagate.  There is no other type of evolution.  That can happen slowly over time, or gradually.  It's all evolution.  I don't know what this "morphing over time" you all are talking about is.

ugh! i thought i changed that - don't know what happ'd.  oh well, it's fixed now.

we are on the same page - page #5.

ok i watched the video which only persuaded me more that evolution is not true:

No scientific evidence that 1 species has ever turned into another... i can see how 1 species can evolve and change to become better as a species... like how humans have evolved to grow taller... that makes sense

Ya we have similar dna to monkeys/ apes... but it's just "similar" we still aren't monkeys/ apes

I believe evolution like many scientific "facts" is only a hypothesis not an actual fact... I remember challenging my astromnoy teacher on how scientists actually know what pluto is made of since we have never actually been to the planet... he got mad and wouldn't answer... I don't think we should be forced to learn things (in school) that are not a proven fact!

Anyways science is constantly changing its "facts" I don't think anyone will ever be able to prove how life came about... I think God made it that way so that we have to have faith in his existence not proof of it...

I do think u should title ur forum differently... more like "attack on creationists"

I just read back over this thread and want to make a few comments.
First I am personnaly acquainted with the fellow who found Noah's ark (although he is now passed away) and there is no doubt that is what he found. His name is Ron Wyatt and he can be found on the internet. He also found the remains of Sodom and Gomorrah, the place of the Red Sea crossing, and Mount Sinai as well as some other interesting place of Biblical interest. I spent quite a bit of time with him and was amazed at the tales he tells of his experiences. There are many refuting his evidence too but I guess when you see it for yourself it sort of ends the argument.

Hi PrinterGuy,

Mind if i ask you a sincere question (the question being posed as just that - a question - not something w/intent to challenge, per'se).

Myself being ignorant to what's fact or fiction - i don't know what's "false" or not - but for the sake of this question, let's say that your statement above is completely accurate.

That might not come across well in text so if i may - i'd like to just explain a bit further.  I always try to appreciate that with many things in life that we take for granted - it's not something that we "know" personally - but rather that we accept as fact, that was provided by a 3rd party.  Even evolution, i - personally have not done any research so while i may say i believe in evolution - i have to say that i'm accepting the theory proposed by scientists - but it's not something that i have (nor am i smart enough to) researched on a personal basis.  You might tell me the water is hot, and i might accept that - but until i dip my finger in the water - i can't actually claim to know the water is hot.  Sorry for the side-step, i just wanted to provide my train of thought in hopes i can prevent my posts from coming across in a manner that's not intended.

Ok, that having been said - let's say for argument's sake i accept your opening statement as "fact".  What would be the relevance of your statement.  I can see/understand the relevance from a historical perspective -but i'm not sure of what other significance that statement might be suggesting, if any?

As to the evidence for evolution that have been presented, well I have seen much of it and then looked at the scientific evidence for creationism or intellegent design and both sides are scientifically way over my head! They both are convincing taken singly but when viewed together there seems to be some pretty good questions that the evolutionists just don't have answers for. I think that may be the problem in this debate that the evolutionists are trying to prove their theory separate from the evidences which the creationist scientists are presenting.

In all fairness, while some of the proponents of evolution most definitely seem to reject the concept of a "central intelligence", there were quite a number of other posts that while "pro evolution", at the same time - made no reference to their personal views on the possibility of a "central intelligence".

Wouldn't it be interesting if they could somehow work honestly together sharing with an open mind how they each reached their conclusions and discussing other possible explanations for thier results? I maybe am one sided on this issue but I see many videos where after openly and honestly comparing all the evidence formerly evolutionary minded scholars, highly educated professors and such, have somehow changed their position and become creationists. This may happen the other way around too but all this would prove is that many trained professionals are still not completely decided on the proof of either side of this issue.

Oh my goodness - amen to this!!! (*amen* said, not in a religious context but moreso - in a "i couldn't agree with you more" context.  Please forgive if i may have used the word improperly or out of context)

I ask then, since this is the case how we, myself anyhow, with little training in these sciences can be so sure of our position? Of course then for me it comes down to faith. I believe that there is evidence that the Bible is true. The evidence of Noah's ark is one example as well as the stories relating what happen in Sodom and Gomorrah. I have actually held in my hands sulphur balls which the Bible says were rained down upon that city and which remain as proof of that occurence. There is clear evidence of the Red Sea crossing, (such as chariot wheels in the sea bottom), and of Mount Sinai (which is melted on the top and blackened just as the Bible records).  We can all see these things today just be buying a ticket and going there, well at least to the places where we are allowed to go, as some are restricted areas or are kind of dangerous places to get to. But you can see them on the videos. The history related in the Bible is all proven facts from the fall of Babylon to that of Rome actually giving dates and descriptions concerning how these events occured, sometimes prophecying of these same events hundreds or thousands of years in advance. Archeology continues to find evidences of these Biblical occurences every day! There is also no questioning that there was a person named Jesus Christ. He was written about in the history books of his day.

The paragraph that you wrote above - i believe it answers the first question i had posed to you earlier in this same post - about the significance of your Bible reference. 

The examples you offered above (such very interesting examples indeed - seriously!) - and again - let's say as ignorant that i am - that i accept (for the sake of argument) the information you provide, i accept it as "fact" - this would seem to imply that the Bible has many historical references correct - but - does it imply anything else? 

While I don't believe anyone can  ~honestly~ say "The Bible is the word of God", I do believe people can say "I believe the Bible is the word of God" (or not...) - and not one person could dispute that - because no one knows for sure.  My question is, while someone may accept the Bible as a historical reference (i believe many do - just that) - how might that necessarily equate to then similarly accepting the Bible as the word of God, per'se?  Or does that last part then involve - to some degree, a measure of faith in that specific belief?

All I am trying to say is that to me anyhow by studying out the evidences,which do not take a scientist to decipher, the Bible seems like a reliable book to consider. Now up to about 150 years ago before there was any idea of evolution the Bible was the source book for how all things now living came about and it was accepted by most persons as the truth.

As we're talking about the Bible - i'm curious (and again, because this subject can get very touchy - i'll go the extra mile to add the sentiment that i ask my question with sincerity - and not with intent to challenge...) - early in the Bible, there is reference to people living lives of up to hundreds of years - has there by chance been anything found that can substantiate these proposals?  I've always found it incredulous, the concept that at one time - man could live that long, but somehow - lost that ability?  I don't tend to discount what i myself cannot know - so i don't look at it as something like "oh - that's rubbish" and then dismiss it, but rather i look at it and go "hmm, that's odd...if that did happen - i wonder how that could have happened.."

These were not all uneducated people either. I don't think that all of a sudden a light came on and the previously hidden truths of evolution were revealed to the new and more highly exalted intellegences of  mankind. These are the same men who can't figure out how the pyamids were built, as well as other ancient wonders.

i'm not sure i agree in making a comparison between scientists that maybe study evolution versus scientists/archeaologists (sp.?) that study ancient wonders.  I think that's totally apples and oranges.  If some breakthrough may be discovered along one line of science - that in no way mandates that other lines of science should then have experienced a similar break-through in their own line of work.  Two completely different beasts.

I think for those who have not considered it , it may not hurt to give the Bible another look and consider both sides of this issue. You know it was the same God who created this earth Who also said that man's original diet should consist of fruit, nuts and grains, so he can't be too bad of a fellow.

Can we truthyfully say "we know" what God said?  While I can understand saying "we accept this..or..that as God's word" - I'm not sure i understand on what basis, anyone can really say "they know this..or...that to be God's word".

If someone was to accept the Bible as the world of God - while there are part (or parts?) of the Bible that indicate man should eat a diet of fruit, nut and grains - were there not (i believe there were) other part (or parts) of the Bible that also indicated man should eat meat? 

i think evolution is valid in some aspects... i titally understand how a species could evolve slowly to become better... but to say that we were apes i can't agree with... in the bible God talked about creating us as an image of himself... we r our own human breed... we r not monkeys

Evolution has never suggested that humans came from monkeys.  I'm still interested in hearing from PG.

eta:  I'm not interested in debating creationism.  I'm specifically interested in PG's perspective.

I am also curious, as it's something I've never understood.  I don't think that religion & science have to be mutually exclusive.  Also, the monkey thing is such a ridiculous misconception, it makes my brain hurt.  Why do people think that???

Great questions! Please give me a day to respond. I got on here kinda late tonight and have to get up at 4AM for work. I see I forgot to sign out last night so you all probably thought I was on here all day. sorry. I also really appreciated the spirit in which the questions were asked and promise to answer them in the same open spirit.

Oh my goodness - amen to this!!! (*amen* said, not in a religious context but moreso - in a "i couldn't agree with you more" context.  Please forgive if i may have used the word improperly or out of context) 

Actually that is all amen really means, whether in a religious context or not.

While I don't believe anyone can  ~honestly~ say "The Bible is the word of God", I do believe people can say "I believe the Bible is the word of God" (or not...) - and not one person could dispute that - because no one knows for sure.  My question is, while someone may accept the Bible as a historical reference (i believe many do - just that) - how might that necessarily equate to then similarly accepting the Bible as the word of God, per'se?  Or does that last part then involve - to some degree, a measure of faith in that specific belief?

I guess we need to define what the "Word of God" means. How did this book come to be? The Bible states that  "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." 2 Peter 1:21. So the book called the Bible is not a direct word for word transcription of God speaking and man writing it out, but rather God working through men who were in such a state of holiness, I guess you could call it, that they were able to hear God's voice and then write it down in their own words.  Now how do I decide if this certain book is the word of God and another book may not be classified as such. For example a friend of mine from years ago believed that his dictionary was the word of God! Part of my decision is based on the accuracy of the history and prophetic parts of the Bible. Now obviously this would take a little time to explain but to keep it short I believe the Bible has, with a one hundred percent accuracy rate predicted historical events thousands of years prior to their actual occurrence. That doesn't take any faith to believe just an understanding of historical events and then comparing that understanding to the words of Scripture and then asking well how is that possible that the Bible predicted these things before they happened. But then the Bible is not just a history book. It is also a book dealing with character development. It gives stories and principles which are for the purpose of teaching how to live a godly life and guidance of how to achieve this goal. It is unfortunate that many calling themselves Christians do not use the Bible for this purpose and therefore give a bad example to those who do not understand what real Christianity is. Although this does imply the exercising of faith on my behalf yet it is by experiencing it that I testify to the truth of the God's Word, ( the words that God spoke to men to write down),  as a power to help change my life and make me a better person. I know that may not satisfy you as to your question but I don't want to sound preachy. If you have any more direct questions about this I will try to answer them.

As we're talking about the Bible - i'm curious (and again, because this subject can get very touchy - i'll go the extra mile to add the sentiment that i ask my question with sincerity - and not with intent to challenge...) - early in the Bible, there is reference to people living lives of up to hundreds of years - has there by chance been anything found that can substantiate these proposals?  I've always found it incredulous, the concept that at one time - man could live that long, but somehow - lost that ability?  I don't tend to discount what i myself cannot know - so i don't look at it as something like "oh - that's rubbish" and then dismiss it, but rather i look at it and go "hmm, that's odd...if that did happen - i wonder how that could have happened.."

    You are absolutely true on the touchy aspect when it comes to discussing biblical topics. So I will tread carefully.
  "And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.  There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.  And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that  every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." Genesis 6:3-5
So previous to the flood and for a short time after men and women did live to very old ages and were also much larger than people today. Why would this be? Well for a variety of reasons. First they were either vegans or directly descended from vegan parents as we saw from the original diet. Today it has been shown that those following a vegan diet live on the average seven years longer than the average. That does not quite equate to an age of 900 years like the first man was claimed to live but there were other factors. The purity of the environment was one.  The Bible states that in the beginning everything was very good. No pollution, no poisonous additives in the food, the soil was much more healthy than today, the water and air more pure. How much this would add to the live span, I don't know. There also some other things which are harder to explain such as the condition of the atmosphere previous to the flood. We hear today about the dangers of holes in the ozone layer. Radiation plays a great part in the aging of people today but evidence seemed to show that there was more of a barrier protecting the people from the harmful effects of this radiation. I could explain more at another time if you are interested. We read in the verses above that God in His wisdom decided that man's live after the flood would be limited to around 120 years which is about as old as people live today. All these factors played a role in limiting  the length of man's life. Now, is there any evidence of this. Well there is. In his quest to find the landing place of Noah's ark there was quite a bit of other related objects or interesting sites found. It is important to note that the area where these things are found has not changed much for thousands of years and is also not very inhabited. So things that were there a long time ago have been undisturbed. Anyway while searching they came upon what appeared to be an old farmstead with stone fences and an old foundation for what appeared to be a house. Thinking that this was close to the landing place for the Ark, which is now an historic site protected by the government of Turkey, the thought arose that maybe this was the farm of Noah himself which he set up after leaving the Ark! I need to add that this is a dangerous place to do this work as the locals would follow the workers around to see if they found anything valuable and even threatened their lives on many occasions. So as they searched around this farm they did so trying not to bring attention to what they discovered. What they did find was two graves, near to the house with grave markers and such. Unfortunately this was also noticed by the guys following them who dug up the graves later looking for loot which they did find and which was sold for thousands of dollars. But what they also found was skeletons around twelve feet tall!  The bones were taken also and are in museums in the area. I have only seen pictures of these and videos of the grave sites but it gives credence to the claims of giant people who may have lived to older ages to get to such sizes. These pictures and videos are available and I guess you could go to the actual site if it is allowed now.

If someone was to accept the Bible as the world of God - while there are part (or parts?) of the Bible that indicate man should eat a diet of fruit, nut and grains - were there not (i believe there were) other part (or parts) of the Bible that also indicated man should eat meat? 

There is no part of the Bible that says man should eat meat. The original diet was stated as vegan, vegetables were added a little later. Meat was allowed under certain strict guidelines only after the flood and was only supposed to be a temporary arrangement until the crops could be made to grow again. There were times when God tried to bring the people back to a vegan diet, such as in their wanderings in the wilderness after leaving Egypt but they lusted after flesh so he allowed them to follow their own desires. I think today God is trying once more to have people understand the benefits of a vegan diet, through the warnings of mad cow disease etc and through  the teachings of such groups as vegweb. My church follows a strict vegan diet and teaches others through cooking schools how to adopt that lifestyle.

It is late again and I still have to get up early. If you have any other questions please feel free. Any comments on these replies would also be appreciated.

I like this article from the NYT that attempts to reconcile the differences between creationists and evolutionists (and to sell a book).  Basically, there are points (even Darwin admits) that evolution cannot explain.  Here's the article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/opinion/23wright.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

Personally, I haven't invested much thought into the issue, but I firmly believe in the theory that the world was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I believe in God, but not the bible nor any of it's historical references. I don't attend church.
I believe in God because everything in me tells me that there has to be something MORE, and that there has to be "something" out there.
I believe all religions that claim to believe in a God believe in the same God, but choose to worship differently (Jewish, Christian, Islamic, et cetera)... all the same God.
If you believe in one God, then it IS the same God, because there IS only one (obviously, if you believe there is only one).
(and yes, this is my stance and no one else has to agree.)

My veganism didn't originally correlate with my beliefs (when I went veg 2.5 years ago, I hadn't thought much on God as I do now), but now I honestly feel that God would want us to stop eating animals.

and I completely support freedom of religion (as long as it's not a "requirement" to kill animals or other people.)
every person within every religion is different.