Creation or Evolution?

[OneArmedScissor]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Gs1zeWWIm5M

watch THIS IS YOU DONT LISTEN TO ANYTHING ELSE I SAY AT LEAST WATCH THIS FOR THE LOVE OF GOD.


it explains exactly what Christians don't find in Darwin. Why? Because MUCH PROGRESS has been made since Darwin. Darwin is a bit dated.

IT EXPLAINS HOW HUMANS CAME FROM APES.

might I add that Dr. Ken Miller believes in God and is a Catholic.

The story of evolution is just that: a story.
It was originally never intended to be used as truth, but rather as allegory by the original people who wrote it: The Jewish scholars.

There is literary evidence that they intended it to be used as a story about disobedience. Christians seem to put importance on Genesis because it gives them an easy answer to what Christ saved them from (original sin)



I won't debate religious points because they are not scientific, but I thought I'd share some history with the Christians here.

[swampwallaby]

Anyways I have to agree with one of Ewok's previous posts. This topic is about Evolution vs Creation not specifically about the Bible. We seem to be wandering a tad.

Yes. That is true. However, the Bible does describe creation and seems to be the main source for creationists.

I don't really think there is anywhere else for this discussion to go really.

The imagination is limited and the idea of creation implies that before creation there was nothing. And what does that mean ?

We have to accept that the nature of the universe is beyond the comprehension of the human mind.

Inserting a creator into the story makes things seem logical and contained. It finishes things off.

But God must also be incomprehensible. He is just a substitute for all things that we can never grasp. He is the personification of everything beyond our control and comprehension. And our prayers to God are the best we can manage.

We could move on to "intelligent design" as this is the suit the Christian fundamentalists are currently wearing to get a hearing in scientific circles.

[mav777]

Interesting bit of information there of course it does not prove Evolution and does not disprove Creation. It simply states that there is a chromosome that appears to be fused. What it's exact purpose is remains to be seen. The fact that there are similarites between apes and humans is not disputed in the Bible. The Bible, as has been said before, is not a scientific textbook. It merely states what happened not how or why (in a scientific way that is).

The Bible has no conflict with science at all. The only thing that is disputed is that one species becomes another species. Again there is no proof of this ever happening. Microevolution is supported in the Bible, the Bible doesn't call it that of course but there is no biblical dispute with variety WITHIN a species.

[mav777]

There is also nothing in the Bible to condemn trying to gain a a greater understanding of the Universe. Indeed we are encouraged to look at the natural world and see the evidence of the wisdom of the Creator, his power, and love.

Just brushing everything of as incomprehensible is not a biblical viewpoint

[Kmart23]

you are actually wrong. A scale model has many problems. This is the reason that scale r/c cars reach "scale speeds" of 300 mph.

LOL. An arc made of wood (full size over 100m in length) is hardly designed to travel at 300MPH. It was designed to FLOAT. A scale model would behave exactly the same way in this situation.

[Ewok]

LOL. An arc made of wood (full size over 100m in length) is hardly designed to travel at 300MPH. It was designed to FLOAT. A scale model would behave exactly the same way in this situation.

LOL... you missed the point, non?

[Kmart23]

there is no biblical dispute with variety WITHIN a species.

Just touching on this subject, you also need to remember that the Bible does not specifically use the word 'species'. The word the Bible uses is 'kind' or 'kinds'.

This word does not hold the same meaning.

The Bible clearly states that God created all the basic 'kinds' of plant and animal life. (Genesis 1:11,12, 20-25) Were these original 'kinds' of plants and animals programmed with the ability to adapt to changing environmental conditions? What defines the boundary of a 'kind'? The Bible does not say. However, it does state that living creatures 'swarmed forth according to their kinds.' (Genesis 1:21) This statement implies that there is a limit to the amount of variation that can occur within a 'kind'.

Interesting, both the fossil record and modern research support that the fundamental categories of plants and animals have changed little over vast periods of time.

[Kmart23]

Yes. That is true. However, the Bible does describe creation and seems to be the main source for creationists.

I don't really think there is anywhere else for this discussion to go really.

The imagination is limited and the idea of creation implies that before creation there was nothing. And what does that mean ?

Because of their philosophical beliefs, many scientists reject the Bible's declaration that God created all things. Interestingly, however, in the Bible book of Genesis, Moses wrote that:

1) The universe had a beginning.
2) Life appeared in stages.
3) This happened progressively and over a period of time.

This is all scientifically accurate information. How could Moses have known this some 3500 years ago? There is only one logical explanation: The One with the power and wisdom to create the heavens and the earth could certainly give Moses such advanced knowledge.

To me, this gives weight to the Bible's claim that it is 'inspired of God.'

[eku]

LOL. An arc made of wood (full size over 100m in length) is hardly designed to travel at 300MPH. It was designed to FLOAT. A scale model would behave exactly the same way in this situation.

"And God said unto Noah, . . . Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch. And this [is the fashion] which thou shalt make it [of]: The length of the ark [shall be] three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits. A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; [with] lower, second, and third [stories] shalt thou make it. " (Gen. 6:13-16)

kinda big... but it still fits the 1:6 ratio ... which is the most stable ratio for an ocean going vessel ...
i dont know if the a wood vessel so large would hold up... especially with all the animals in the world inside (and yes, they would fit) and the bible says nothing about ribs or reinforcents...
plus i reckon it would have taken a lifetime to build something like that.

thing is the babylonians have a similiar story.. like everything else in the bible, it happened to someone else somewhere else too.

[swampwallaby]

There is also nothing in the Bible to condemn trying to gain a a greater understanding of the Universe.

Well that's a relief. I was starting to feel a bit guilty there for a while.

Indeed we are encouraged to look at the natural world and see the evidence of the wisdom of the Creator, his power, and love.

Just brushing everything of as incomprehensible is not a biblical viewpoint

It is not a brush off. The fact is that the mind's ability to comprehend IS limited. We know of things that we cannot comprehend. We know that space may be infinite, but we cannot know what this means. And we cannot comprehend what a limited space would be either.
You can travel indefinately in space both into an atom and toward the edges of the universe.

We do not comprehend all this. At best we have mathematical models of the universe.

In comparison, the biblical view-point is one big white-wash of a brush-off. You have your Universe designer.

Well where does your creator fit in with all of this ?

Yeah, he may have made it all, but so what? That's no big deal.

[Kmart23]

[B]thing is the babylonians have a similiar story.. like everything else in the bible, it happened to someone else somewhere else too.

I agree with you totally. It is my understanding that this story of a world flood is in all of the great ancient civilizations.

If you remember the story in the Bible after the flood about how, once again the people rebelled against God. They knew the story of the flood, so they decided to build a massive structure up to the heavens so that they would not suffer the same fate.

What did God do?

Genesis 11:1-9 Now all the earth continued to be of one language and of one set of words. And it came about that in their journeying eastward they eventually discovered a valley plain in the land of Shi´nar, and they took up dwelling there. And they began to say, each one to the other: “Come on! Let us make bricks and bake them with a burning process.” So brick served as stone for them, but bitumen served as mortar for them. They now said: “Come on! Let us build ourselves a city and also a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a celebrated name for ourselves, for fear we may be scattered over all the surface of the earth.”

And Jehovah proceeded to go down to see the city and the tower that the sons of men had built. After that Jehovah said: “Look! They are one people and there is one language for them all, and this is what they start to do. Why, now there is nothing that they may have in mind to do that will be unattainable for them. Come now! Let us go down and there confuse their language that they may not listen to one another’s language.” Accordingly Jehovah scattered them from there over all the surface of the earth, and they gradually left off building the city. That is why its name was called Ba´bel, because there Jehovah had confused the language of all the earth, and Jehovah had scattered them from there over all the surface of the earth.

Now it tells us here that God scattered them all over the world, but they would still have the memory of this great flood. (the reason why they were building the huge tower, and the reason why God confused their languages.) So it stands to reason that this story of a great flood would have remained with each group of people.

[OneArmedScissor]

I agree with you totally. It is my understanding that this story of a world flood is in all of the great ancient civilizations.

If you remember the story in the Bible after the flood about how, once again the people rebelled against God. They knew the story of the flood, so they decided to build a massive structure up to the heavens so that they would not suffer the same fate.

What did God do?

Genesis 11:1-9 Now all the earth continued to be of one language and of one set of words. And it came about that in their journeying eastward they eventually discovered a valley plain in the land of Shi´nar, and they took up dwelling there. And they began to say, each one to the other: “Come on! Let us make bricks and bake them with a burning process.” So brick served as stone for them, but bitumen served as mortar for them. They now said: “Come on! Let us build ourselves a city and also a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a celebrated name for ourselves, for fear we may be scattered over all the surface of the earth.”

And Jehovah proceeded to go down to see the city and the tower that the sons of men had built. After that Jehovah said: “Look! They are one people and there is one language for them all, and this is what they start to do. Why, now there is nothing that they may have in mind to do that will be unattainable for them. Come now! Let us go down and there confuse their language that they may not listen to one another’s language.” Accordingly Jehovah scattered them from there over all the surface of the earth, and they gradually left off building the city. That is why its name was called Ba´bel, because there Jehovah had confused the language of all the earth, and Jehovah had scattered them from there over all the surface of the earth.

Now it tells us here that God scattered them all over the world, but they would still have the memory of this great flood. (the reason why they were building the huge tower, and the reason why God confused their languages.) So it stands to reason that this story of a great flood would have remained with each group of people.

another fallacy that if A is true and B is based on A that B must be true.

[Kmart23]

Well where does your creator fit in with all of this ?

Yeah, he may have made it all, but so what? That's no big deal.

Wow. I would hate to think what it takes to impress you! :P

No biggie? The universe??? Or was that a joke?

[OneArmedScissor]

LOL. An arc made of wood (full size over 100m in length) is hardly designed to travel at 300MPH. It was designed to FLOAT. A scale model would behave exactly the same way in this situation.

no, it wouldn't.

You aren't much of an engineer are you?
you are not understanding the point: the scale argument never works because at small scale and specifically with buoyancy, weight is low. When you size it up 3 times, the volume goes up exponentially.

Just trust me on this one.

[OneArmedScissor]

Yes. That is true. However, the Bible does describe creation and seems to be the main source for creationists.

I don't really think there is anywhere else for this discussion to go really.

The imagination is limited and the idea of creation implies that before creation there was nothing. And what does that mean ?

We have to accept that the nature of the universe is beyond the comprehension of the human mind.

Inserting a creator into the story makes things seem logical and contained. It finishes things off.

But God must also be incomprehensible. He is just a substitute for all things that we can never grasp. He is the personification of everything beyond our control and comprehension. And our prayers to God are the best we can manage.

We could move on to "intelligent design" as this is the suit the Christian fundamentalists are currently wearing to get a hearing in scientific circles.

check out my link. intelligent design is utter rubbish.

[Kmart23]

another fallacy that if A is true and B is based on A that B must be true.

How much do you really know about the bible, onearmedscissor?

Again you dismiss everything immediately without any consideration.

What has made you oppose the Bible so strongly, without a clear understanding of what is written? Maybe I am wrong. Perhaps you have read the bible several times and you have come to the conclusion that the Bible is not the word of God.

If you have not read the bible, you need to remember that the Bible tells us that it is the 'meek that will inherit the earth.' Here the word 'meek' translates almost identically to the word 'teachable.'

Psalms 37:11 - But the meek ones themselves will possess the earth,
And they will indeed find their exquisite delight in the abundance of peace.

Some people write the Bible off simply because they know that there is a certain standard that you must live your life to, and using their free will, they decide that they would prefer to live their life the way that they see fit. Others see how religious leaders have done so many bad things and instantly write it off for this reason. What has been your reason?

For myself I spent a long time not wanting to toy with the idea that the Bible was the word of God, because it would mean that I would have to make many changes in my life. I simply did not want to do this! However, I realized after the 'learn from your mistakes' philosophy that the Bible actually is there to help you in your life. Being able to realize and accept this, I was then able to read the Bible and not dismiss everything as a load of BS. Finally I was able to reach the stage where I am right now; where I feel that my mind has been opened and I have the answers to all of the WHY questions that exist today.

[Kmart23]

no, it wouldn't.

You aren't much of an engineer are you?
you are not understanding the point: the scale argument never works because at small scale and specifically with buoyancy, weight is low. When you size it up 3 times, the volume goes up exponentially.

Just trust me on this one.

OK, I will trust you on that one, as I am not an engineer. My bad.

[Glenski]

The command to kill certain tribes was due to their abhorrent behaviour. These were people who burned their own children alive, who were completely morally depraved, and as the Creator, God has the RIGHT to say who lives and dies.

God created the people with abhorrent behavior. He commanded that people should not kill other people. Is this supposed to be an exception to the commandment? If these people were so abhorrent (despite being created by perfect God), why didn't God destroy them instead of asking his other lesser abhorrent people to do his own dirty work and break a commandment? Circular reasoning.

The reason we die is because we have inherited imperfection from Adam.

But you have been saying that Adam was perfect. That's why he (and presumably others for a while) lived so long. Contradiction.

However, the Bible says the penalty for sin is death. So if you don't sin you have the RIGHT to live eternally.

Evasion. Perfect beings (physically only, I guess) break a rule, therefore sin, and somehow they are not perfect enough to live forever? How did this happen exactly? We are told that Adam lived for 930 years. That's quite a stay of execution for such a major ORIGINAL sin, don't you think?

The Bible also says that God is perfectly just. So if someone did not have a chance to learn about God, he lived life in the best moral way he knew how, then it would seem likely this person would survive/be restored to life. However, again where God will draw that line is NOT up to us to say. "Judge not lest ye be judged" is a famous quote from the Bible.

But, if someone is as isolated as many are today (and in the past) and cannot learn the most fundamental principles of the Bible, he may be living a "best moral way" and form his own idea of a god, and that would be his own way of judging what's what. So, God is going to punish him for that? Unfair and UNjust. Free will alone is not enough. God doesn't play fair. He plays favorites. (And, as in the case of the great flood, when nothing else works, he kills everyone except 8 people just to clean the slate and start over again. Schoolboy tactics.)

The whole purpose of this period of time is to prove the point that humans cannot rule themselves apart from God. When God was in full control everything was perfect.

Not so. If it was perfect, why was there a Satan to tempt anyone? Was God not in control? Or just playing with his toys again?

So if we are living in perfection, with perfect health, minds, etc and we have no emotional pain associated with the memories of this time where is the lasting harm?

Some of the world's best art and music were created out of mental and emotional pain. Is that unholy? Imperfect?

[Kmart23]

We could move on to "intelligent design" as this is the suit the Christian fundamentalists are currently wearing to get a hearing in scientific circles.

Eeek!!! Not fundamentalists. They are the same ones who are also interested in politics. These groups have been known to attempt to pressure politicians, judges, educators, etc into adopting LAWS and teachings that conform to their creationists' religious code.

They are clearly not following Bible principle or teachings.

[swampwallaby]

Wow. I would hate to think what it takes to impress you! :P

No biggie? The universe??? Or was that a joke?

Well, it was partly a joke I guess. But I was also serious because it is relative.

This reasoning that the earth and its life forms are so complicated and well functioning that they could only have arisen by a creator is anthropocentric.

Do we conclude that Mars was created by a poor designer?

[swampwallaby]

Eeek!!! Not fundamentalists. They are the same ones who are also interested in politics. These groups have been known to attempt to pressure politicians, judges, educators, etc into adopting LAWS and teachings that conform to their creationists' religious code.

They are clearly not following Bible principle or teachings.

Well we can agree on this !

[swampwallaby]

check out my link. intelligent design is utter rubbish.

If you don't mind I might give it a miss !

[Kmart23]

Quote:
The command to kill certain tribes was due to their abhorrent behaviour. These were people who burned their own children alive, who were completely morally depraved, and as the Creator, God has the RIGHT to say who lives and dies.

God created the people with abhorrent behavior. He commanded that people should not kill other people. Is this supposed to be an exception to the commandment? If these people were so abhorrent (despite being created by perfect God), why didn't God destroy them instead of asking his other lesser abhorrent people to do his own dirty work and break a commandment? Circular reasoning.

God did not create people with abhorrent behavior. He created Adam and Eve. Their future imperfect offspring had abhorrent behavior. Just look at Cane. One of the very first born killed his brother Able our of Jealousy towards Able.
Sometimes God did kill them himself as in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah. If He asked His people to kill their enemies for Him, it was only ever to help them build and keep their faith in Him, because they were always out numbered by the enemy and God always stepped in to assist them in their battle.

Quote:
The reason we die is because we have inherited imperfection from Adam.

But you have been saying that Adam was perfect. That's why he (and presumably others for a while) lived so long. Contradiction.

Adam was created perfect. The moment he ate from the tree of knowledge, he disobeyed god, and hence did something wrong. This is classed as a sin. If you sin, you are no longer perfect because you chose to do something that you were clearly told not to do. The reason why they lived so long served two purposes: They created many children to populate the earth, and they were closer to perfection which stands to logical reason that they would therefore live longer. There is no contradiction in this.

Quote:
However, the Bible says the penalty for sin is death. So if you don't sin you have the RIGHT to live eternally.

Evasion. Perfect beings (physically only, I guess) break a rule, therefore sin, and somehow they are not perfect enough to live forever? How did this happen exactly? We are told that Adam lived for 930 years. That's quite a stay of execution for such a major ORIGINAL sin, don't you think?

God only said that Adam would die on the same day that he ate of the tree of knowledge. As covered earlier, the Bible says that a day to God is 1000 years for us.

Quote:
The Bible also says that God is perfectly just. So if someone did not have a chance to learn about God, he lived life in the best moral way he knew how, then it would seem likely this person would survive/be restored to life. However, again where God will draw that line is NOT up to us to say. "Judge not lest ye be judged" is a famous quote from the Bible.

But, if someone is as isolated as many are today (and in the past) and cannot learn the most fundamental principles of the Bible, he may be living a "best moral way" and form his own idea of a god, and that would be his own way of judging what's what. So, God is going to punish him for that? Unfair and UNjust. Free will alone is not enough. God doesn't play fair. He plays favorites. (And, as in the case of the great flood, when nothing else works, he kills everyone except 8 people just to clean the slate and start over again. Schoolboy tactics.)

As we have said earlier, it is only for God to Judge the heart of each man, because only God can truly know our heart. Of course God would not punish someone who has not done anything wrong or who has not had a fair opportunity to come to knowledge of His word. This goes against all Bible teaching. We know this to be the case, because even when Jesus was on the steak being executed, he told his Father to ‘forgive them, [the roman soldiers killing him] for they know not what they are doing.’ Certainly today, people who ‘know not what they are doing’ will also be forgiven.

Quote:
The whole purpose of this period of time is to prove the point that humans cannot rule themselves apart from God. When God was in full control everything was perfect.

Not so. If it was perfect, why was there a Satan to tempt anyone? Was God not in control? Or just playing with his toys again?

Satan was also created perfect. The bible tells us that Satan was the #1 angel, but allowed his pride to get the better of him. He thought that he should be as important as God. That is why he put this whole situation into play, because since Adam and Eve sinned, it has been Satan who has been the ruler of this world, not God, as the Bible clearly tells us. Satan not only deceived our first parents, but we know Satan managed to get many Angels to turn against God.

You are probably thinking that if God is so perfect, why didn’t He create Angels who are not going to turn against him? We are not given the answer to this, but if you use logic, you will understand. If you create a robot, who does exactly as you say, you are only giving yourself what you already have. If you create a robot that thinks for itself and learns for itself, you have truly created something that you can enjoy and take pleasure in. Would you not agree? If God created the angels as Robots and Adam and Eve as Robots, certainly we would not be here in this situation today, but I for one would prefer to have the free will to choose how I want to live my life. If I did not have this free will, I would simply be a living breathing robot with no mind of my own.

Quote:
So if we are living in perfection, with perfect health, minds, etc and we have no emotional pain associated with the memories of this time where is the lasting harm?

Some of the world's best art and music were created out of mental and emotional pain. Is that unholy? Imperfect?

You are forgetting that today we only use about 1% of our brain capacity. As perfect humans, we would be using 100% of our brains, and would invent and create music and art greater then we could ever imagine today!

[swampwallaby]

Because of their philosophical beliefs, many scientists reject the Bible's declaration that God created all things. Interestingly, however, in the Bible book of Genesis, Moses wrote that:

1) The universe had a beginning.
2) Life appeared in stages.
3) This happened progressively and over a period of time.

This is all scientifically accurate information. How could Moses have known this some 3500 years ago? There is only one logical explanation: The One with the power and wisdom to create the heavens and the earth could certainly give Moses such advanced knowledge.

To me, this gives weight to the Bible's claim that it is 'inspired of God.'

Yes, all statements could be saif to be scientifically accurate. the details are a bit sketchy but aren't they ?

I don't think this is all that remarkable and I don't think you can say that this inspired knowledge was a remarkble insight about nature generally.

In addition, we need to look at the context.

And there are heaps of cases of religious/cultural customs and behaviours that demonstrate "scientific" knowledge if you like.

[Kmart23]

And there are heaps of cases of religious/cultural customs and behaviours that demonstrate "scientific" knowledge if you like.

I totally agree with you here, but this is only the tip of the tip of the tip of the iceberg that is the Bible, and why I can believe so vehemently that it is indeed the word of God.

[Glenski]

KMart wrote:

And Jehovah proceeded to go down to see the city and the tower that the sons of men had built. After that Jehovah said: “Look! They are one people and there is one language for them all, and this is what they start to do.

One world language, stated in Genesis chapter 11, right?

Then why did it state one chapter earlier there were many languages (tongues)...?

Genesis 10:5
By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands, every one after his tongue.

Genesis 10:20
These are the sons of Ham, after their families, after their tongues.

Genesis 10:31
These are the sons of Shem, after their families, after their tongues.

Why, now there is nothing that they may have in mind to do that will be unattainable for them. Come now! Let us go down and there confuse their language that they may not listen to one another’s language

Why do this? If God merely wanted to spread his name and word, why change the language? What purpose did it serve? And, if there was truly NOTHING that was unattainable for them with one language, why cripple the poor humans by confusing their languages? Very inefficient.

[swampwallaby]

I totally agree with you here, but this is only the tip of the tip of the tip of the iceberg that is the Bible, and why I can believe so vehemently that it is indeed the word of God.

So what is your image of God ? Is God physically somewhere ?

[Glenski]

KMart,
I leave you to defend and explain with all the glory of your circular logic that you can muster. I could go on and on with more logical arguments than you, but I can clearly see that you are deluded and can find only the traditionally evasive answers and circular reasoning that all overly zealous Christians (that I have met) seem to.

Have a good day. I have lessons to plan. As I wrote earlier, I'm covered.

[Kmart23]

So what is your image of God ? Is God physically somewhere ?

I believe that God is somewhere, and His holy spirit can be anywhere He wants. What do you believe?

Have a good day. I have lessons to plan. As I wrote earlier, I'm covered.

So do I. I will answer your questions about:

Why do this? If God merely wanted to spread his name and word, why change the language? What purpose did it serve? And, if there was truly NOTHING that was unattainable for them with one language, why cripple the poor humans by confusing their languages? Very inefficient.

When I get home or tomorrow. Have a good day guys!

[mav777]

[QUOTE=Glenski]God created the people with abhorrent behavior. He commanded that people should not kill other people. Is this supposed to be an exception to the commandment? If these people were so abhorrent (despite being created by perfect God), why didn't God destroy them instead of asking his other lesser abhorrent people to do his own dirty work and break a commandment? Circular reasoning.

But you have been saying that Adam was perfect. That's why he (and presumably others for a while) lived so long. Contradiction. {/quote]

Actually I am not contradicting myself at all. You are missing two fundamental points.

1. We are perfect as long as we do not sin. When we sin we are no longer perfect. So until Adam sinned he was perfect, after he sinned he was not. Unfortunately for us, Adam and Eve had no children at the time of their sin, therefore they could only pass on imperfection to their offspring. If they had not sinned then there would have been no problem. If they had sinned after they had children, again no problem.

2. Free will. People have the choice to do things. God does not predetermine the way people act. You can choose to obey or not. This does not make God responsible. True he could have created us as robots, i.e. programmed to only do right but which brings greater pleasure to you, a person doing something for you because they have no choice or them doing something for you because they love you?

[QUOTE=Glenski]Evasion. Perfect beings (physically only, I guess) break a rule, therefore sin, and somehow they are not perfect enough to live forever? How did this happen exactly? We are told that Adam lived for 930 years. That's quite a stay of execution for such a major ORIGINAL sin, don't you think?{/quote]

This is what the Bible says:"the penalty for sin is death" therefore if you sin you will die. Once you sin you are no longer perfect and you are condemned to death. You may not agree with this, but again I refer you back to Maker's right.

As for Adam's life, out of mercy for Adam's offspring who had no say in the matter, and to allow his purpose to have the earth filled with perfect humans, God allowed Adam to have children. Eventually God's purpose will be accomplished. However, God pronounced sentence on Adam and Eve and their death was thereafter a foregone conclusion. Nothing would alter it, there would be no appeals. Also, the Bible says that on the 7th day God rested. Also Paul wrote that in his day the day of rest was still in operation. Thus looking at it from the perspective of the 7th day. Adam did die on that day.

But, if someone is as isolated as many are today (and in the past) and cannot learn the most fundamental principles of the Bible, he may be living a "best moral way" and form his own idea of a god, and that would be his own way of judging what's what. So, God is going to punish him for that? Unfair and UNjust. Free will alone is not enough. God doesn't play fair. He plays favorites. (And, as in the case of the great flood, when nothing else works, he kills everyone except 8 people just to clean the slate and start over again. Schoolboy tactics.)

Read my post again, I stated that God does not act unjustly. We do not know where he will draw the line, but he never acts unjustly. He can read hearts, we cannot so if he determines someone has the right heart condition he can grant them life. Remember though, we do not deserve life. We sin therefore we are under the penalty of death. God has no obligation to save anyone. He is willing to do so, because of undeserved kindness not due to any legal obligation.

Not so. If it was perfect, why was there a Satan to tempt anyone? Was God not in control? Or just playing with his toys again?

Again your missing the point of free will. A person could be raised by good parents, taught that stealing is wrong yet CHOOSE to steal from other people. Who created the thief? Did the parents? NO, he became a thief because of his own choices. In the same way Satan was not created as an evil person. The Bible states that he was originally, a powerful, attractive, and intelligent angel who cultivated a desire to have humans worship him. He acted on the desire and resisted God's purpose and slandered God by calling God a liar. The name Satan the Devil literally means a resister and a slanderer.

[QUOTE=Glenski]Some of the world's best art and music were created out of mental and emotional pain. Is that unholy? Imperfect?[/quote

Where did i say that mental and emotional pain is imperfect or unholy? I said that God promises that when he acts to rectify matters there will be no longer any ill-effects from the rebellion of Satan and Adam and Eve. That memories from this period of time will no longer cause us pain.

[mav777]

So what is your image of God ? Is God physically somewhere ?

According to Hebrews, Jesus approached God in his place of abode. He is not omnipresent, he has a body, but it is spiritual not physical. He can see everything though. He also has the ability to see into the future, but he does not indiscriminately use this ability as to do so would negate free will.

[swampwallaby]

I believe that God is somewhere, and His holy spirit can be anywhere He wants. What do you believe?

I don't know. I don't believe anything really. But I do think that there is a spiritual aspect to humans that is part of their ultimate development. Being born Homo Sapien is not the same as becoming human. I think God is part of the "becoming human" bit. I think a lot of what you say about God is valuable and interesting. I just don't think it is right to reduce it to a scientific debate. Miracles exist in their own right. If they are can be substantiated through natural sciences, then they simply become a part of the natural sciences by definition.

I do think that scientists who are on a crusade to "debunk" religion are foolish and are generally unqualified to carry out such trashings. They are simply materialistic cowards who call themselves atheists but are simply nursing their inferiority complexes and their anti-authoritarianism which was not properly exorcised during adolescence.

[mav777]

Ouch...perhaps a little bit strong there wallaby. There is nothing wrong with understanding science. Remember God created the natural laws in the first place. He could use his perfect understanding of natural laws to do things that we consider miraculous. Such as creating life in the first place. However, this does not mean that it is actually miraculous, perhaps it just means that we do not yet know how God did it.

People in the 14th century if told that machines larger and heavier than the largest manmade ships of the time would fly through the air would have dismissed this as impossible. If they were to have actually seen a Jumbo Jet they would have thought it miraculous. Our understanding of science allows us to do things today that would have been miraculous to a person in the 14th century.

I can't remember who said it but someone said that if the level of technology is hight enough it would be undistinguishable from the miraculous.

[swampwallaby]

Ouch...perhaps a little bit strong there wallaby. There is nothing wrong with understanding science. Remember God created the natural laws in the first place. He could use his perfect understanding of natural laws to do things that we consider miraculous. Such as creating life in the first place. However, this does not mean that it is actually miraculous, perhaps it just means that we do not yet know how God did it.

People in the 14th century if told that machines larger and heavier than the largest manmade ships of the time would fly through the air would have dismissed this as impossible. If they were to have actually seen a Jumbo Jet they would have thought it miraculous. Our understanding of science allows us to do things today that would have been miraculous to a person in the 14th century.

I can't remember who said it but someone said that if the level of technology is hight enough it would be undistinguishable from the miraculous.

Yeah, I just don't think that answers in biology or any of the sciences should be applied to religion.

[Ewok]

Quote:
The command to kill certain tribes was due to their abhorrent behaviour. These were people who burned their own children alive, who were completely morally depraved, and as the Creator, God has the RIGHT to say who lives and dies.

I kill 50 people in a rampage with a machine gun and announce that GOD told me to do it, and since god has the RIGHT to say who lives and dies, I am merely his tool and free from prosicution. Is this right? Why? Why not?

[Kmart23]

This thread is about Evolution vs. Creation

This thread is about the bible

Use the right thread already

This thread is about Evolution or Creation, true.

However, if we believe in Creation, how else are we to argue our point effectively, without referencing our agruements to the work for which we hold such beliefs?

You have access to the work of thousands of scientists to argue your point. We are only using one point of reference. Many have not come to an accurate knowledge of this book, hence the skepticism, however we have more compelling reason to believe that this book is the word of God.

How else are we to argue our point without using the one book we have been givin from our Creator?

Now I know that you don't believe this is the word of God Ewok, but that should not stop you from accepting this as our resource. I do not believe in Evolution, yet I still allow you to use any resource you choose fit.

[OneArmedScissor]

This thread is about Evolution or Creation, true.

However, if we believe in Creation, how else are we to argue our point effectively, without referencing our agruements to the work for which we hold such beliefs?

You have access to the work of thousands of scientists to argue your point. We are only using one point of reference. Many have not come to an accurate knowledge of this book, hence the skepticism, however we have more compelling reason to believe that this book is the word of God.

How else are we to argue our point without using the one book we have been givin from our Creator?

Now I know that you don't believe this is the word of God Ewok, but that should not stop you from accepting this as our resource. I do not believe in Evolution, yet I still allow you to use any resource you choose fit.

I have a bible right here. I do like to read it since I find much of the information on morality to be useful. I, in fact, do use the bible for many of my questions in life, however the origin of the human species is not one of its strongpoints.

Neither is the story of the Tower of Babel.

I find the work contained in the bible to be allegorically useful, as is much of philosophy, however I do not take it as a work of literal facts.

I have had no bad experience with Christianity other than the fact that I just simply have not found it to be infallible. Useful, yes, but infallible, no.

to me, it is like any other work of moral philosophy, although more significant to Western Culture.

I also find the Bhagavad to be useful, as well as various Buddhist poems. I even find myself quite interested in the Koran, though I have not yet gotten a good copy of it yet to read (in translation much of the beauty is lost )

[Ewok]

You have access to the work of thousands of scientists to argue your point. We are only using one point of reference. Many have not come to an accurate knowledge of this book, hence the skepticism, however we have more compelling reason to believe that this book is the word of God.

First, you have admitted many many times that the bible is not a book of science - how can you use it as a source of reference?
Also knowledge of a book means that you remember parts of it, what you are grasping for is that people have an accurate interpretation of the bible, one that is constantly changing. You have used the bible to justify that the earth is round. Many others have used the bible to justify and prove that the earth is flat. Same book, same scripture, completely opposing interpretations.

How else are we to argue our point without using the one book we have been givin from our Creator?

The most basic foundations of proving something scientifically and logically cannot be done by using one source, especially the bible.

Now I know that you don't believe this is the word of God Ewok, but that should not stop you from accepting this as our resource. I do not believe in Evolution, yet I still allow you to use any resource you choose fit.

I accept that all you have is the bible, which is not a valid source, giving you an invalid position from which to argue from.

The bible is not the word of god, which you have admitted and the bible itself admits. It is the word of men, which was "inspired" by god. Word of Men. Not word of god.

[OneArmedScissor]

This thread is about Evolution or Creation, true.

However, if we believe in Creation, how else are we to argue our point effectively, without referencing our agruements to the work for which we hold such beliefs?

You have access to the work of thousands of scientists to argue your point. We are only using one point of reference. Many have not come to an accurate knowledge of this book, hence the skepticism, however we have more compelling reason to believe that this book is the word of God.

How else are we to argue our point without using the one book we have been givin from our Creator?

Now I know that you don't believe this is the word of God Ewok, but that should not stop you from accepting this as our resource. I do not believe in Evolution, yet I still allow you to use any resource you choose fit.

actually, there should be some form of outside testing. most of us who know this issue are more than familiar with the work of Genesis. What we want to know is what else, outside of the work itself, supports the assertions with research, and are these pieces of support sound enough to support the assertions made by Genesis.

[Ewok]

actually, there should be some form of outside testing. most of us who know this issue are more than familiar with the work of Genesis. What we want to know is what else, outside of the work itself, supports the assertions with research, and are these pieces of support sound enough to support the assertions made by Genesis.

None. Since its inception the bible is alledgedly been "unchanged", buts its interpretation and explanation has changed wildly. Were they wrong? Are the people who see it differently now right? What other evidence supports genesis?

Science changes - which is a reason why I think fundamentalists have issues with the scientific process and community. As new proof is found, as our understanding improves, the concepts are built upon, updated and changed to reflect this. Newton created the basic laws of physics - Einstein expanded on them, modern breakthroughs are modifying them further. Science is not about faith or believing, its about questioning what is, finding evidence to support it, and if its wrong, then finding out what is right.