quote:

---

It was a world of no sin, so carinivores did not exist

---

WTF? So now a lion eating a zebra is SINNING??? get a grip, man.

------------------
The spork does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.

quote:

---

It was a world of no sin, so carinivores did not exist

---

Unlike Animals we humans know the difference between right or wrong so that statement is pointless. This picture we paint with a lamb and a lion lying side by side in peace is a human misconception or an optamistic(sp?) hope IMO.

My belief is that there is a God and I was created like everyone else by him but yet I'm without any predefined religion.

I keep an open mind to all ideas of life and so on and I don't look down on anyone's else belief's in the end we all still have to answer to one God!

------------------
Beyond popular belief I am human!

There goes Oni running off with my leg again

My Pointless Fic!

He made the world, blah blah blah. Then sea dwelling creatures, like whales, and then birds, and then catlle and mamals. All this is in the right order. then man. So it all happens in the right order, you just have to see the "days" as being a wee bit longer than an actual day.

Tudore

God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day. Genesis 1:5

God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning--the second day. Genesis 1:8

And there was evening, and there was morning--the third day. Genesis 1:13

And there was evening, and there was morning--the fourth day. Genesis 1:19

And there was evening, and there was morning--the fifth day. Genesis 1:23

And there was evening, and there was morning--the sixth day. Genesis 1:31

Every day there was night and there was morning. So everyday consisted of an evening and morning, and that's it. I don't see how you could interpret that as thousands or millions of years.

You also can't have the Earth being millions of years old because then you'd have death before sin, but the Bible says that death was the result of sin. I think that was the point spigidygak was trying to make, that there was no death before sin, not that animals eating animals was sin.

I’m very willing to accept that Gneiss did happen (it’s possible after all) but I’m not willing to accept that the events happened over only six/seven days... although if I did believe that then I might have to tape my windows shut because the government is sending out killer insects that want to seal all my information on my hard drive in the 486 ... I know they’re there ... can’t you see them??? WTF!!!

In case you missed it here it is again:

quote:

---

Fadi, your wrong. Faith doesn't require your damn book.

In fact FAITH requires NOTHING at all. Just a (human) brain.

If what you say is true Fadi then deaf ppl are going to die very un-enlightned.

Quote all you want to, most of us here just don't care to read it ... now tell us what you think of what you read and then we're all interested.

I've read three versions of the christian bible ... I don't want to read them again, thank you. But if you've got any unique thoughts about it, or different spins on what you've read, PLEASE share that!!!

---

------------------

quote:

---

And one time at band camp. . .

---

quote:

---

Athiests(not all, but the few that I know), usually don't care or lean toward evolution. DISCLAIMERNot all Athiests believe this, but it is my opinion(possibly flawed)that most do.
I personally think that evolution may have been a tool of God's in the creation of the world. After all, there is only so far you can go with evolution(where did it all begin?, and what created that beginning?). God is the logical answer, in my opinion.

---

Well if you believe in a God then you're not an athiest.

quote:

---

I see what you are saying. But I don'thtink the bible should be taken literally. It must have some room for literary liscence. Otherwise some things in there would be ridiculous. When I get a chance, I'll pull my bible out and give you some examples, but I don't recall any right now.

---

Your right, not all the Bible should be taken literally. But Genesis through Dueteronomy are written in a historical narrative by Moses, so they are to be taken literally. Now in books like Revelation or Daniel, not all of it could be taken literally.

quote:

---

Fadi, your wrong. Faith doesn't require your damn book.
In fact FAITH requires NOTHING at all. Just a (human) brain.

If what you say is true Fadi then deaf ppl are going to die very un-enlightned.

Quote all you want to, most of us here just don't care to read it ... now tell us what you think of what you read and then we're all interested.

I've read three versions of the christian bible ... I don't want to read them again, thank you. But if you've got any unique thoughts about it, or different spins on what you've read, PLEASE share that!!!

---

quote:

---

The first humans didn’t have a bible... does this mean that NONE of them deserved to go to heaven (insert your paradise of choice or flaming pit of hell here). This would mean that Adam and Eve wouldn’t have been ‘saved’. Sounds kinda’ lame to me...

---

Well the truth of the matter is that no one deserves to go to heaven. There is nothing anyone can do to go to heaven. It is by grace that anyone is in heaven.

quote:

---

Another thing, Fadi, you said yourself that the Bible is the Gospel, the word of God. Now Genesis could be interpretted literally but even in the New Testament Christ told many parables. These parables were analogies for the people of His time to apply their lives to. The Bible is also a prophecy. And many prophecies are not written literally. Some are written to be deciphered in order for the true believers to know the true meaning, that is why I believe each "night" and "day" in Genesis is in prophetic time.

---

Nothing in Genesis is written in a prophetic language, like i just said, it's all historic narrative.

Oh and Obisidian, i'm 18, so i guess that would make me naive and ignorant and totally inexperienced.

And if there is a God, don't you think He's powerful enough to create the world in six days, i mean, is he not God???

------------------
"A witty saying proves nothing."-Voltaire

quote:

---

Genesis through Dueteronomy are written in a historical narrative by Moses, so they are to be taken literally

---

How oculd Moses write a historical narritive of a place and time that he has never been to? If you say that he was writing down what God told him, then it's his interpretation of the events as they were relayed to him and should not be taken literally.

------------------
Millions of years ago, mankind lived just like the animals. Then something happened which allowed him to unleash the power of his imagination... He learned to talk!

------------------
The spork does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.

------------------
The spork does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.

Evolution occurs continuously. Major changes may not take place for thousands or even millions of years. Therefore, you might be tempted to conclude that it would be impossible to observe the process directly.
However, there are several will-documented examples of evolution on a smaller scale.

One such case involves a change in moths. There are 2 colors found in the peppered moth, a common inhabitant of the english countryside. In the early 1850's most peppered moths in england were a light, speckled color. There were also a few dark colored mutants. When the light-colored moths landed on light-colored tree trunks, they blended in well with the background. Birds and other preditors were more likely to capture the Dark colored moths.

By the early 1900's industrial air pollution covered the tree trunks with soot. The light-colored moths became easier to see. Birds then captured and ate a higher number of light-colored moths. The Dark moths, once at a disadvantage, now blended in well with their background. So darker moths survived and reproduced more frequently.

Just a little lesson in Evolution and natural selection hehe.

Maybe a certain Walrus might not die in the desert. Maybe there would be a few of them.
They would mate and the rest would die off.
Then you would have a "desert walrus".

Maybe through speciation, they would become an entierly diffrent species. (meaning they wouldnt be able mate with the normal "Ice" walruses.)

Hehe, i hope all that made sense to you ppl.

Yes, God could have created the world in 6 days. He could have created it in a single instant for that matter. The question is really not whether He could have, but did He?

If scientific evidence suggests that the earth is older than 6000 years old, then that suggests (to me, at least) that God took his time. Heck, he's not even bound by time! There is no where in the Bible that explicitly says that the earth is 6000 years old. Someone went through it and figured that out. What if the writters decided to skip a few thousand years?

Obsidian: I said to keep the intelligent responses coming. Please no personal attacks Fadi has just as much freedom to believe what he wants as you do. And to suggest that his behaviour/beliefs are due to his age... We all know of certain someones who don't act "their age."

The old-earth creationists, of course, have postulated that the "days" mentioned in Genesis are really indeterminately long periods of time (the Hebrew word translated as "day" is yom, which can mean "a length of time" as well as a "day"). Assuming that each "day" was really several hundred million years, however (as the day-age creationists do) only raises other problems. According to the Biblical account, plants were created on the third "day", while the sun wasn't created until the fourth "day". If each "day" were really a long period of millions of years, it would have been impossible for plants to have existed before the sun was created, since plants are dependent upon photosynthesis for survival.

Biblical scholars have concluded that the Pentateuch was not written by a single person (and none of it was written, as tradition held, by Moses). Instead, the linguistic and archeological evidence (including the famed Dead Sea Scrolls) indicates that the stories of the Bible existed only as oral tradition for hundreds of years before they were written down, and that there are at least four separate sources for the text of the Old Testament, known as the Yahwist source, the Elohist source, the Priestly source, and the Deuteronomist source, with each section written at different times. All of these varying sources were edited together into their final form by an unknown person or persons known as the Redactor, who probably performed this task in about 400 BC.

It is simply not possible to take the Genesis story literally, any more than it is possible to take the Flood story or any other part of the Bible as inerrant. The Bible is not a history book and not a science text--it is a spiritual book that deals with theological and spiritual matters. To attempt to force the Bible into literal inerrancy on historical and scientific matters is to distort it and cheapen it, and such attempts inevitably turn Christianity into a laughingstock. Just as we remember with contempt the Inquisition's attempts to stop the spread of Galileo's heretical notion that the earth moved around the sun, so will future historians view the Biblical literalists' attempts to stop the teaching of evolutionary "heresy".

Scientific fact shows that the earth is very old (read - more than 6000 years) so 7 days would have to be a metaphor (which I already said I'd accept).

Madonna,

Kagero: Learning new things everyday? What makes you think just because it is new makes it right? Judaism which then became Christianity has been around since the beginning, and has stood the test of time. I'd rather have some hope for eternity, than just leave it up to nothing.

------------------
"A witty saying proves nothing."-Voltaire

quote:

---

God created Adam as a full grown man and not a little baby; so why wouldn't he create the earth with some age to it?

---

Good point KOB. I believe that God created the world, then I can see how he could have made the world to have a certain "age". I'm open to such possibilities, but I won't discard scientific evidence either.

Obsidian: I was merely expressing my chagrin at the fact that a person's opinion can be discarded because of their age. Haven't you ever been in a room full of adults talking about you and then they say, "Oh, he's got such crazy ideas. You know young people." As if being young made your thoughts and opinions less valid than theirs because they were "adults".

That's a form of bias too. I admit that I don't share some of your views, but that's not the reason I said to keep the conversation intelligent. Perhaps intelligent wasn't the right word. Perhaps.. keep the conversation open would have been better. Not to brand someone's opinion as invalid because they are "too young." I apologize for the misunderstanding.

*and with that /me gives Obsidian a wedgie*

... there goes another pair of boxers

/me realizes that I was wearing bdwilcox's thong panties <g>

I really don't care what age Fadi is ... I just couldn't think of aything less offencive at the time. I get the 'age' treatment ALL the time at work. I actually like it when 'young' (I'm only 23!!!) ppl introduce new ideas into any disscusion.

hehehe

I was going to ask a question about those... but maybe that doesn't belong in this thread. Hehehe.

------------------
Shikata gai na!

Kagero: Learning new things everyday? What makes you think just because it is new makes it right? Judaism which then became
Christianity has been around since the beginning, and has stood the test of time. I'd rather have some hope for eternity, than just leave it up to nothing.

Hey, King of Blades . . . Did I ever say that just because it was new it was right . . .huh? I dun think so . . . quit attacking so quickly and read what I wrote . .geez

On guard!

------------------
Shikata gai na!

And anyone who disagrees with me is definetly stupid!

------------------
The spork does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.

quote:

---

Then God said, "Let there be a dome in the middle of the waters, to seperate one body of water from the other." And so it happened: God made the dome, and it separated the water above the dome from the water below it. God called the dome "the sky."

---

------------------
Cum grano salis

------------------
Shikata gai na!

------------------
"A witty saying proves nothing."-Voltaire

------------------
"A witty saying proves nothing."-Voltaire

But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 2 Corinthians 3:14-16

So Moses wrote down this law and gave it to the priests, the sons of Levi, who carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and to all the elders of Israel. Dueteronomy 31:9

Personally I think that debating the existence of God is an extraordinary exercise in futility. Those who believe in a deity will defend such with a rabid ferocity, as will those who discount the deity's existence.

Then there are those in the middle, myself for instance. I believe in Nature, Fate and the immutable procession of time. I have had those with religion say "Oh well you believe in God" and those without say "Oh well you believe in science". One point I'd like to make though..

I read once that there are over 200 distinct religions in the world, almost one for each country. I would be curious to know how many of those religions have arisen AFTER the industrial/scientific revolution at the turn of the last century?

This is what I mean by my opening statement. All of those "MYTH" based religions we study in school are pretty well discounted, yet many of them were in practice far longer than today's monotheistic beliefs. The people that worshipped Kali, Ra or Zeus however believed whole heartedly in these religions because they made them feel safer in a confusing and scary world that they really didn't understand. It is my belief that all organized religion is a form of control over a population and the dominant population picks that religion. If tomorrow we were conquered by an alien race of space moles (perhaps called the Tudorians?)and they believed that the North Star was the soul of the Creator mole, in about 2-3 generations, we'd all be praising the Great Mole Star.

I'd like to take us back to something King of Blades said.

quote:

---

Judaism which then became Christianity has been around since the beginning, and has stood the test of time.

---

I don't see how its sheer existence over a long period of time makes it valid. The same could be said about any number of religions. Including any Native American traditions, the Mayans, Incans, Aztecs, Bhuddism ... they have/had been around for quite sometime, but it doesn't mean a thing. Your statement is an unfair extrapolation.

to be true it must be so, and plainly so to anyone

to bring faith into it would mean that it's on an individual level since you can neither prove nor disprove my faith (or any other person's faith) ... you can test it, but you can't say that it's TRUE

does this make sence???

I recently discovered, through hidden observation(spying) that the moles are actually using some of our stuff. From this point on, always poke holes in your discarded show boxes. From what I saw, the space moles are using these to transport jumper pins off plant because they "make a great snack." This has to be stopped. No one wants to be left without jumper pins, what would happen to all us overclockers.

And hang on tightly to your case screws. These seem to be just the right size for mounting the teeny little cubic-zirconia-driven engines the moles use for their landing craft.

------------------
"A witty saying proves nothing."-Voltaire

------------------
"A witty saying proves nothing."-Voltaire

------------------
The spork does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.

Consider this: The Yahwist writer is believed to be the earliest, and probably lived in the tenth century BC during the time that Solomon was King of Israel (960-920 BC). He probably lived in the part of the kingdom known as Judah, and in his narratives he emphasizes the righteousness and accomplishments of the Israeli monarchy (which also came from Judah). The Yahwist is believed to have written large segments of Genesis and Exodus. It is from this source (known as the "Yahwist" because of his habit of referring to God by the name "Yahweh") that we get the second of the two Creation narratives in Genesis. Although Genesis chapter two appears later in the Bible, it was apparently written earlier than chapter one. The Yahwist version of the Ten Commandments, for instance (Exodus 34) makes no mention of Yahweh resting on the seventh day and blessing it as the Sabbath--apparently because the seven-day chronology given in the first chapter of Genesis hadn't been written yet.

The Elohist source (so-called because of his habit of referring to God as "Eloha", or "The Lord", in accordance with a religious law then in effect which forbade the use of God's name) lived about 100 years after the Yahwist. He is believed to have been a resident of the northern part of the Kingdom of Israel, and unlike the Yahwist source was unsympathetic to the Israeli monarchy (as was much of the northern kingdom at the time). Some scholars believe the Elohist was an anti-royalist priest at the shrine of Bethel. The Elohist source wrote parts of Genesis and Exodus, but apparently did not write his version of the Creation story. If he did, it has not been included in the final compilation we know as the Bible.

The Deuteronomist source, as the name implies, wrote much of the Biblical book of Deuteronomy. The Deuteronomist's materials first appeared in 621 BC, when a copy of his writings were reportedly discovered hidden away during repair work at the temple of Solomon. Although traditionally Moses is held to be the author of this work, it was most likely prepared by a member or members of a group of priests who were then agitating for religious reform in the kingdom, which coincidentally would bring the priests greater political control over Israel. After it was "found", the book was taken to King Josiah, who immediately implemented all of the reforms it called for. The new writings were merged with those of the Yahwist and Elohist to form most of the Biblical books of Deuteronomy, Joshua, First and Second Samuel, and First and Second Kings.

The Priestly sources date from the fall of Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzer in 596 BC and the period of Hebrew captivity in Babylon (587-538 BC). In exile in Babylon, the Hebrew priests made an effort to keep the culture and religion of their people alive by a thorough revision of the sacred traditions. The Priestly source (it is unknown whether this was one man or a group of priests working together) added large sections to the Bible which lay out detailed rituals and religious laws, all designed to keep the religious practices of the Hebrews intact and to prevent them from becoming culturally assimilated into their Babylonian surroundings. It is from this source that the complicated religious rituals of Leviticus were compiled, as well as most of the books of the prophets. The existing Biblical texts were also edited to emphasize the importance of religious ritual. The story of Noah, for instance, was altered. The Yahwist had written: "And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee to keep them alive." (Genesis 6:19-20) For the Priestly source, however, it was important that Noah be able to maintain all of the ritual sacrifices and offerings demanded by religious law, so to this narrative was added, "Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female; and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female." (Genesis 7:2)

It is from the Priestly source that we get the first chapter of Genesis, which, although it is first in the Bible, was actually one of the last parts of the Old Testament to be written. The Priestly version of the Creation story, which runs from Genesis 1:1 to Genesis 2:3, presents an entirely different emphasis than the Yahwist version, found in Genesis 2:4 to 2:25. The Yahwist skips over the details, so to speak, and, without any explicit chronology or timetable, simply states that God created the heavens and the earth and placed Adam there, made in the image of God. The Priestly source, however, goes into considerable detail about how and when God created the sun, the moon, and the stars.

There was a firm theological reason for this, from the point of view of the Priests. While the Hebrews were being held captive in Babylon, the priests of Israel were (justifiably) afraid that they would begin to turn away from their own religious traditions and adopt the Babylonian theologies which surrounded them. The Babylonian theology, unlike that of the Israelis, was polytheistic, in which the sun, moon and stars were not just objects, but were themselves gods, and were worshipped as gods--thus the great pains which the Priests took to describe the creation by Yahweh of the heavenly bodies. The theological message was clear--the sun and moon were not gods, and should not be worshipped as such, since they were themselves created by the only god, Yahweh. Those who attempt to take the description of this as literal historical truth are blinding themselves to the theological message which it symbolizes. To the authors of Genesis, it did not matter how Yahweh created the universe--all that mattered was that he did, and that he did it by himself.

Of course, some cross-cultural contact was inevitable, and some parts of the Priestly text do, in fact, bear unmistakable affinities to certain of the Babylonian myths and legends. The great ages given for the Biblical patriarchs in the book of Genesis, for instance, (some of the ancient Biblical figures are said to have been several hundred years old when they died) are reflected in the Babylonian and Sumerian traditions of equating age with wisdom, and therefore of posthumously attributing a great age to ancient leaders according to their wisdom and honor--the more powerful and honorable they were, the older (and thus wiser) they were said to be. The Sumerian List of Kings, for instance, which describes the deeds of various ancient leaders, gives ages for some of these heros of several thousand years. These were not meant to be literal figures of the number of years they had lived, but were a measurement of their glory and honor.

The Priestly version of the creation story in Genesis chapter one, moreover, bears a number of affinities to the Babylonian epic Enuma Elish, a poem of about 1,000 lines which was found in the ruins of the library of king Ashurbanipal in the city of Ninevah. This poem has been dated to between 2000 and 2600 BC, long before either version of the Genesis creation story was written. TheEnuma Elish tells how the god Marduk created the universe in several steps. First, light emanated from the Babylonian gods to illuminate their work. Then, Marduk created a firmament--a hard clear "roof" which holds up the sky. Next, Marduk created dry land underneath the firmament, and after this created the heavenly lights. Finally, Marduk created humans, and on the final day the gods rested and celebrated. The order of the narrative in Genesis bears unmistakable signs of the influence of the Enuma Elish.

Parallels can also be seen between the book of Genesis and the Babylonian epic Gilgamesh, written about 2000 BC. In the Gilgamesh, we find the story of Utnapishtim, a man who is informed by the god Ea that the earth will be destroyed by the god Enlil in a fit of anger, by drowning everything in a great flood. In response, Utnapishtim builds a large wooden boat and loads it with himself and his family, all of the local craftsmen, his gold and silver, and a male and female of every living animal. Heavy rains break out and last for six days, and everything is drowned except for Utnapishtim and his boat. After the waters recede, Utnapishtim sends out a dove, then a swallow, then a raven to find dry land. After the flood, Utnapishtim and his wife are rewarded by the gods by being made gods themselves, and are taken up to the heavens. The similarities between the Utnapishtim story and the Flood of Noah are unmistakable, and it is likely that most of the Genesis story was built around this Babylonian tradition.

Sorry that was so long, but I'm a long winded guy, as simon and a few other can attest to... Anyway, you probably get the point. There were many socio-political reasons for the bible's writings, and there is a lot of evidence to suggest that it involved more authors than just a single, humble, stuttering Moses.

Next: The water held up by the dome of the sky...

------------------
"A witty saying proves nothing."-Voltaire

Thus, the creationists present, as their "scientific evidence" for the source of the Flood waters, the Biblical description of a pre-Flood "vapor canopy" which surrounded the earth. Morris says, "If there were, in the beginning, a vast thermal blanket of water vapor somewhere above the troposphere, then not only would the climate be affected, but there would also be an adequate source to explain the atmospheric waters necessary for the Flood." (Morris, Scientific Creationism, 1974, p. 124)

Problems abound however, with the creationist's "vapor canopy" theory--there is not a shred of scientific evidence which indicates that such a canopy has ever existed (other than the description in Genesis), and there are good reasons to doubt that it could have. No one, not even the creationists, are able to offer any explanation as to how such a canopy was able to maintain itself during the pre-Flood period, or how it was released to produce the Flood waters themselves. Since water vapor tends to move from areas of high concentration to areas of low concentration, it would be impossible for a belt of atmospheric water vapor to exist unless it were prevented from diffusing away by a non-permeable barrier. Also, such a layer of water vapor would be destroyed by convection cells, produced by warmer air at the equator rising and being replaced by cooler polar air. Another problem would arise in connection with air pressure. Air pressure is caused by the weight of the atmospheric gases pressing down on the surface of the earth. Water vapor is very heavy, and a layer of vapor such as that postulated by the creationists would produce an atmospheric pressure at sea level of some 900 atmospheres, approximately equal to the pressure five and a half miles deep in the ocean. Noah and his Ark (and everything else on earth) would have been crushed by the staggering atmospheric pressures before they could have set sail.

The creationist assertion that the Flood waters were produced by the condensation of this vapor canopy presents yet another problem. Whenever water vapor condenses to form liquid water, heat is released. And the condensation of enough water vapor to produce a global Flood would have released an enormous amount of heat energy. As Arthur Strahler points out, "Calculations show that the heat liberated by a canopy such as that described by Morris would raise the atmospheric temperature to over 6,400 degrees F, boiling the ocean and the Ark." (Strahler, 1987, p. 197)

So the physical possibility of such a canopy can only be upheld by supernatural forces, which, of course, preclude it from objective scientific study or merit.

There is, of course, one last thing to consider. Where did all that water go if, indeed, it was ever here in the first place? Had it evaporated, it would still be a part of the hydro-ecological cycle, yet we can confirm through observation and testing that it absolutely is not.

------------------
The spork does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.

And Buckster: good to see you again! Get justis back so you can continue your arguments.

------------------
The spork does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.

The problem, I believe, would be the amounts of water we're talking about. Some have postulated that the 4.4 billion cubic kilometers of water needed would not permit sunlight to permeate though to the Earth, which of course would have had a devastating effect on all life long before the flood could have taken it's toll.

I bow to your gracious estimation of my knowledge. My background is to blame I suppose. I went to parochial schools through the eighth grade, attended church nearly every day, bible study a few times a week and aspired from an early age to be a minister. I was the first boy scout in my troop to get a religous merit badge and the youngest member of our church to work alongside the pastor suring services. Sort of like the catholic's alter boys do. In my spare time, I studied the scriptures and many, many other sources related to the scriptures and the meaning of the words therein.

Along the way, I learned quite a lot of things and began to question much of what I held as firm beliefs; Beliefs based entirely on faith, and faith alone. At some point I realized that my faith had been molded by and entrusted to the interpretations of those men and women who had taught me all my life, and that those interpretations did not hold up to the tests of any clear thinking human, which I consider myself to be.

The more I questioned, seeking the answers I needed, the more my fellow Christians stonewalled the issues. Finally, at 18 years of age, I was excommunicated from the church I loved with all my heart.

From then to now, at age 40, I have continued my quest for these answers. It is a passion for me. My other passions are science and technology. One can amass a great deal of information on a particular subject in 40 years.

In my personal studies on the subject, I have become convinced, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there are much more plausible and logical explainations for those things attributed to God or Gods by ancient nomadic peoples who could not have understood it the way we do, as they did not have the equivalent tools we do; Tools like education, tens of thousands of years of world history, a greater understanding of science and politics, and so forth.

Once, when asked by a friend in my 30's, I told him I was an agnostic. He told me that an agnostic is just an atheist without guts. I thought about that a long time, and it really bit into me. I felt I needed to make a commitment at that point and weighed the evidence in my own mind over and over until I arrived at my personal truth: That I am an atheist, but still a good person.

I study the issues with most of my spare time. I pass along what I know, what I believe, what I think. And I wish all the best for each of you in finding your own personal truth.

(I can also be a real evil bastard of an evolutionist when you get me going though... Heh heh heh!!!)

Please, please, please go to http://www.talkorigins.org/

I don't know exactly where to point you once you get there regarding the Pentateuch, or Torah, as it is more commonly called, but they have a search feature that will help you find anything you would like more in-depth information on.

For some great discussions (and some not so great flames) visit talk.origins on a news server. That's where this debate REALLY rages!

Good luck!!

And then (Old Broken Link)

Of course, there was (Old Broken Link)

And who could forget (Old Broken Link)

Then, just to round things out, there's (Old Broken Link)

Whew!! What a wild ride that was!! Refreshing!!

Which reminds me, where's our good friend Resedit these days?

------------------
The spork does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.

During his required military service, my uncle was an engineer working on the barrel of a tank in the Syrian army. Something went wrong and the barrel fell on his head and crushed it. He was rushed to the hospital were the doctor's told his family to take him home, b/c he wasn't going to live much longer. Being the very faithful family that they are, they all gathered around him to pray in hopes he might be saved somehow. They all joined hands around his bed with his uncle holding his hand. His uncle prayed, "God if your going to save him, give me a sign." He felt his hand sqeeze. He asked again for reassurance and felt his hand squeeze again. He then started shouting praises and saying he was healed while at the same time, my uncle got up, tore the bandages off his head, and was fully restored to all but a scar.

Try explaining that one by science. My faith, although is not based on that incident, it's based soley on the word of God. I'm sorry to hear of such a hard life you've had. What kind of church did you attend?

quote:

---

Try explaining that one by science.

---

First, were you an eye-witness to this or did you hear about it from someone else, like, perhaps, another family member? (I ask because I had a grandmother who was VERY devout. She also claimed to go into labor occasionally and bear baby animals for Jesus. She would emerge from her bedroom after lots of screaming and crying and praying with a blanket all wrapped up in her arms (presumably with the baby animal inside) and take it out into the woods to set it free. I guess Jesus took care of them after that since they were newborns and had not yet been weaned. She was convinced that this was really happening, though as an atheist I have my doubts, as I never actually saw her perform this miracle first-hand as an eye-witness. But, I digress... Sorry...)

When you say the barrel crushed his head (but did not instantly kill him), can you be more precise as to the extent of the injury? Like, was it so bad that he was on life support systems? Lots of blood loss? Open, gaping wound? Top, back or side of the head?

Did the doctors state why he would not live much longer? Like, brain damage, excessive blood loss...

A scar indicates a rupture of the skin. How big was the rupture, and did the doctors sew it up before sending him home? If they did, how many stitches did it take?

What was the date (or even year) this occurred?

What is the time frame from the actual accident to the bandage/scar unveiling? (Hours? Days? Weeks? Months?)

I don't suppose anyone got this all (or any?)on video-tape? Any photos of the actual injury, preferably before and after shots?

Is the military record of the accident and prognosis (death imminent) available?

Typically, the military does a thorough investigation in cases like this. Are those records available?

Did any newspapers or other news media pick up the story and, if so, which one(s)?

Was he medically examined after the miracle and, if so, what is the doctor's name, so that we can corroborate with his analysis?

Is your uncle still alive and, if not, how long did he live following the accident and what did he die of?

Did the military compensate him for his injury or deny compensation because he was basically uninjured following the miracle?

Were any doctors present at the time of the miracle and, if so, are their reports available?

Had any arrangements for the funeral been made and, if so, did the funeral home keep a record or receipt of the request?

As a devout family, did they have any members of the clergy present at the time of the miracle, thinking they may need last rites? If so, who, that we may contact them for corroboration?

Has the miracle been recognized as a divine occurance by any religious organization?

Is there any other evidence that someone who was not present at the time of the miracle should consider for authentication of the miracle and, if so, what?

Thanks in advance for answering. I'll do my best to come up with a plausible answer based on the outcome.

Actually, I don't consider that I've had a particularly hard life. No harder than most, I would venture to say. I'm quite a happy and contented person for the most part.

Over the years I have attended many denominations of churches, but spent those early years described above in the Lutheran church, Missouri Synod. It was particularly because Martin Luther translated the bible from Hebrew to German that I was initially interested in what the original Hebrew text had to say. Because we studied his catechism explaining some of the difficulties encountered during the translation's interpretation, I was fascinated to learn more. And learn I did, and here I am.

------------------
Cum grano salis

As a man of science, and of the belief that we do not know it all and we may never know it all and certainly not in my lifetime, I am inclined to take a wait-and-see approach. We can't reason the existence of a deity because, in its current incarnations, it is irrational. Rather, we should attempt to explain, attempt to understand, attempt to find out, instead of assume that a book has it explained for us, a book written by us in a certainly much more immature state (not that we are mature yet, which I believe we aren't, which is why we are arguing ... I mean, "discussing" here today).

*takes a deep breath*

Personally, while many things I think are extremely radical, I avoid pronouncing them. I know many an extremely religious person, and it would be fun to convert them. But I know it will never happen. Even before you reach high school, your ideas are more or less set. Granted, you can change, but it is very difficult and doesn't happen often.

One battle was won when just the other day I convinced an extreme Baptist that the Theory of Evolution was not Atheist Doctrine. Using the arguments outlined in my article, I was able to show him how anyone, of any religion could accept the theory like most normal people do.

First Science is based on observation. If you can't observe it, it isn't science. I can go out in my backyard and dig 200 feet down and find a fossil shell. How do I tell how old it is?

Most people will say one of two things. Either I should test it via radiocarbon dating, or I should evaluate the age by which fossil layer it is in. Do either of these work? No.

Radiocarbon dating has never been a reliable source of dating information. Quite a few years ago, scientists tested a live clam for its age. It tested as over 300,000 years old!! Therefore you can ditch radiocarbon.

Fossil layers are also very interesting. I have heard that the fossil records are determined by the index fossils. How old are those? Any scientist who beleives in evolution will tell you it's determined by the soil it's in. How old is the soil? Well, that's determined by the index fossil. What we have here is circular reasoning, and not evidence.

I would like to post just a few arguments for the case of creationists.

The decaying magnetic field limits earth’s age to less than billions.

The volume of lava on earth divided by its rate of efflux gives a number of only a few million years, not billions. I believe that during the Flood, while "the fountains of the deep were broken up," most of the earth’s lava was deposited rapidly.

Dividing the amount of various minerals in the ocean by their influx rate indicates only a few thousand years of accumulation.

The amount of Helium 4 in the atmosphere, divided by the formation rate on earth, gives only 175,000 years. (God may have created the earth with some helium which would reduce the age more.)

The erosion rate of the continents is such that they would erode to sea level in less than 14,000,000 years, destroying all old fossils.

Topsoil formation rates indicate only a few thousand years of formation.

Niagara Falls’ erosion rate (four to five feet per year) indicates an age of less than 10,000 years. Don’t forget Noah’s Flood could have eroded half of the seven-mile-long Niagara River gorge in a few hours as the flood waters raced through the soft sediments.)

The rock encasing oil deposits could not withstand the pressure for more than a few thousand years.

The size of the Mississippi River delta, divided by the rate mud is being deposited, gives an age of less than 30,000 years. (The Flood in Noah’s day could have washed out 80% of the mud there in a few hours or days, so 4400 years is a reasonable age for the delta.)

The slowing spin of the earth limits its age to less than the "billions of years" called for by the theory of evolution.

A relatively small amount of sediment is now on the ocean floor, indicating only a few thousand years of accumulation. This embarrassing fact is one of the reasons why the continental drift theory is vehemently defended by those who worship evolution.

Anyone who cares to refute these points, go ahead.

In your last post (not really yours - that article thingy) it was said that the earth could not have been molten lava because the Bible says that water flowed over it in the first day. First of all, this assumes you accept the Bible at all. This asks that you believe the Bible to prove the Bible right. Circular reasoning!

And for the last bit of hokum you offered for us (not yours, the polonium thing) ... if, assuming that what was said about the polonium is true, the fact that these spheres appear in granite DOES NOT IN NO WAY disprove that the earth was molten lava on the surface at some point. He first says that polonium decaying in molten lava would lose the sperical evidence, so any evidence of polonium decaying in lava is lost. Only the evidence in granite is present, because, as you said, granite retains the sphere. What you are doing is assuming that since no evidence exists in lava (which, by your own accord, couldn't!) then the notion that the earth was molten is false. This is an unfair extrapolation and one of the worst violations of logic I see.

(Again, he said it not you.)

------------------------

How about some more of that down-home circular reasoning you love so much:

"The Bible is right because it is the divine hand God." But the proof of God is the Bible.

If there is no God, then the Bible is false, proving there is no God.

If there is a God it proves the Bible which proves God.

But you can't prove one without the other, making that reasoning completely irrational.

(Not that you said that. It's just a common argument.)

-----------------------------

About the OTHER things you said. I could easily brush them off my shoulder based on the baselessness of what you are saying and the fact that you are obviously misinformed or misconstruing certain things, and I would probably be right, but I won't do that. I will look into these things you mentioned and try and get back to you. But, no doubt Buckster or someone else will most likely reply before I do.

------------------
The spork does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.

------------------
The spork does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.

Robert Gentry, ("Creation's Tiny Mystery", 1988) a physicist and a Creationist, noticed that in certain granite formations, Po halos could be found. The "halos" are microscopic concentric rings which are formed when the unstable radioactive atoms explode. The odd thing about the granite formations where Gentry's Po halos are found, is that there is no Uranium. The Po is an "orphan" element. Granite is an igneous rock, formed from slow cooling of volcanic magma. It has a hard, crystalline structure. Polonium doesn't exist naturally in nature, except as the short-lived by-product of U238 decay. So, Gentry concludes, this is hard scientific evidence that the Granite did not have an origin as slowly cooling molten rock over millions of years (if Po decayed in molten rock, it would not leave a halo). It was created, as solid cooled rock, with Po, which exploded shortly after the creation event, leaving it's characteristic halo. The "basement rocks of the earth were formed solid in less than three minutes," say the Creationists.

(Why creationists accept the half-lifes of Po halos, and reject other half-lifes, is example of creationist's selective scientific knowledge. This is rationalizing, not reasoning.)

The explanation is as follows: First, all of the granite formations in which Gentry found Po halos, all contain the mineral Myrmekite, which is a replacement mineral intergrowth. Also, while the actual granite where the Po halos are found has no evidence of U238, it is always found NEAR concentrations of U238 deposits. (Gentry 1988, p. 36).

Thus, Radon is formed in the nearby U238 deposits. As gas, it moves freely through cracks in Gentry's granite rocks, which themselves have no uranium. Radon is inert, and will not chemically combine with the rock as it moves through it. That's why there's no evidence of Radon decay in the rocks. The Radon sneeks throught the rocks, inert, combining with nothing. The Radon decays into Polonium as it flows through the rock. Polonium is not inert, and forms negatively charged ions with the chemical properties of flouride and hydroxyl ions. The Granite, cooled and crystalline, is thus exposed to a constant supply of Polonium atoms which incorporate themselves chemically into the crystalline structure of the rock, and explode, forming the Polonium halos.

No gods involved. Another Creationist argument bites the dust.

thanks

------------------
Ditch Intel, GO with Winner

------------------
The spork does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.

------------------
There is no spoon.