- This topic has 1,340 replies, 50 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (Not3in1 @ Nov. 23 2007,19:50) Thank you for your honest answer, Stu. Quote You can't disprove god. There could be a creator. If there is, you would have to conclude that his methods are not consistent with the Judeo-Christian god. There appears to be two choices available then:
A: There is a creator/god/God but not the one depicted in the Bible.
B: There is no creator.
Is this correct?
You have put it better than I did.As a non-believer, basing my judgement on the evidence of things “seen”, I add a probability to each option. Yes there could be some kind of creator, but it's extremely unlikely.
When considering the probability of no god (which equals 1-(the probability there is one)), the consideration has to include all gods ever proposed. Given what the Judeo-Christian bible claims, and especially the literal and divine-inspired interpretation that is the specialism of christianity, and considering what we know from our most dispassionate observations of the evidence around us, that particular god is one of the least likely.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Nov. 23 2007,18:17) Quote (david @ Nov. 23 2007,13:23) Quote (david @ Nov. 22 2007,09:05) Why evolution attracts people: 2 TIMOTHY 4:3-4
“For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the healthful teaching, but, in accord with their own desires, they will accumulate teachers for themselves to have their ears tickled; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, whereas they will be turned aside to false stories.”Although evolution if usually presented in scientific language, it is really a religious doctrine. It teaches a philosophy of life and an attitude toward God. Its beliefs are subtly attractive to mankind's selfish, independent tendencies. Many who believe in evolution say that they also believe in God.
However, they feel free to think of God as one who has not created things, does not intervene in man's affairs, and will not judge people. It is a creed that tickles people's ears.
Teachers of evolution are often motivated not by the facts, but by “their own desires,” perhaps a desire to be accepted by other scientists or the science community in which evolution is orthodox doctrine.There is no publication in the science holy books anywhere that explains how molecular evolution of any real biochemical system did occur. It is ALL BASED ON FAITH. Faith that there is no god, and that they are therefore not accountable for their actions.
Many well respected scientists just don't WANT their to be anything out there, beyond nature. The scientists are the gods of this world, (the “mighty ones,” the ones with the so called knowledge. But if it turns out they are wrong, then what happens to their position? Everyone knows how important position and prominence are. I believe that to be accepted by their peers, they must accept the orthodox doctrine of evolution–their holy grail, their “trinity doctrine.” If you do not accept this doctrine, you are not a true scientist, how could you be? So, what choice to any of them have, but to go on, perpetuating the idea of their faith, that there is evidence out there that molecular evolution happened, waiting to be found and understood, that their is a reason why the universe suddenly popped into being, and that those pictures of the horses with one extra toe really do prove evolution.The doctrine of evolution attracts many clergyman who want to appear wise. They are similar to those described in the apostle Paul's letter to the Christians in Rome:
ROMANS 1:19-22
“What may be known about God is manifest among them. . .His invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable; because, although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their unintelligent heart became darkened. Although asserting they were wise, they became foolish”The question, I suppose, is how can we avoid being deceived by false teachers?
First, I think it's important that we demand evidence.The Bible writer David wrote:
PSALM 139:14
“I shall laud you because in a fear-inspiring way I am wonderfully made.
Besides the amazing design of our own bodies, we can consider the mathematical precision and order of our universe. David wrote:
PSALM 19:1
“The heavens are declaring the glory of God; And of the work of his hands the expanse is telling.”People have been studying the heavens for thousands of years. Half a century ago, they finally figured out the Bible truth of Gen 1:1: The universe had a beginning.
One day, I'm confident science will again catch up with the what else that scripture says: God was the one responsible for that beginning.david
This will help with understanding Stuart. It's the system he's trapped in.
you are posting this above your own name (twice!). Would you sue me if I called you a liar? Do you have wealth that would make the countersuit worthwhile?Stuart
No, I would not sue you if you called me a liar. But I am not lying. And neither would a counter suit produce anything, unless you want to take on my debt for me.Evolution is a man-made fable to give men the power to believe something other than the truth. By breeding for example dogs, humans pick the trits they admire the most, and breed two of the same trait to reproduce more of that same trait.
Upon doing so, the more refined the breed, the more unhealthy it becomes. There are alo mental health issues associated with the “pure breeds.” More agressive, etc.
In cats, it is quite obvious that interbreeding makes more toes on the paw. Thiese extra toes are of no use to the cat and actually impede it's natural ability to capture it own prey.
Also humans can make a horse breed with an ass. The result is always an infertile “mule.”
The more pure the breed, the more unhealthy. If we could have been around millions of years like the evolutions believe, we would have breed ourselves to extinction, many years ago.
The earth IS about 6007 years old.
The Simaritains today are a group of people who have interbread for hundreds of years. Most of their children today are mentally retarded, and physically deformed.
Laurel, this is interesting.
Aren't we all a bunch of in-breeder's tho because we started from Adam and Eve?
Quote (david @ Nov. 24 2007,09:00) No, I would not sue you if you called me a liar. But I am not lying. And neither would a counter suit produce anything, unless you want to take on my debt for me.
Hmmmm……{sound of head exploding in double-negative logic paradox meltdown}…
Stuart
Quote (Laurel @ Nov. 24 2007,00:38) Evolution is a man-made fable to give men the power to believe something other than the truth. By breeding for example dogs, humans pick the trits they admire the most, and breed two of the same trait to reproduce more of that same trait. Upon doing so, the more refined the breed, the more unhealthy it becomes. There are alo mental health issues associated with the “pure breeds.” More agressive, etc.
In cats, it is quite obvious that interbreeding makes more toes on the paw. Thiese extra toes are of no use to the cat and actually impede it's natural ability to capture it own prey.
Also humans can make a horse breed with an ass. The result is always an infertile “mule.”
The more pure the breed, the more unhealthy. If we could have been around millions of years like the evolutions believe, we would have breed ourselves to extinction, many years ago.
The earth IS about 6007 years old.
But if you ONLY believe in what you find in the Genesis story then there was quite a bit of interbreeding going on there.Stu…..> here's one for your analogical mind, it old but none the less requires a answer,.> what came first the CHICKEN OR the EGG. seening it takes a chicken to make an egg and it takes a egg to make a chichen. Please give us an answer from your atheistic stand point. Did the premortial slim pit make a egg first and then from it came a chicken, please enlighten us with your proofs. If you don't have any, then why question others who have their proof in a creation by a master Creator. Certainly makes more sence then to believe in somthing that offers apsolutely no logical proof whatsoever, right Stu.
You would think by now secience could produce some kind of positive evidence don't you think, but no only speckulations and even more and more secientest are beginning to take an original Creator stand once they see how complicated things are, it leaves them with no other choice.
like the old saying where's the beef, Where's your proof Stu. At least we have simple logic that tells, but you have no proveable logic at all.
and if you do, produce it……………geneQuote (Gene Balthrop @ Nov. 25 2007,10:12) Stu…..> here's one for your analogical mind, it old but none the less requires a answer,.> what came first the CHICKEN OR the EGG. seening it takes a chicken to make an egg and it takes a egg to make a chichen. Please give us an answer from your atheistic stand point. Did the premortial slim pit make a egg first and then from it came a chicken, please enlighten us with your proofs. If you don't have any, then why question others who have their proof in a creation by a master Creator. Certainly makes more sence then to believe in somthing that offers apsolutely no logical proof whatsoever, right Stu. You would think by now secience could produce some kind of positive evidence don't you think, but no only speckulations and even more and more secientest are beginning to take an original Creator stand once they see how complicated things are, it leaves them with no other choice.
like the old saying where's the beef, Where's your proof Stu. At least we have simple logic that tells, but you have no proveable logic at all.
and if you do, produce it……………gene
Hi GeneRe chickens and eggs see my answers here:
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….7;st=30
The rest of you post is the argument from personal incredulity, which is pretty much the same as the argument from ignorance.
Cure your ignorance about science starting here (reading especially under the heading Scientific Method)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
and here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
Let me know when you are ready for more.
Stuart
Quote (Towshab @ Nov. 25 2007,01:35) Quote (Laurel @ Nov. 24 2007,00:38) Evolution is a man-made fable to give men the power to believe something other than the truth. By breeding for example dogs, humans pick the trits they admire the most, and breed two of the same trait to reproduce more of that same trait. Upon doing so, the more refined the breed, the more unhealthy it becomes. There are alo mental health issues associated with the “pure breeds.” More agressive, etc.
In cats, it is quite obvious that interbreeding makes more toes on the paw. Thiese extra toes are of no use to the cat and actually impede it's natural ability to capture it own prey.
Also humans can make a horse breed with an ass. The result is always an infertile “mule.”
The more pure the breed, the more unhealthy. If we could have been around millions of years like the evolutions believe, we would have breed ourselves to extinction, many years ago.
The earth IS about 6007 years old.
But if you ONLY believe in what you find in the Genesis story then there was quite a bit of interbreeding going on there.
Our DNA was pure at creation. There was no polution in the environment to damage the DNA. Food was more nutritious then as compared to now, more nitrients to protect the DNA and the water was pure.People and animals had a better chance for survival and health.
No junkfood either.
Proof is their longevity.
Even they had laws against sleeping with their parents.
Quote (Laurel @ Nov. 25 2007,16:37) Even they had laws against sleeping with their parents.
Not in the beginning they didn't. That didn't come until later.Quote (Not3in1 @ Nov. 25 2007,17:05) Quote (Laurel @ Nov. 25 2007,16:37) Even they had laws against sleeping with their parents.
Not in the beginning they didn't. That didn't come until later.
Yes, the myth of Noah is not very compatible with laws against sibling incest.Stuart
Quote (Laurel @ Nov. 25 2007,16:40) Pure DNA is much different than the selective (gene) trait purity that I mentioned earlier.
This is fictional biology. What idiot dreamed up this nonsense?Stuart
The Bible record does indicate that Cain married one of his sisters (Gen. 4:17; 5:4) and that Abram married his half sister. (Gen. 20:12) But later, in the Law given through Moses, such marriage unions were specifically forbidden. (Lev. 18:9, 11)
Today, marriage to a close relative results in a more-than-average probability that damaging hereditary factors will be passed on to their offspring.
God created Adam and Eve perfect and purposed that all humankind descend from them. (Gen. 1:28; 3:20) Obviously some marrying of close relatives, especially within the first few generations, would occur. Even after sin made its appearance, there was relatively little danger of marked deformities in the children during early generations, because the human race was much closer to the perfection that had been enjoyed by Adam and Eve. This is attested to by the longevity of people then. (See Genesis 5:3-8; 25:7.)
But about 2,500 years after Adam became a sinner, God prohibited incestuous marriage. This served to safeguard the offspring and it elevated the sexual morality of Jehovah’s servants above that of people around them who were then engaging in all manner of depraved practices.—See Leviticus 18:2-18.
Quote (david @ Nov. 26 2007,17:26) The Bible record does indicate that Cain married one of his sisters (Gen. 4:17; 5:4) I see no sister here. I see 'wife'. You seem to read more into scripture than scripture itself.
Quote and that Abram married his half sister. (Gen. 20:12) But later, in the Law given through Moses, such marriage unions were specifically forbidden. (Lev. 18:9, 11) And? We see the lust going on between Greg and Marsha but that doesn't make it cool.
Quote Today, marriage to a close relative results in a more-than-average probability that damaging hereditary factors will be passed on to their offspring. God created Adam and Eve perfect and purposed that all humankind descend from them. (Gen. 1:28; 3:20) Obviously some marrying of close relatives, especially within the first few generations, would occur. Even after sin made its appearance, there was relatively little danger of marked deformities in the children during early generations, because the human race was much closer to the perfection that had been enjoyed by Adam and Eve. This is attested to by the longevity of people then. (See Genesis 5:3-8; 25:7.)
But about 2,500 years after Adam became a sinner, God prohibited incestuous marriage. This served to safeguard the offspring and it elevated the sexual morality of Jehovah’s servants above that of people around them who were then engaging in all manner of depraved practices.—See Leviticus 18:2-18.
The rest is OK. Just.Quote I see no sister here. I see 'wife'. You seem to read more into scripture than scripture itself. You're right. It could have been a niece or some other descendant of the “sons and daughters” that the Bible says Adam had.
Quote (david @ Nov. 27 2007,13:02) Quote I see no sister here. I see 'wife'. You seem to read more into scripture than scripture itself. You're right. It could have been a niece or some other descendant of the “sons and daughters” that the Bible says Adam had.
what if cains wife was not a daughter of Adam? But of a different creation?I have heard Genesis 1 is the telling of the first creation of humans. (whom cains wife would have came from) And Genesis 2 is the telling of the “special” lineage of Adam.
Is their any truth to the Lilith myth of the Jews concerning Adams first wife?
Quote (Morningstar @ Nov. 27 2007,14:49) Is their any truth to the Lilith myth of the Jews concerning Adams first wife?
Since this is a thread about evolution and the (non-existence Theory of Divine) Creation, may I say just for the record that the creation myths you are discussing are not actually true, nor even possible.Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
