Faith vs. Fact (Creation vs. Evolution)

[John T 744]

If you look at the news you will see that people put religion way up there. They Live by it and they will die for it. 9-11 for example.

Why do people have blind faith?? My Nephew who is very intelligent and somewhat religious attends Rutgers University. He went to an organize debate titled EVOLUTION v. CREATION. Evolution is more or less stating that we came from a cell and went from there. Creation is that God put us here(Adam and Eve) and we came from there.

The debate in a nut shell went like this....All the facts that the Evolution side put on the table the Creation side tried to tear it apart but the Creation side really couldn't put up any facts for themselves since there side is built on faith and hearsay(Bible which is past down thru men/women)

So I ask why do people put faith ahead of fact? Is it a character flaw that we as humans have?? Is it the guilt that is bread in us that if we don't believe in God we are terrible people and we will go staight to.......

In the shortest words possible since most of us can write a book about this ---Why do you think Faith does thru-out the Planet beat Fact most of the time when it comes to Religion???

[PLD 14]

By the way, it is interesting to note the many comments about the bible being perverted by human translation, interpretation and the like. Having done some serious research into this matter I would like to offer that there is abundant factual data the text of the Bible now remains virtually unchanged from the original writings, you just have to be willing to look, and accept that you won't be able to pick and choose what you want, based on the idea that the Book is somehow "flawed".

Then you would also agree that there are many words in the hebrew language which have no appropriate equivalent in english? And that a similar problem exists for each pair of languages through which it was subsequently translated?

Ignoring linguistic differences, what about the various canon and biblical texts that were not included in the "present "canon such as the gosples of st. thomas? What about the fact the the hebrew canon differs quite a bit from the present old testament?

[PLD 14]

Fact #1 Evolution runs contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics which describes the universe as a wound-up clock which is slowly winding down. (Do we agree so far?) Instead, evolution has all life being built up from the simple to the most complex.

Fact #2: A builder might expose brick, sand, nail, paint, wires, wood and other building materials to heat and energy of the sun and to the refreshing rains, but these objects would never by themselves unite and form a house! (Do you believe it could happen?)

Fact #3: Lets address the unlikely probability that a living cell would by random process be formed. (Put your hat on and get out your calculators because we are going for a ride.) All life consists of only left-handed protein molecule chains. The smallest living thing that could duplicates itself would require 239 of these protein molecules. What are the chances that the first protein molecule would form all their amino acids into left handed chains? (The minimum number of amino acids in a protein is 410.) But then, even if this occurred in one protein, it would have to be repeated again 238 times in the other protein molecules.

#1 - A pretty far fetched description of the 2nd law. The second law simply says that for our universe entropy increases. If you restrict it to a local area (which violates the law itself), then hot air ballons do not exist. Which, of course, we know they do.

#2 - With an infiinite number of builders, an infinite number of piles, and an infinte amount of time? Yes. Given one builder, one pile, and one lifetime? No.

#3 - What is the probability that a single group of chemicals would arrange themselves into a particular arrangement in a single try? nearly zero. The probability that trillions of groups, recombinding trillions of times, over billions of years could combine as indicated? 100%.

And if it formed something else totally different (a RH molecule) that supported life, would those "people" be fascinated at the probability that they were formed? Yes.

[Paul B. 523]

Conservation of matter is just a wee bit dated. Pre WWII in fact. Every heard that E=mc^2. That's the equation for the complete destruction of matters and it's conversion to energy in the process.

For a more updated view, google "First law of thermodynamics" or "conservation of energy"

First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. The total amount of energy and matter in the Universe remains constant, merely changing from one form to another. The First Law of Thermodynamics (Conservation) states that energy is always conserved, it cannot be created or destroyed. In essence, energy can be converted from one form into another.

[Paul B. 523]

"Fact #2: A builder might expose brick, sand, nail, paint, wires, wood and other building materials to heat and energy of the sun and to the refreshing rains, but these objects would never by themselves unite and form a house! (Do you believe it could happen?)

#2 - With an infiinite number of builders, an infinite number of piles, and an infinte amount of time? Yes. Given one builder, one pile, and one lifetime? No."

Fact #2 does not have builder in the equasion - it only says: a bunch of engine parts will never assemble themselves into an engine no matter how much time passes.

[Paul B. 523]

Fact #3: Lets address the unlikely probability that a living cell would by random process be formed. (Put your hat on and get out your calculators because we are going for a ride.) All life consists of only left-handed protein molecule chains. The smallest living thing that could duplicates itself would require 239 of these protein molecules. What are the chances that the first protein molecule would form all their amino acids into left handed chains? (The minimum number of amino acids in a protein is 410.) But then, even if this occurred in one protein, it would have to be repeated again 238 times in the other protein molecules.

#3 - What is the probability that a single group of chemicals would arrange themselves into a particular arrangement in a single try? nearly zero. The probability that trillions of groups, recombinding trillions of times, over billions of years could combine as indicated? 100%.

And if it formed something else totally different (a RH molecule) that supported life, would those "people" be fascinated at the probability that they were formed? Yes.

I guess the question is why aren't there any RH molecules in the formation that creates human life, since the odds of that happening would be much greater?

I would think highly unlikely that any statisticians that would reply; 100%.

Probabilities are normally stated in ratios - in this case one to the 10 power with - I think (70) 8-1/2" x 11" pages of zeros following.

Of course you can take any one item and say it could happen. (Could my car start by itself?) The point in the overall picture is not that one thing could happen, but that the odds are highly against so many different things coming to similar but different ends. People and animal life being one example.

It's which you would rather be: an optimist or a pessimist?

Our soul moves on after death; or We live one life - when it's over, it's over.

Why is it so much easier for people to believe that we accidentally evolved from a single cell? Why is it so hard to believe that people talk to GOD and GOD talks back? When I ask GOD for something and it happens is it easier to believe it happened by coincidence. If it happens many times is it still easier to believe in coincidence? When I ask for pain that I had in both my shoulder and elbow for months to stop and it diappears overnight, should I believe in coincidence? In the court of man's law even a few coincidences are considered circumstential evidence which can convict.

I hate to say this, ...but if you want to over simplify it: Which has a potential for greater loss - believing or NOT believing (in GOD)?

[Guest Danebob]

WOW! what a post!

[Deck Guy 14]

you seem to be dabbling in demonic activity. I could be totally not getting what you are saying and I'm sorry if I am, but if you're into the whole meditation, new age, hindu , yoga kinda stuff...

Mike...as I understand it, Christianity's objection to meditation is that it is about not looking outside yourself, rather than prayer to God. Is that correct?

Meditation is not prayer in any way, and one does not need to be a Buddhist to know the benefits of meditation..sitting queitly and clearing your mind from the everyday conflicts and stresses. Is it that this time could be better spent in prayer?

[Paul B. 523]

When I first started in engineering, we had drafting tables we sat/stood behind and when you had to draw on the top of onion skin/paper/mylar, you had to stand, reach and bend over the table. 12 of us were in one large room and the room boss sat in the front. When he left the room, most often people would talk. When he stayed away long enough, the conversation had exhausted itself and he would find us all working. At those times, when he walked into the room from behind and find us hard at work, he would say: Ahhh, that's what I like to see - a..holes and elbows! My response was always quick - "I'm an elbow!" (Joke!!!)

Well, in this situation, I believe I was created by intelligent design, those that prefer to think they were created by accident are welcome to continue to think as such. I can't make people drink water, but I will try to lead them to it!

[PLD 14]

First Law of Thermodynamics - Energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. The total amount of energy and matter in the Universe remains constant, merely changing from one form to another. The First Law of Thermodynamics (Conservation) states that energy is always conserved, it cannot be created or destroyed. In essence, energy can be converted from one form into another.

A interesting intrepetation of conservation of energy that includes a nod to Einsteins thory of interchangeability of matter/energy. It was probably written for a high school physics class. However, the actual 1st law is written as ^U = Q - W. Notice no reference to matter (or mass)? Thus the quote properly re-written is:

The First Law of Thermodynamics (Conservation or Energy) states that energy is always conserved, it cannot be created or destroyed. In essence, energy can be converted from one form into another.

Which brings my back to my original point. Conservation of matter is a pre-nuclear age concept. It is still taught at the early high school level to explain basic chemistry UNTIL the student is prepared for conservation of energy and thermodynamics.

[PLD 14]

I guess the question is why aren't there any RH molecules in the formation that creates human life, since the odds of that happening would be much greater?

I not sure where you got that the odds of a RH molecule exceed that of a LH molecule. Certainly not anything that I have said.

I would think highly unlikely that any statisticians that would reply; 100%.

Probabilities are normally stated in ratios - in this case one to the 10 power with - I think (70) 8-1/2" x 11" pages of zeros following.

An honest statistician would have to. Because it happened. Whether or not those molecules came to together by divine providence, evolution, or random occurrence, the probability that it happened is 100%.

Of course you can take any one item and say it could happen. (Could my car start by itself?) The point in the overall picture is not that one thing could happen, but that the odds are highly against so many different things coming to similar but different ends. People and animal life being one example.

Yes, the odds of a random occurence are astronomical. But, so are the odds of winning the lottery, getting struck by lighting, or getting killed by a stingray. But it happens. And for those to who it happens, it often seems like divine providence given the odds.

Furthermore, evolution is not about random behavior. It's about millions of small deviations from a-z over extended periods of times. It's about the fact that only premutations that can live in the environment that exists survive, and others die. Hence, the next generation favors those who inherit positive traits, and disfavors those who do not.

It's which you would rather be: an optimist or a pessimist?

Our soul moves on after death; or We live one life - when it's over, it's over.

Your presumption is totally and completely flawed. You assume that one cannot believe in evolution and God simultaneously. That is not the case. I can, and I do.

I hate to say this, ...but if you want to over simplify it: Which has a potential for greater loss - believing or NOT believing (in GOD)?

Google 'Pascals gambit'

[PLD 14]

Well, in this situation, I believe I was created by intelligent design, those that prefer to think they were created by accident are welcome to continue to think as such.

Evolution and God and not mutually exclusive. Evolution and accident are.

But, I do find it interesting that in an intelligent debate on the subject, you insist on using negative terms to frame ideas that you disagree with. Evolution becomes "created by accident" and an evolutionist is a "pessimist". Similarly, creationism is "intelligent design" and a creationist is an "optimist". If I were to engage in similar discourse, I might use such adjectives as "silly", "fanciful", and "myth" or "legend". But I won't since I have more respect for both you and your opinions.

Furthermore, I also find it quite interesting that you find the need to define my faith for me. On several ocassions you have stated or implied that I do not believe in God. Why do you presume that my belief in evolution makes me a Godless heathen? You know nothing about me, or my faith.

[RyanH 14]

I have believed in evolution for a long time. I have also believed in God for an even longer time.

I'd like to believe that God rolled the dice and we are the result. Humans are an inquisitive bunch, so how convenient for us that everything works in matches our observations and theories. Here is an interesting note....

Cosmologists have longed proposed that the big bang was not a singular event. The laws of thermodynamics (as have been argued to the point of near exhaustion for this type of forum) suggest that as the kinetic and nuclear energies or our universe are converted to other forms, gravitational forces will take over and eventually, like a large cosmic spring, everything will come back together. The potential energy will be converted back to kinetic and as all the matter rushes back together (it will accelerate to the origin point of the big bang), things will heat up again and slam together over time into a "big crunch" and (theoretically, mind you), explode again. Now, here is the "interesting" note of which I spoke: scholars of biblical text in the originial Hebrew have claimed that the famous "In the beginning, God created...." can be more accurately translated as "In a beginning, we created..." If it was "a beginning" and not "the beginning," can't we argue (not completely sound, but close) that perhaps there has been or will be more than one universe like ours? A book I once read titled "Frozen Star" mentioned that if you were to exist very close to a high gravity source (like a black hole), you would experience things happening around you at amazing speeds. You would see life on earth snuffed out, the sun would die out, entire solar systems would be created and destroyed in what you would perceive as seconds, but those involved would perceive as millions of millenia. Time is a funny thing, and our perception of things like "before" and "after" really tend to skew our perceptions of things.

[Deck Guy 14]

I hate to say this, ...but if you want to over simplify it: Which has a potential for greater loss - believing or NOT believing (in GOD)?

Is choosing or deciding to believe the same as true belief?

If you have to say this to yourself, you have made an intellectual decision, not one of the heart. Can a four year old decide not to be afraid of the dark, or do they have to believe that there is nothing there to harm them?

[Paul B. 523]

I think you can make choices by deductive reasoning which then turns into true belief. (A child can believe in God and Santa until they have enough intellect to support or dispell their beliefs.)

Not all believers come to God based on blind faith - for some it takes a loss of a friend or family member; for some it comes about from reading the bible; for some it comes from deciding between creationism vs. evolution. Etc., etc., etc..

I also believe in evolution. However, I do not believe humans, animals and all living things evolved from a single. There are too many holes in human evolution (from single cell to todays form) - Darwin even admitted that it was only a theory and there are way too much missing facts to be accepted scientifically. But it is still thought in school as science next to all other facts that science presents and later changes to a different fact. How is it that we can accept that science can make mistakes but still it is presented as fact in schools? For many years and even in some museums, the had/have a body of one dinosaur with the head of a different one (because they found it next to each other, they ASSUMED it - AND after many years, some museums have still not changed their displays). What of the food pyramid - was it not turned upside down just recently? Why are things written in the Bible considered "myths" while books written as science considered "facts" when both were written by man. So why can you believe one and not the other? Were events in the Bible not proven by science? Science and other religions have acknowledged the existence of Jesus.

In case of human evolution:

Did we come from apes or monkeys and did we come from a single cell?

Which evolved first:

A male or a female, or by accident both a male and female evolved (simultaniously).

If a male evolved first, how did it recreate? Or are we now to assume that humans were a-sexual before evolving into male and female sexes?

One for the road: (As someone else also stated) Why have we not had other things evolve from apes - similar to humans but with leather skins, or furr like sheep or hoofs instead of toes? Could these not have evolved or survived as we did?

[PLD 14]

I skipped on this one last night because I was a bit sleepy. So, here we go:

The non trivial:

Bricks, sand, and connecting rods have no inherent properties that cause them to seek one another. Atoms do. In fact, all but a few are more stable in a molecular compound and hence more probable ot exist than not. If you don't believe it, just put some hydrogen and oxygen together and wait. Or add a spark and don't wait. Either way, they will form water without assistance.

Now onto the less simple. It has been proven that an formative (reducing) atmosphere with simple methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water will spontaneously form amino acids when subject to nothing more than time, heat, and electricity. And by time, I am speaking of weeks not millenia. Obviously since amino acids are the basic building blocks of proteins, the idea of a naturally synthensized protein chain resulting from the recombination ofnaturally occuring amino acids is not that far fetched.

It has also be proven that certain non-living chemical compositions will reproduce themselves automatically. Others will repeated absorb external compounds, decopose and use them to maintain their present state, and eject 'waste' materials. Both of these behaviors (self replication & metabolism) are fundamental to life, but yet are being exhibited by non-living matter. It is really that far fetched that over time amino acids, self replicating compounds, and metabolic processes merged to form single structure that better served the needs of the three independent processes? And that the structure that was formed was better equipped to survive as a result of the union, and hence became the predominant entity?

"Fact #2: A builder might expose brick, sand, nail, paint, wires, wood and other building materials to heat and energy of the sun and to the refreshing rains, but these objects would never by themselves unite and form a house! (Do you believe it could happen?)

#2 - With an infiinite number of builders, an infinite number of piles, and an infinte amount of time? Yes. Given one builder, one pile, and one lifetime? No."

Fact #2 does not have builder in the equasion - it only says: a bunch of engine parts will never assemble themselves into an engine no matter how much time passes.

[Paul B. 523]

I make no assumptions about you and your religion - I'm only discussing the creationism vs. evolution (from single cell theory).

I might use such adjectives as "silly", "fanciful", and "myth" or "legend". But I won't since I have more respect for both you and your opinions.

I believe you made a statement that implied: You can't believe the bible because man wrote it and that's how myths are generated.

I would think highly unlikely that any statisticians that would reply; 100%.

Probabilities are normally stated in ratios - in this case one to the 10 power with - I think (70) 8-1/2" x 11" pages of zeros following.

An honest statistician would have to. Because it happened. Whether or not those molecules came to together by divine providence, evolution, or random occurrence, the probability that it happened is 100%

Somehow things got twisted:

The original statement was not that it happened or not but what are the odds of it happening in nature by accident or by evolution. The statement then reads: odds are very much against it (70) pages of zeros following one to the 10th power.

I guess the question is why aren't there any RH molecules in the formation that creates human life, since the odds of that happening would be much greater?

I not sure where you got that the odds of a RH molecule exceed that of a LH molecule. Certainly not anything that I have said.

You have to read the original statement and put it into perspective: Within that formation, why are they all LH molecules vs. some LH and some RH.

Are not a mix of RH and LH more likely to happen by accident or evolution then all the same. Making the all LH circumstantial proof for smart design.

It's which you would rather be: an optimist or a pessimist?

Our soul moves on after death; or We live one life - when it's over, it's over.

Your presumption is totally and completely flawed. You assume that one cannot believe in evolution and God simultaneously. That is not the case. I can, and I do.

You can believe in anything you want, but how do you justify: God created human beings and then gave humans animals (for our pleasure, food, etc.) vs. believing that humans evolved from a single cell and from apes. These two beliefs definitely oppose each other - they do not exist side by side.

Ask: Where did the universe come from? Did it start as one atom? and How did it evolve from nothing or from one atom to a universe?

Science IS an evolution based on human knowledge / and a lot of assumptions: Recently they found that they did not destroy sub-atomic particles but that they were so small that they could not be detected until recent scientific technology was available.

Didn't they (scientists) also recently discover that light travels faster in a vacuum? A theory which they rejected for many moons. They now have the ability to measure. So science is not always correct, even in small matter, much less in backing evolution over creationism.

...Besides, who's theory was it that matter could not be created or destroyed - if scientists state that it's is no longer true how can I believe them. What will be the scientific theory in 20 years?

OK, so you can say God made adjustments when Jesus was here.

That adjustment was for our sake and not God's.

If God did not create humans and we evolved, then is God fibbing?

Is God taking credit for accidental evolution of a single cell into human form that can think and reason? Is God also taking the same credit for animals and all living things being God's creation vs. evolving?

Why are there so many different things that evolved from a single cell into DIFFERENT things at the same time when one nop longer needed to evolve since it survived? With the evolution theory does this not propose a dilemma?

I'll take God over man/science anyday!

[PLD 14]

I make no assumptions about you and your religion - I'm only discussing the creationism vs. evolution (from single cell theory).

Actually you have done so repeatedly and those assumptions are clearly evident in your writings:

* Optimist or pessimist.

* Eternal life or singular life.

* two beliefs definitely oppose each other - they do not exist side by side.

In your own words, it is a binary choice. Either I believe as you do (creationism), or I cannot have relationship with God. Since I have established that I am an evolutionist, you must therefore assume be to be Godless. Am I wrong?

I might use such adjectives as "silly", "fanciful", and "myth" or "legend". But I won't since I have more respect for both you and your opinions.

I believe you made a statement that implied: You can't believe the bible because man wrote it and that's how myths are generated.

It may have been said here, but I do not believe I said any such thing. I said that man has had control over the content of bible via transcription, the cannon (inclusion/exclusion), etc and that makes them subject to error and review. I also said that even if not once page has changed, the mere translation and re-translation makes it subject to linguistic error.

An honest statistician would have to. Because it happened. Whether or not those molecules came to together by divine providence, evolution, or random occurrence, the probability that it happened is 100%

Somehow things got twisted:

The original statement was not that it happened or not but what are the odds of it happening in nature by accident or by evolution. The statement then reads: odds are very much against it (70) pages of zeros following one to the 10th power.

No, they haven't gotten twisted at all. As an academic exercise, the odds of flipping a coin 1,000,000x and getting all heads are 1:1,000k. But, in the real world if it has just occurred the odds of it occurring are 100%.A alternately, to a lottery player the odds of winning are 1:43,000,000. But to a lottery winner, the odds of winning are 100%. The odds of winning AGAIN are 1:43,000,000, but now they are 100%. And to a lottery winner who has bested the odds, the victory is often seen as divine providence, and not random chance. We as humans are the winners of the cosmic lottery...

you have to read the original statement and put it into perspective: Within that formation, why are they all LH molecules vs. some LH and some RH.

Are not a mix of RH and LH more likely to happen by accident or evolution then all the same. Making the all LH circumstantial proof for smart design.

Your logic suffers from a flaw known as false dichotomy. Those being to assume that only two options exist, and since one can disprove A that subsequently proves B. You have completely ignored C, D, and E.

Aside from that, chemical compounds do not just randomly bond like a bucket full of marbles and glue. By their very structure, they must attach at specific angles and locations. Hence, they fold into very specific shapes. Because of this, the compounds that make up these proteins are bound by other molecules that bond in a specific curvature (fold).

Furthermore, assume that both are produced and apply natural selection. When biosynthesis began, the cells that incorporated LH proteins were more successful than those that adopted RH curves. Why? Who knows? Perhaps LH curves produce phenylalanine more readily than cartinine and because of the environment, the cell needed more phenylalanine.

In either case, you cannot assume that because some things are not ubiquitous that it supports intelligent design. If that is the case, the mere existence of dry land supports the ID theory since man cannot live under water.

You can believe in anything you want, but how do you justify: God created human beings and then gave humans animals (for our pleasure, food, etc.) vs. believing that humans evolved from a single cell and from apes. These two beliefs definitely oppose each other - they do not exist side by side.

Again, false dichotomy. How about God created and set into motion a system to create humans? Or God could care less about humans, but created a universe for his own amusement and humans resulted?

Did it ever occur to you that God created the earth specifically for worms and roaches and we were placed here as nothing more than food for them? And that our intelligence was given to us only to enhance our ability to kill each other, thus ensuring a continuing food supply?

There are a hundred different reasons why the belief in God and the belief in evolution are not diametrically opposed. It is only when you assume that man is the center of Gods world that it becomes a problem.

Science IS an evolution based on human knowledge / and a lot of assumptions: Recently they found that they did not destroy sub-atomic particles but that they were so small that they could not be detected until recent scientific technology was available.

I'm not sure where you got this from, but if you will do a little research on quantum mechanics you will find that not to be true at all. If you have a source, I'd like to see it.

Didn't they (scientists) also recently discover that light travels faster in a vacuum? A theory which they rejected for many moons. They now have the ability to measure. So science is not always correct, even in small matter, much less in backing evolution over creationism.

No. There is a theory concerning an energy vacuum (not an air vacuum) that has been produced on paper but not experimentally. At present, it is not even measurable even if it were reproducible.

No, science is not always correct. It is an attempt to explain the observable world based on what we know at the present. As that knowledge changes, so does scientific theory. And true science is always open to external scrutiny and introspection. The fact that science has been wrong on other issues does not discredit it on this one. Nor, does it lend credence to your argument. To assume that wither is to commit a logical error know as fallacy of relevance.

Example of fallacy of relevance: Your parents were wrong about silver solutions being good for you. Therefore, they must be wrong about drugs being bad for you. Hence, the drug dealer who tells you that crack is good for you must be right since his position opposes that of your parents.

...Besides, who's theory was it that matter could not be created or destroyed - if scientists state that it's is no longer true how can I believe them. What will be the scientific theory in 20 years?

Logical fallacy: Inconsistency of version. I said something before that conflicts with what I say now so therefore what I say now must be false also.

Furthermore, conservation of matter still holds true but only at a non-nuclear level. Hence, why it is taught in early high school, but not later education. Our information base has expanded. As it will again in 20 years. Why did I bring it up then? Because you referenced it with respect to 2nd law of thermodynamics which actually has nothing to do with conservation of matter.

If God did not create humans and we evolved, then is God fibbing?

False dichotomy: Either the bible is 100% literal as published by Random House © 2006 or God is a liar. Where is option C?

Is God taking credit for accidental evolution of a single cell into human form that can think and reason? Is God also taking the same credit for animals and all living things being God's creation vs. evolving?

Why are there so many different things that evolved from a single cell into DIFFERENT things at the same time when one nop longer needed to evolve since it survived? With the evolution theory does this not propose a dilemma?

Logical fallacy: Failure to State.

Even so, I will humor the last one. No, it does not present an evolutionary dilemma. Even the lowly cockroach continues to evolve. It develops better disease resistance, better resistance to pesticides, tolerance for ice ages, tolerance for global warning, etc. Those adaptations that serve to ensure its continued existence are propagated. Those that do not, die with weaker entities.

[racechaser 64]

Real life, personal experiences that are not explainable by any other factual means. Divine intervention on a personal level that means that you know, that you know , that you know that there is a LOVING God that cares for you and only wants the best for you and not to punish or destroy you.

Testimony: Clean and sober for 3 yrs because God did for me what I couldn't do for myself. Best life I, and my family, could have ever imagined!

I'm much like you. And I'm really glad I didn't have wade through Quantam physics to come to know what I know. Fortunately Jesus appreciates a child like faith. His imprint on my life was so simple to see I even saw it as a child.

I did however come to see it expressed through my adult life.

I also like the fact that everything I see in life is a testimony of his creation.

I don't know the difference between a rf an rh molecule or any of that other boring jibberish(boring to me anyway).

I do know God gives me all I need. He sometimes even gives me what I want.When i ask for healing he sometimes chooses to heal me, sometimes not. When he doesn't, I don't begin to doubt, his ability I question what he is trying to teach me. But he is still a healer.

I could keep my children in a padded room with nothing to hurt themselves on. But I don't. we live life, and when they fall or hurt themselves I'm there to love and comfort them. Life is about choices we make. When we make mistakes or bad things happen he's there to comfort us. Just like a loving parent. When we disobey, he may allow bad things to happen, or even cause them. This may allow ourselves to learn a lesson or bring us back to him.

Just an opinion from a humble believer.

Scott

[PLD 14]

Don't get me wrong. I am not arguing against the existence of God, the divinity of jesus Christ, or even the virtues of leading a faithful life. In fact, I've intentionally avoided bringing my own views into this dicussion to avoid having them color the debate. But I will say that many people who have already formed opinions about my religous view based on this thread would be quite be surprised to know the truth.

I simply believe that what I have experienced in my life does not concur with Genesis ch 1 & 2, and that electing to disbelieve Gen 1 & 2 does not make one a Godless heathen.

I'm much like you. And I'm really glad I didn't have wade through Quantam physics to come to know what I know. Fortunately Jesus appreciates a child like faith. His imprint on my life was so simple to see I even saw it as a child.

I did however come to see it expressed through my adult life.

I also like the fact that everything I see in life is a testimony of his creation.

Just an opinion from a humble believer.

Scott

[racechaser 64]

Never entered my mind that you may be a godless heathen. My response was not meant toward anyone in particular.

What part of Genesis throws you a loop in your belief system? fossils? age of earth? dinosaurs? Just curious.

Phillip do you believe in God and the divinity of Jesus? Not bashing, just curious since you mentioned it.

You know I don't think the age of the earth is something that should keep you away from the table. There are other theories about the timeline of Genesis. I do believe the KJV the truly inspired and infallible word of God. But there are translational variances as mentioned earlier in the Hebrew language and English.

One of those is the Pre Adamite theory of the Earth, which is a pretty compelling argument. I don't believe in evolution but I don't personally think the earth is only 7000 years old. Can it be? Yes. I believe God could have made everything in the blink of an eye and not had to take 7 days. My belief is based on the translation and what I believe makes sense. Not the inability of God's power.

I believe the Bible is literal.I believe that Old Testament people lived to be 700. I believe that Elijah never died and Enoch was taken up by God. I believe Mary was a virgin. I believe Noah was the only good man on earth and the WHOLE earth was flooded.

I have FAITH in it ALL!!!! I believe Jonah was swallowed by a whale, lived and was spit out three days later. If the Bible said Jonah swallowed a whale, I'd believe it based solely on what God has done in my life.

God is a good God, Jesus loves you, and faith can move a mountain!!!

Scott

[PLD 14]

One for the road: (As someone else also stated) Why have we not had other things evolve from apes - similar to humans but with leather skins, or furr like sheep or hoofs instead of toes? Could these not have evolved or survived as we did?

In fact, they do survive. As recessive gene mutations that occur infrequently. Google the following:

hypertrichosis

ectrodactyly

[PLD 14]

Never entered my mind that you may be a godless heathen. My response was not meant toward anyone in particular.

Didn't meant to imply that you did. But many feel precisely that way. And anyone or anything that challenges the word is a tool of satan.

What part of Genesis throws you a loop in your belief system? fossils? age of earth? dinosaurs? Just curious.

It's not as simple as fossils or dinosaurs or xyz. It is a conglomeration of volumes of evidence which I have good reason to believe is accurate based on personal experience. And while I cannot specifically say the evolutionary sequence of events was exactly ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ, I can certainly say that I can observe the pieces ???DE??HIJK??PQ??TUV?XYZ. I can also know that the last few dozen blanks we have filled in have certainly followed and alluded to a particular suspected sequence. Is is possible that the planet was wiped out and replaced by Adam and Eve in the missing period during UV_XYZ? Of course.

Phillip do you believe in God and the divinity of Jesus? Not bashing, just curious since you mentioned it.

I do. On both counts.

I do believe the KJV the truly inspired and infallible word of God. [...] I believe the Bible is literal.

I do not. Nor I do not believe that one must accept the bible as entirely truth, or dismiss it as entirely unreliable.

[YVPW 20]

When God the Son, Jesus was on Earth what did he read? What we know as the old Testament, if there was a flaw with how it was written about creation, don't you think that He being the Creator would have clarified the matter. If the Old Testament being written by men was so error filled wouldn't Jesus Christ God Himself have said so and fixed the problem, and not quoted it Himself. If you wanna know if this faith in Christ is real, I can tell you of many changed lives, but I can also tell you of many supernatural miracles, so many that it would take up pages on this website. There are 52 countries in the world where someone has been raised from the dead by the Power of Christ. And I'm not talking dead for 15 mins and the doctors bringing them back. I'm talking for hours and days and after laying hands on them they come alive. I know of a place right now, were there's been over 300 raised from the dead, some that had been dead for 3 days. And also at this place there had been almost every miracle happen there, that was recorded in the New Testament. My brother-in law has actually talked to people that have been raised from the dead. Miracles that are happening AIDS cured by the prayer of faith, cancer instantly gone, legs and arms growing out where there was once a stub, the blind see, deaf hear, people speaking in tongues and someone come in from another country that can speak and understand the language of the person speaking in a tongue and that person that's praying is ministering to the person that comes into the service, that came in unbelieving but now they get right with God. Demons cast out, people delivered from evil spirits in the name of Jesus, I'm talking being able to see the demons and they speak to you. There's nothing like being layed out in the Holy Spirit on the ground and unable to move while His Presence just bathes you and electrify's you, His Power is at times like electricity flowing through, I've been at services before and the Power hit me and it feel like I grabbed an electric fence and then the heat that flows like anointing oil over your body. And when I say God that is Jesus Christ, there is only one God. The problem with some people is they read so much of the worldly literature and philosophies that plant seeds of unbelief and psychology(which by the way is a religion itself) in them, then they try to read the Bible through the worlds eyes and that messes there whole theology up. You have to guard your heart from those things if you're gonna follow Christ. You need to the Holy Spirit to reveal his Word to you. Get alone with God in a room and pray for His Spirit to come in the room and change your heart and life surrender it all to Him, tell Him to fill you with the Holy Spirit, you'll never be the same, and after you're Baptized in the Spirit that Bible will come alive like it never has before, you will then start to understand it.

[PLD 14]

There are 52 countries in the world where someone has been raised from the dead by the Power of Christ. And I'm not talking dead for 15 mins and the doctors bringing them back. I'm talking for hours and days and after laying hands on them they come alive. I know of a place right now, were there's been over 300 raised from the dead, some that had been dead for 3 days.

Absolutely incredible! Why isn't CNN & Fox carrying the story?

[Paul B. 523]

How would someone believing in evolution explain which evolved first:

A male or a female, or by accident both a male and female evolved (simultaniously).

If a male evolved first, how did it recreate? Or are we now to assume that humans were a-sexual before evolving into male and female sexes?

"Most" evolutionists do not believe in God, and most believe in a single life.

"Most" people question something about the bible and our reason for being here on earth.

I do not think everything in the bible is stated literally.

The old testament had a lot of health and living related guidelines in it - where not to go to the bathroom, what foods to eat, the necessity for cleanliness - and a lot more.

I don't believe that God stood by to watch man evolve from a single cell.

The same as I do not believe that there is a 100% chance that man would have evolved from a single cell based on survival of the fittest and a series of accidents.

Humans grow stronger, taller, live longer - but I don't call that evolution.

What I call evolution is if we grew a third and a fourth arm - I sure could use one or two more most of the time.

They do have a way of measuring the speed of light and my original statement stands - I believe I posted on the subject here when the landmark event hit the news.

My other statement is also true about scientists being able to "see" smaller particles because of technology breakthroughs.

I believe also that the statement: "Matter can not be created or destroyed" is meant as: "In nature, matter..." Whether man can destroy matter or not is still a question since we can only see objects that are soooo small - what if the particles are even smaller, as we have discovered?