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???

[Deck Guy 14]

I'm just glad to see some fresh blood here! I'm loving this thread, and am certain it will never end.

[Mike Williamson 198]

I never said I do not believe in a bible in any of my post here, I did say I don't have to go to a church to believe or pay to pray. ( another tounge lashing to me on that remark is coming, I can just feel it now)

Nahh, I can understand your feelings about that. I used to feel the same way. In some cases, I still do. I believe in biblical tithing and supporting the work of God here on earth. I find some TV ministries offensive in how they try to coerce money from their viewers. On the other hand, if you regularly benefit from a long distance ministry, such as a TV ministry, online ministry, etc, you ought to support it in some way. As far as tithing, that's between me and God. He's told me to return my tithe to Him. I do that in both money and time, to the local ministry of which I am a part. I also believe in financially supporting works that are not local, such as missionaries, etc. It is a priciple God has put into place, and He honors it. If you do your part, He will do his part, blessing you beyond what you gave. I know business men who don't even attend church who tithe, because they KNOW God honors it.

Correct me if I am wrong but there are those that believe the Old Testament is the right bible and there are those that believe the New Testament is the correct one, right or wrong?

If right then how do you explain why there are two correct Bibles?

Yes, there are those (mostly Jews) who believe what we call the Old Testament is God's word to His people. Then there are Christians, who believe that God didn't stop with the Old Testament, but also gave us the New Testament. It isn't two bibles, it is one bible made up of both Old Testament writings, and New Testament writings. It is just that Jews and some others reject the NT as God's word.

I will say that I believe if there is a God then ther is only one, not one per religion. Now that said explain Budda and other religions that believe in other then a God? Or would I be correct to assume they believe their God is the same one as yours but in a different way?

You are right, there is but one God. He is who He is...meaning He can't be the god of the Buddhists AND the God of the Christians, since those two contradict eachother.

[Celeste 341]

Can't there be both Creation and Evolution? No one has determined how long God's 7 days and 7 nights were. Science is hard to dispute so to not believe in some sort of evolution would be sort of silly. I also believe firmly and unquestionably in God - actually that belief is first and my belief in science is second. I also believe that some of the things that have evolved over the years, ie, humans killing & developing killing machines is the work of the devil. He also is around us providing ways for us to fail consistently.

Celeste

[racechaser 64]

Correct me if I am wrong but there are those that believe the Old Testament is the right bible and there are those that believe the New Testament is the correct one, right or wrong?

If right then how do you explain why there are two correct Bibles?

You are very correct. The only thing is the jews believe in the Old Testament.They believe every word like us.They were just too blind to see their own messiah come. You see it was all there in prophecy.The date of his death was predicted hundreds if not a thousand years beforehand.

Nonetheless they still believe in God as jehovah. The same as the God of the New testament.

Scott

[racechaser 64]

I also believe that some of the things that have evolved over the years, ie, humans killing & developing killing machines is the work of the devil.

Celeste

Just some food for thought Celeste, God is God of judgement and War. David was perhaps God's favorite king simply because he was a man after his heart.David couldn't build a temple for God because he had so much blood on his hands. But he loved David and helped him win every battle that God wanted fought.

Also when it was time to assemble the jews once again he helped them supernaturally defeat several countries all at one time.They actually could have taken all the land that formed the original plot of land.

But they defeated those countries with tanks, guns, bombs and other weapons of war. Now I know they could have defeated them with sticks and stones but they didn't have to. The same things that may be bad can also used to deliver God's will.

Scott

[Mike Williamson 198]

Can't there be both Creation and Evolution? No one has determined how long God's 7 days and 7 nights were. Science is hard to dispute so to not believe in some sort of evolution would be sort of silly.

Very true. There is clearly "evolution" at some level. It is adaptation. The way a bacteria becomes resistant to antibiotics, for example. Or the way an animal may develop a certain behavior or trait to better survive in a changing environment. Arguing against that is kinda silly, the evidence IS there.

The evolution that most of us creationists argue against is two-part. First, the concept that all life evolved from some single celled (or even smaller than that) organism. Scripture is clear that God created all these things as they are. He created monkeys to be monkeys, lions to be lions, etc. There's nothing to indicate He did otherwise. Second, the concept that man evolved from anything. The bible again is clear that God made Adam as a man. Now, you COULD argue that God used evolution to create Adam, and many HAVE arugued that. The problem with this is, it throws a HUGE wrench into the entire rest of the bible. What is the one problem God has with mankind, throughout scripture? Sin? Where does the bible teach that sin originated? From Adam, when he disobeyed God and ate of the tree of knowledge. If man evolved, certainly not just ONE man (Adam) evolved by himself. It would have been a gradual evolution over a long time involving MANY of whatever species man came from. Thus, if Adam was a result of that type of creation, and he sinned, it would not have affected all of mankind. The bible teaches that Adam's sin DID affect all of mankind. Every last one of us, through his bloodline. The ONLY way that would happen is if Adam were the father of all mankind...and that's not possible if mankind were a product of evolution.

I also believe firmly and unquestionably in God - actually that belief is first and my belief in science is second. I also believe that some of the things that have evolved over the years, ie, humans killing & developing killing machines is the work of the devil. He also is around us providing ways for us to fail consistently.

Celeste

Amen to that. And his greatest tool is to make people think he doesn't exist. He delights in seeing us fail, and he loves to whisper ideas to us, like maybe God created man through evolution. That means the bible is wrong. If the bible is wrong, we may as well discard it, since we can't trust it. And if there is no sin problem affecting all of mankind, then some or all of us don't even need Jesus...we're not sinners. We're not dead in sin.

For me, my trust is in God, as you say also. I think science is interesting, but in truth, we're just fumbling around in the dark trying to understand a tiny sliver of this world we live in, and we think we have it all figured out. In 100 years, if we're still here, I'm sure there will be many "discoveries" that discount many popular ideas and theories of today. And in 100 years, God's word will still remain, unwavering and unchanging. I'm not going to question God's word based on the theory of a falleable, sin-prone often-godless scientist. God said He created all this in its fulness, I beleive Him. It is what makes sense in light of His word, and for me, that is the final authority.

Hope all this makes sense. I'm certainly not as eloquent or as scientifically educated as some of these guys who like to write multi-page books, but I at least try to make sense for the most part.

[racechaser 64]

Science is hard to dispute so to not believe in some sort of evolution would be sort of silly.

Celeste

I think there is a misidentification between what I would call mutations and what is typically called evolution.I don't really think that fish in caves after 1000 breedings is really evolution as it is taught.It is simply a species gaining or losing traits that they could either benefit from or no longer need.

Scott

[racechaser 64]

No one has determined how long God's 7 days and 7 nights were.

Celeste

Seven days and seven nights are just as they are today. 24 hours. I am hesitant to dive to far into alternate theories about science and the Bible.

So far I have gotten no "intelluctually honest" (do those words have your skin crawling Phillip?)answers as to what part of the Bible vs. science has them hungup into doubting the Bible. Items such as fossils of dinosaurs, age of the earth being billions of years old but the bible saying 7000 are examples.

Let's just say I had same doubts till I studied and am now at peace with science and the Bible.In fact science to me is one the greatest proofs of my God. If carbon dating shows a rock is a billion years old, I'll praise God because that shows how long my Lord has been around.

Scott

[Celeste 341]

I like your way of thinking Scott :)

Celeste

[PLD 14]

How many times have I heard, I'm not a homosexual - it's only oral ***.

I've never heard that. I have heard "I have a headache", and "The kid's will be home any time" but never "I'm not a homosexual - it's only oral ***."

As Jerry Clower would have said; "Darn brother, I don't believe I would have told that..."

:lgsideway

[PLD 14]

The evolution that most of us creationists argue against is two-part. First, the concept that all life evolved from some single celled (or even smaller than that) organism.

It wouldn't be so confusing if everyone used the right words. What you are speaking of is called abiogenesis. It is theory about the origin of life.

based on the theory of a falleable, sin-prone often-godless scientist.

All scientists are "sin-prone" and "often godless"?!? You can no more prove that than you can prove that I don't have a Canadian nickel in my pocket. This is why I abandoned this thread. Grotesque generalizations and indictments of people you have never even heard of, never met, and certainly never read their research.

You guys can have this thread. Me and my satan worshiping, human flesh eating, perverted scientist friends are going to have some rituals at our lair and then go see if we can't find some cute little puppies to kill...

[Celeste 341]

Oh good grief......he didn't say all scientists were godless, he used the word often and if you can show me one human that is sinless or not sin-prone, well that would be something.

Celeste

[PLD 14]

Oh good grief......he didn't say all scientists were godless, he used the word often and if you can show me one human that is sinless or not sin-prone, well that would be something.

Good grief?!? The intent of Mike's comment was as clear as glass. To paint all scientists in a very negative light.

If we are all sin-prone, then what was the point of inserting "sin-prone" before scientists?

If we are all fallible, then what was the point of inserting "fallible" before scientists?

If he intended to address only a small portion of scientists that are godless, then why did he use "often" instead of "rarely" or "occasionally"? Note: Often(adv): frequently or in great quantities;

Editing the sentence to remove all the obvious (and hence rdedundant) faults of humans and correcting so as not to imply most or all scientists, we have this: "I'm not going to question God's word based on the theory of a scientist."

Ok, that makes sense to me. But that is not what was said, or meant...

[Jeff 232]

Once again not a bible reader. Maybe God was someting at the beginning of time & space just like/or evolution. Maybe God gave us the tools to develop or minds & bodies to become what ever we want even to become scientist.

I believe in evolution, because it makes sense to me. Maybe God started evolution I don't know and we've (mankind) taken it from there

My Father was a very great man, just a good hardworking, honest & loving man, son, then father and my mother is a good person, they both are & were my biggest supporter and never gave up on me (which most would have) . before and since my dad died I prayed to God. All I care about is if there is a God & Heaven my dads with God & in Heaven. I dont care about me. I have sinned many times , but I turned my life around, not because of god but because of family and the natural evolution of me. Maybe God helped, I just will never know until my death

I want to say God Bless You, All believers, non believers and the middle of the road people

[Mike Williamson 198]

I've never heard that. I have heard "I have a headache", and "The kid's will be home any time" but never "I'm not a homosexual - it's only oral ***."

As Jerry Clower would have said; "Darn brother, I don't believe I would have told that..."

:lgsideway

LOL!!!

[Mike Williamson 198]

All scientists are "sin-prone" and "often godless"?!? You can no more prove that than you can prove that I don't have a Canadian nickel in my pocket. This is why I abandoned this thread. Grotesque generalizations and indictments of people you have never even heard of, never met, and certainly never read their research.

Dude!!! Apparently you really don't know much of your bible. This was not a swing at scientists! This is a statement that could be said of ANYONE. We are ALL born in sin. We ALL have a sin-prone, God hating nature, even those of us who are in the process of salvation, who have had our transgressions forgiven and remitted. As far as godless, do you deny that a higher percentage of scientists are non-believers than in the general population? So yes, I believe scientists are often godless. Some aren't. Do YOU have any scientist or scientific-minded friends who are atheists? Sorry, they're godless. That doesn't mean they're not nice decent people by the world's standards, but they're still godless.

I didn't say I could prove anything. I was referring to why I accept my God's word over scientific theories espoused by men who don't have a clue who created what they're studying. That's all. I don't hate science, or scientists. I do hate the deception that some of their mistaken theories cause.

You guys can have this thread. Me and my satan worshiping, human flesh eating, perverted scientist friends are going to have some rituals at our lair and then go see if we can't find some cute little puppies to kill...

Oh calm down. You go from an analytical, very well spoken scientific type to an over-reacting over-emotional female in one post! (sorry Celeste and Beth)

[Mike Williamson 198]

Good grief?!? The intent of Mike's comment was as clear as glass. To paint all scientists in a very negative light.

If we are all sin-prone, then what was the point of inserting "sin-prone" before scientists?

If we are all fallible, then what was the point of inserting "fallible" before scientists?

If he intended to address only a small portion of scientists that are godless, then why did he use "often" instead of "rarely" or "occasionally"? Note: Often(adv): frequently or in great quantities;

Editing the sentence to remove all the obvious (and hence rdedundant) faults of humans and correcting so as not to imply most or all scientists, we have this: "I'm not going to question God's word based on the theory of a scientist."

Phillip, you really need to wipe the defensiveness off your glass(es). Your glass isn't clear at all!! My intent was NOT to paint anyone in a negative light, but rather to explain to Celeste why I accept God's word rather than theories espoused by people who aren't perfect. The reason I inserted those words was simple, to make a point. Not everyone accepts or even realizes we're all sin prone, falleable, godless men. Inserting those words explains WHY I choose not to question God over scientists.

I don't believe that it is a small portion of scientists who are godless. I realize the term "godless" sounds bad, and that wasn't my intent. I was simply saying that more oftne than not, a scientist will not be a believer.

Ok, that makes sense to me. But that is not what was said, or meant...

Phillip, you ARE smart, in some areas.... But not smart enough to figure out what I meant, apparently...you're way off base here.

[PLD 14]

Dude!!! Apparently you really don't know much of your bible. This was not a swing at scientists! This is a statement that could be said of ANYONE.

It could have been said about anyone, but it wasn't. You didn't say "based on the theory of a falleable, sin-prone men." You said scientists. And the inclusion of "often godless" makes it abundantly clear that you were not speaking about all men, but specifically about scientists. Clearly you have a prejudice against men of science based on your assumption that they are all athestic.

As far as godless, do you deny that a higher percentage of scientists are non-believers than in the general population?

I neither deny nor affirm it. And neither you or I have any valid data to support or refute such a claim. Which brings me back to my original point. There is no point debating a topic when your comments are peppered with claims that are nothing more than speculation.

Do YOU have any scientist or scientific-minded friends who are atheists?

Any?!? Of course I do. Now if you want to address the issue at hand: Are MANY? Are MOST of them? Do I find that they are OFTEN? As I stated before I have no credible data to support my notion, but I would say that the theistic/secular beliefs of my science oriented friends runs about average with my non-scientist friends.

Is your scientist friend an atheist?

I didn't say I could prove anything. I was referring to why I accept my God's word over scientific theories espoused by men who don't have a clue who created what they're studying.

Look back. I have never asked you to prove anything. Your faith is your faith. I have however asked you and others not to make unsubstantiated claims and to discuss the issue without resorting to needless rhetoric. Rhetoric such as: "men who don't have a clue who created what they're studying"

It really so hard say "men who are willing to base their lack of faith on evidence that I personally find to be insufficient."

I might also suggest that those who seek to enlighten others about their faith take a few minuted and read up on another theory. This one being a psychological theory called latitude of acceptance. For those who would rather have the cliff notes version:

non-persuasive: You godless heathens are too stupid to see the truth hanging right in front of your face. And you will burn in hell for your ignorance. Now, shut up and let me tell you the real truth..

less-persuasive: You are a nice person, but all you believe in is garbage and the people you look up to are godless heathens are too stupid to see the truth hanging right in front of their face.

more persuasive: Your ideas are interesting, but I have found that my faith in God has made my home and family more fulfilling, warm, and loving. If you are interested, I can tell you about my experiences.

Oh calm down. You go from an analytical, very well spoken scientific type to an over-reacting over-emotional female in one post! (sorry Celeste and Beth)

Well, some of it was sarcasm (I was actually chuckling as I typed), and some of it was frustration. I was was overdue for a good old-fashioned hissy fit.

[HotShot 34]

before and since my dad died I prayed to God. All I care about is if there is a God & Heaven my dads with God & in Heaven. I dont care about me. I have sinned many times , but I turned my life around, not because of god but because of family and the natural evolution of me. Maybe God helped, I just will never know until my death

I want to say God Bless You, All believers, non believers and the middle of the road people

Hey Jeff, I'm not trying to pick on you here but I think that I can make a great point on your comment above. There are others that have said this, yours is just the latest...

You guys say that you have prayed to God...or you pray or something like that. In Proverbs 28:9 the Bible says "He that turns away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination. If you are not born again, you are storing up wrath on the day of judgement guys. Jeff, you said that you guess you'll just find out when you die--You are exactly right. Hebrews 9:27 says "And as it is appointed to men once to die, but after this the judgment...

Jeff and others..DO NOT WAIT UNTIL THIS DAY it will be too late guys!!!

Let me ask you this "have you ever told a lie?" The Bible says that "all liars will have their part in the lake of fire". Listen to your conscience, God said that he wrote his (moral) law on everybodies hearts, that's how we know wrong from right. That's how we know that it's not right to lie, or steal, or kill...Please guys I'm pleading with you, look at your life, look at the Ten Commandments- That's Gods standard of good.

Yes, I think everybody on here knows about Jesus and him dying for our sins, but do you really understand what happend, why it had to happen?

Don't come to Jesus because "somethings missing in your life" or "you'll really never know happiness until you know him" or "He wants to bless you beyond anything you can imagine".....those are some of the STUPID reasons that I hear just about everyday (if I can stomach listening to it) on TBN or some of these other so called Christian channels or stations.

The only reason that I'm posting this is because I do care about your guys' eternal destiny. I would venture to say that the other Christians are doing the same thing for the same reason...we care about you. Judgement Day is coming and you will be judged for your sins---your destiny is Hell!!! Unless you Repent and Trust in the Savior, Jesus Christ....Nothing you can do, all the good works in the world doesn't relieve your debt to a holy God. It's like filthy rags in the site of God.

Let me also say, instead of cutting off your head if you don't convert (like Muslims teach), We (as Christians) plead with you, beg you even---think of your sins, think of the Saviour hanging on the cross taking the punishment that YOU deserve....

[Mike Williamson 198]

It could have been said about anyone, but it wasn't. You didn't say "based on the theory of a falleable, sin-prone men." You said scientists. And the inclusion of "often godless" makes it abundantly clear that you were not speaking about all men, but specifically about scientists. Clearly you have a prejudice against men of science based on your assumption that they are all athestic.

(originially quoted) I understand clearly what you are saying about original sin. But you did not say "based on the theory of a falleable, sin-prone often-godless man." Conscious of not, it was specifically to pigeonhole scientists as undesirables or of lesser intellectual worth than less fallible, less sin-prone, God-ful creationists.

Phillip, please don't try to play psychiatrist with me. I have nothing against scientists...I have a very scientific and analytic mind myself, and have nothing but respect for men and women who dedicate their lives to seeking knowledge. My point was simply that, despite their intellect and knowledge, they are still fallen, sin-prone humans, who are as a group, largely atheistic. You mis-quote me when you say I assume "that they are all atheistic". I never said that. In fact, I was clear that I did not mean that...yet you persist in putting words in my mouth and trying to twist what I said to fit your perception of it, despite my attempts at "clarity".

I neither deny nor affirm it. And neither you or I have any valid data to support or refute such a claim. Which brings me back to my original point. There is no point debating a topic when your comments are peppered with claims that are nothing more than speculation.

Sorry, they're not speculation. Would you like weblinks to the surveys I've read regarding science and atheism? One survey, done by the magazine "nature" on 517 members of the National Academy of the Sciences showed that of respondents (about 1/2 responded), 93% were either atheists (72.2%) or expressed doubt or agnosticism (20.8%). This was in 1997, and was a repeat of a study done 80 years prior, and showed a vast decline in the number of scientists surveyed who beleived in a personal God.

Here's another exerpt, from discovery.org, regarding this same survey.

Scientists tend to be much less religious than other Americans. About 40 percent of scientists, and only 7 percent of members of the National Academy of Sciences, said they believed in God, according to surveys published in the journal Nature in 1997 and 1998. Among the general public, polls show, more than 90 percent believe in God.

Yet another reason I have to believe as I do regarding the lack of spirituality among scientists in general is that you rarely, if EVER hear God mentioned in any scientific writings. Lots of theories about "maybe this and maybe that" but NEVER "maybe God". If there were that many God-believing scientists out there doing research and and looking for answers, I believe I'd see a bit more "maybe God" in the things I read. Certainly not solid evidence, but in my mind, circumstantial.

Any?!? Of course I do. Now if you want to address the issue at hand: Are MANY? Are MOST of them? Do I find that they are OFTEN? As I stated before I have no credible data to support my notion, but I would say that the theistic/secular beliefs of my science oriented friends runs about average with my non-scientist friends.

Is your scientist friend an atheist?

Of course the people I know who are involved with science are not atheists...99% of the people I associate with on a level where we discuss religion are like-minded people...we attend the same church, believe the same things. I don't run in scientific circles. Thus, I have no personal data to draw from, only what I've read of others who have done the research.

Look back. I have never asked you to prove anything. Your faith is your faith. I have however asked you and others not to make unsubstantiated claims and to discuss the issue without resorting to needless rhetoric. Rhetoric such as: "men who don't have a clue who created what they're studying"

Phillip, I wasn't even talking to you when I made those statements. I was answering Celeste's question, and explaining WHY I believe God's word. If that's rhetoric to you, sorry you see it that way.

It really so hard say "men who are willing to base their lack of faith on evidence that I personally find to be insufficient."

Well, the next time you have a statement to make about why you take God's word as true rather than certain theories of science, feel free to use that language. Sounds good to me. That was not, however, what I chose to say, and for some reason, you are having a time reading a lot more into what I chose to say than was intended.

I might also suggest that those who seek to enlighten others about their faith take a few minuted and read up on another theory. This one being a psychological theory called latitude of acceptance. For those who would rather have the cliff notes version:

non-persuasive: You godless heathens are too stupid to see the truth hanging right in front of your face. And you will burn in hell for your ignorance. Now, shut up and let me tell you the real truth..

less-persuasive: You are a nice person, but all you believe in is garbage and the people you look up to are godless heathens are too stupid to see the truth hanging right in front of their face.

more persuasive: Your ideas are interesting, but I have found that my faith in God has made my home and family more fulfilling, warm, and loving. If you are interested, I can tell you about my experiences.

Were I speaking to a scientist about his theories, I may very well have used your "more persuasive" statement or something similar. However, that's not what I was doing.

Well, some of it was sarcasm (I was actually chuckling as I typed), and some of it was frustration. I was was overdue for a good old-fashioned hissy fit.

Glad you were able to get that out of your system.

[PLD 14]

Sorry, they're not speculation. <...> Here's another exerpt, from discovery.org, regarding this same survey.

Scientists tend to be much less religious than other Americans. About 40 percent of scientists, and only 7 percent of members of the National Academy of Sciences, said they believed in God, according to surveys published in the journal Nature in 1997 and 1998. Among the general public, polls show, more than 90 percent believe in God.

Excellent research. I concede to your knowledge of the subject. Yes, I would be interested in the links for my own person edification. I will make comment, albiet relatively minor. The discrepancy between the "scientists" and the "members" is so large as to raise questions about the sample size and grouping of the participants. I would hazard a guess (WAG) that the membership of the NAS is far more liberal than the scientist population at large.

Yet another reason I have to believe as I do regarding the lack of spirituality among scientists in general is that you rarely, if EVER hear God mentioned in any scientific writings.

Based on your readings, that is quite probably true. But, it doesn't explain the 40% (or 7%). Their silence is understandable. Science is about repeatable, testable, provable/disproveable hypothesises. Since God is neither testable or repeatable in any objective way he garners little press in scientific literature.

Phillip, I wasn't even talking to you when I made those statements. I was answering Celeste's question, and explaining WHY I believe God's word. If that's rhetoric to you, sorry you see it that way.

And I was explaining why you don't get a more responsive audience (myself included) when you speak on matters of faith. Most Christians (you included) elect to use languange that falls solidly into the "less-responsive" category. If your goal is to educate the ignorant about your faith and Christ, you are working against yourself and the cause.

Well, the next time you have a statement to make about why you take God's word as true rather than certain theories of science, feel free to use that language. Sounds good to me. That was not, however, what I chose to say

What I don't understand is why you are so surprised when someone takes umbrage to your confrontational tone. If you had kept within the bounds of polite discourse, you would have never heard a peep about your post.

Were I speaking to a scientist about his theories, I may very well have used your "more persuasive" statement or something similar. However, that's not what I was doing.

Actually, I wasn't speaking about a specific conversation between you and another party. I was offering opinion and advice concerning your daily witness to others (conscious and unconscious). Even though the posting may have died down to 2-3 posters, there are many ears tuned into this dicsussion. And when you shift into "less-persuasive" mode, many of them tune you (and your message) out.

[Paul B. 523]

The Stanley L Miller experiment in 1953

In 1953, a University of Chicago graduate student named Stanley Miller working in Harold Urey's lab flipped a switch sending electric discharges through a chamber containing a combination of methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water. The experiment yielded organic compounds including some amino acids, the building blocks of life, and catapulted a field of study known as exobiology.

The amino acids produced in Miller's experiment are 50/50 left and right handed, those in living molecules are all left handed. Miller also says that organisms with right handed amino acids would be just as viable, although you could not combine left and right handed amino acids in a single organism, but you could have left or right handed organisms. However in DNA and RNA the molecules are right handed.

Life requires homochiral polymers (all the same ‘handedness’)—proteins have only ‘left-handed’ amino acids, while DNA and RNA have only ‘right-handed’ sugars. Miller experiments produce racemates—equal mixtures of left and right handed molecules. A small fraction of wrong handed molecules terminates RNA replication, shortens polypeptides, and ruins enzymes.

[Paul B. 523]

If we received a single intelligent signal containing information from space then we would conclude that there is intelligent life out there.

Would it not benefit evolutionists to reveal alien existence?

Is the alien cover-up on earth a conspiracy by creationists?

[Paul B. 523]

We seem to take the approach of: "Can't see the trees for the forest."

If we look at Genesis 1 & 2 in the Bible (New International Version for one) - On the surface, the two seem to contradict each other. In 1 God said "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly...let the land create living creatures..." And it was so. God made the wild animals each according to its kind." And it was so.

After the animals were created it says "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over..." In Genesis 2 God created man first, then He said "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." All the animals were brought to the man, none were suitable as helpers and after that is when God made woman from man's rib. In one God is creating mainly by speaking; the other has God forming Adam from dust and breathing life into him. In one God creates animals, trees and vegetation before creating Adam. In the other God creates animals for Adam as companion and to rule over. Does the inconsistancy bother me? It did at one time but now I look at it as two accounts of a story or two sides of a coin.

Either account would lead to misinterpretations if the other is excluded from consideration. For instance, one account stresses God's transcendence, while the other stresses God's immanence. One shows God's sovereignty as creation takes place in highly ordered and structured time, while the other focuses on God's providence, with things being created in response to needs (man to till the ground, woman as a helper for man). One stresses how humanity is created in God's image with dominion over the earth, while the other stresses that we came from dust and have a duty to take care of the world. By considering both together we find balance.

(The description of God creating man from dust certainly leaves the door open for evolutionary or abiogenesis theories with of course, the inclusion of intelligent design.)

I think it's more important for us to know that we are formed by God and cared for by God than to know how exactly he does this. I think God revealed these things the way he does in Genesis 2 for the same reason he describes Israel in Ezekiel.

When God speaks of creation in 6 days, resting on the 7th, I don't take that literally. I view it two fold: One, it's an accounting that He created all things around us and two, as a lesson which says: I created the heaveans and earth, all vegetation, animals and humans (the days may be 24 hour days but most likely were not). I worked 6 days and rested on the 7th. Humans you need to do the same, you can't work 7 days a week because it can kill you. Work hard for 6 and rest on the 7th. In the same story he also asks us to think about Him on at least the 7th day as He is our creator. God is asking to have a relationship with each and every one of us.

I believe Adam and Eve are far more than individuals. God places them in a paradise and provides for all their needs. Adam and Eve's actions allegorically correspond to the actions of humanity toward God.

The serpent is not just a literal serpent: it represents temptation, selfishness, pride, and ultimately sin. Similarly, the trees are not literal trees. The tree of life represents God's sustaining, life-giving power, while the tree of the knowledge of good and evil represents the knowledge of God.

I believe Adam and Eve, represent humanity, disobey God by grasping for this knowledge. As a result, they gain some knowledge, but in the process lose their innocence. Their communion with God is broken. God then confronts Adam and Eve, and reveals the consequences of their actions. They are banished from their paradise, no longer having access to the tree of life (God's special sustaining power). Life will be hard as they move from gathering food in the garden to becoming hardworking farmers that have to constantly tend the garden by plowing, watering, (possibly even pulling weeds). Women will have increased pain in childbirth, a natural result of constricted hips from upright posture. Apes, like most mammals, can have even breech births without complications. Human birth is fraught with dangers and pain.

[Paul B. 523]

Phillip,

In general (without having to resort to a Forest Gump on meth imitation), what are your thoughts on Evidence for a Young Earth by Dr, Russell Humphreys. (He lists some 33 resources for his summary - many of the scientific background.)

Do you find any of the arguments legitimate?

Or do you completely dismiss it/them due to his association w/AiG.

Also, you've managed to dance around and have avoided answering the question of what exactly YOU believe in. Are you ever going to reveal your deep secrets or will you continue to keep blaming your avoiDANCE on me?

Would it help if I remove myself as the liability? I could make this my last post on the subject if that's what it would take for you to reveal your full beliefs to one and all. After all, there may be a chance (be it so slight) that someone could help with whatever you are struggling with. This could be God's way of reaching out to you.

If you recall the story about "the man in the flood".

He believed in God and while the flood waters were rising, he kept telling folks that he knows God will save him. A boat comes by and he turns them away - God will, rescue me. He says the same when a helicopter comes by and when later a man on a raft. He ends up drowning. Upon his meeting with God, he asks God why he let him down - why did you not rescue me?

...and God says: I sent you a raft, a boat and a helicopter, did you not see them?