Page 8 of 34 FirstFirst ... 34567891011121318 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 675
  1. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #141  
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicman247 View Post
    My own belief is that Adam was created first. God saw he was lonely, so he made Eve. No other humans were created.

    I know where this is going, so I'll go ahead and explain. I will also say that most of what I am about to say is my own opinion, based only on what I can infer from the scripture.

    Yes, in those days brothers and sisters married. When God created Adam and Eve, they were perfect. Thier DNA was perfect. When they sinned, immediately they begin to degenrate. Their children's DNA was less perfect than their own, but was still perfect enough to not have birth defects as an effect of inbreeding.
    So God's plan for procreating on Earth was via incest. Interesting. But isn't there scripture which describes incest as sin?

    Adam & Eve were created 'perfect'? Physically and Mentally (whole body)?
  2. #142  
    Quote Originally Posted by captaindan View Post
    I by no means am an expert on anything, except my boats and some fishing, but I do read the bible and I do go to bible studys and I would love to know what these discrepancies are. I am not trying to be a smarty or anything I would just like to know what you think. I for one think it is kind of amazing, what are there 12 chapters in the new testiment and they all tell the same story. All written by different people. Some in different languages.
    I do apoligize for my spelling.
    http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...ther_of_joseph

    Surur
  3. #143  
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicman247 View Post
    So the "Big Bang" can be reproduced and/or replicated?
    Assuming you are talking about evolution, the big bang has nothing to do with evolution. As I said in a previous post, the origin of life, and the evolution of life, are completely different.

    Single celled organisms evolving into multi-celled organisms can be reproduced and/or replicated?
    A monkey turning into a human can be reproduced and/or replicated?
    The THEORY on how those changes occur can be tested, explored, and replicated in the lab.

    Of course, even if these could be reproduced and/or replicated by man, it would prove that an outside intelligence is needed to produce these kinds of changes.
    That is a false logic. Using the logic, since a farmer is required to grow corn, corn can't grow naturally. Just because something CAN be replicated or reproduced by man doesn't mean it HAS to have been guided by intelligence.

    Chris
  4. #144  
    Quote Originally Posted by captaindan View Post
    I by no means am an expert on anything, except my boats and some fishing, but I do read the bible and I do go to bible studys and I would love to know what these discrepancies are. I am not trying to be a smarty or anything I would just like to know what you think. I for one think it is kind of amazing, what are there 12 chapters in the new testiment and they all tell the same story. All written by different people. Some in different languages.
    I do apoligize for my spelling.
    Thanks for the question Captaindan and for the opportunity afforded to engage in a respectful dialogue about this. There a number of sites in the Web that go "ad nauseum" about these, some amount to hair splitting if you ask me.

    The following observations were taken from the book of Genesis (AKJV) Chapter 1 and 2:

    GEN 1:20-25 - in describing the creation it details the creation of all earth creatures on the sixth day.

    GEN 1:26-27 - then describes the creation of a man and a woman during the same day.

    Later...

    GEN 2:19 - again see the creation of every animal and bird from the ground for Adam to name.

    GEN 2:22 - describes the creation of Eve out of Adam's rib.

    What seems to me as a contradiction, if this were to be taken as a literal truth, is that the all the animals and both, man and woman, were created in the sixth day, however after the seventh day (chapter 2) the animals are created once again for Adam to name followed by the second creation of the first(?) woman. Several other contradictory passages have been described, I am just using these as an example.

    Likely the compilation of stories written by different authors dealing with the same subject account for these and other contradictions contained in the Bible.

    Are these contradictions important from the theological point of view, probably not; my argument being, the veracity of several Bible stories may come into question, the moral message however is timeless.
    Last edited by TreoNewt; 04/25/2007 at 07:48 PM.
    Have a great one...Doc D.

    Phillips VELO > Palm III > Palm V > Palm 505m > Treo 180 > Treo 300 > Samsung i500 > Treo 700p > HTC 6800 > Treo 800w > Treo Pro > Palm Pre > HTC Evo
  5. #145  
    I thank you for pointing them out. I am going tolook into these. I will look at this chapter again. and again.
  6. #146  
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicman247 View Post
    ...Of course, even if these could be reproduced and/or replicated by man, it would prove that an outside intelligence is needed to produce these kinds of changes.
    Intersting point, I believe this is one of the main arguments behind the Theory of Intelligent Design.

    Even if we accept this premise as true, logic does not follow that the intelligent creator is necessarily a god.

    Furthermore, proponents of this Theory suggests that complex organisms are unlikely to evolve spontaneously, that is without external intervention (intelligent designer).

    If we come to accept this as fact, then the question becomes who created God, he is an entity of infinite complexity therefore impossible to have come upon without the intervention of an intelligent designer.
    Have a great one...Doc D.

    Phillips VELO > Palm III > Palm V > Palm 505m > Treo 180 > Treo 300 > Samsung i500 > Treo 700p > HTC 6800 > Treo 800w > Treo Pro > Palm Pre > HTC Evo
  7. #147  
    Quote Originally Posted by captaindan View Post
    I thank you for pointing them out. I am going tolook into these. I will look at this chapter again. and again.
    Is the Avatar your boat...that is cool...I am a pilot myself.
    Have a great one...Doc D.

    Phillips VELO > Palm III > Palm V > Palm 505m > Treo 180 > Treo 300 > Samsung i500 > Treo 700p > HTC 6800 > Treo 800w > Treo Pro > Palm Pre > HTC Evo
  8. #148  
    Quote Originally Posted by TreoNewt View Post
    Intersting point, I believe this is one of the main arguments behind the Theory of Intelligent Design.

    Even if we accept this premise as true, logic does not follow that the intelligent creator is necessarily a god.

    Furthermore, proponents of this Theory suggests that complex organisms are unlikely to evolve spontaneously, that is without external intervention (intelligent designer).

    If we come to accept this as fact, then the question becomes who created God, he is an entity of infinite complexity therefore impossible to have come upon without the intervention of an intelligent designer.

    Intelligent design, while similar, is different than literal creationism espoused in the Bible. Within evolution, there are many events that are, in theory, random (allele sorting, random mutations, etc). If you want to believe that some "designer" was controlling these events and they were not, in fact, random, that would still fit within the framework of evolution.

    Chris
  9. #149  
    Intelligent design, while similar, is different than literal creationism espoused in the Bible.
    Agreed.

    Within evolution, there are many events that are, in theory, random (allele sorting, random mutations, etc).
    Agreed.

    If you want to believe that some "designer" was controlling these events and they were not, in fact, random, that would still fit within the framework of evolution.
    Intelligent design is an intriguing theoretical construct sprung from the need to address a number of questions raised by the strict creationist dogma. I do not embrace its conclusions (i.e., our existance confirms God's) and that was the point I was trying to make.
    Have a great one...Doc D.

    Phillips VELO > Palm III > Palm V > Palm 505m > Treo 180 > Treo 300 > Samsung i500 > Treo 700p > HTC 6800 > Treo 800w > Treo Pro > Palm Pre > HTC Evo
  10. Dim-Ize's Avatar
    Posts
    242 Posts
    Global Posts
    710 Global Posts
    #150  
    In my opinion, most individuals accept what they are taught as a child and a young adult without truly seeking the truth for themselves. Then, as we grow older and hold firm to our beliefs, we defend them earnestly. Whatever they may be.

    Yet, we believe what we believe most often because it was presented to us - either from parents, teachers, text books, or church. So, most individuals accept this information as fact without searching for the answers themselves.

    I didn't have a firm foundation of my own beliefs until I spent time to seek the truth. I just accepted what I was taught as a child at face value.

    That meant that I had to read Dawkins, Gould, and other leading evolutionist theories and compare them to books from creationists like Hanegraaff and Strobel.

    Then I compared all information to the Bible.

    After personally seeking the answers to my own questions - I can honestly say that it baffles me how anyone who truly seeks to find these answers can deny the existence of an intelligent creator.

    I can see how someone would shake thier fist in defiance and refuse to believe out of choice - but, to put forth the effort and look at all the evidence - it is overwhelming that God created man in His own image. He had a plan for man before the foundations of the earth was laid.

    And one day, like it or not, we will all answer to Him.
  11. #151  
    Quote Originally Posted by Dim-Ize View Post
    After personally seeking the answers to my own questions - I can honestly say that it baffles me how anyone who truly seeks to find these answers can deny the existence of an intelligent creator.
    I have to say I agree with most of what you said above. And no, it does not baffle me that you reached the conclusions expressed in your post.

    I have engaged in my own search for the truth, this has lead me to a different conclusion than you. I found no need to embrace the believe in a supreme being to provide me with purpose, justify or explain my existance.

    You obviously believe different and to me that is fine, I respect your believe and will defend your right to freely exercise it so.
    Have a great one...Doc D.

    Phillips VELO > Palm III > Palm V > Palm 505m > Treo 180 > Treo 300 > Samsung i500 > Treo 700p > HTC 6800 > Treo 800w > Treo Pro > Palm Pre > HTC Evo
  12. #152  
    Quote Originally Posted by Dim-Ize View Post
    In my opinion, most individuals accept what they are taught as a child and a young adult without truly seeking the truth for themselves. Then, as we grow older and hold firm to our beliefs, we defend them earnestly. Whatever they may be.

    Yet, we believe what we believe most often because it was presented to us - either from parents, teachers, text books, or church. So, most individuals accept this information as fact without searching for the answers themselves.

    I didn't have a firm foundation of my own beliefs until I spent time to seek the truth. I just accepted what I was taught as a child at face value.

    That meant that I had to read Dawkins, Gould, and other leading evolutionist theories and compare them to books from creationists like Hanegraaff and Strobel.

    Then I compared all information to the Bible.

    After personally seeking the answers to my own questions - I can honestly say that it baffles me how anyone who truly seeks to find these answers can deny the existence of an intelligent creator.

    I can see how someone would shake thier fist in defiance and refuse to believe out of choice - but, to put forth the effort and look at all the evidence - it is overwhelming that God created man in His own image. He had a plan for man before the foundations of the earth was laid.

    And one day, like it or not, we will all answer to Him.
    Are you a young earth creationist also? If not, here's and interesting test for you. Explain to Musicman247 why the Earth is older than 10 000 years.

    Surur
  13. #153  
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicman247 View Post
    According to our history book, the Bible (the first five books are also called the Torah in Israel), we can extrapolate the age of the earth by looking at the geneology written down in Genesis chapter 5. It gives us the geneology and ages of 11 generations from Adam to Noah. Those 11 generations comprise about 1,556 years. Many scientists claim that a major world catastrophe occured around 4,000 - 5,000 years ago. They do not call it the Biblical flood, they say that an asteroid hit, or some other event happened to begin an Ice Age. They will tell you that somehow the ocean currents got disrupted, eliminating the heat transmital in the ocean, causing an ice age. The Biblical flood would be an excellent cause for the ocean currents to stop moving. Thus 4k-5k + 1,556 = around 6.5k years.
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    "Many scientists claim that a major world catastrophe occured around 4,000 - 5,000 years ago"? "Many" in this case means 1 fringe scientist who cannot even publish in a peer-reviewed scientific journal in 10 million other scientists who can show tons of peer-reviewed evidence for earth being billions of years old. There is no scientific evidence for a worldwide catastrophe such as a worldwide flood a few thousand years back at all. So your belief that earth is 6,000-10,000 years old is based on inexistent credible evidence for a worldwide flood 4,000-5,000 years ago?

    I estimate that not more than 0.5 of Christians on earth believe earth to be only a few thousand years old (this belief seems to be restricted to a small group of US Christians. It is totally unheard of e.g. in Europe). What makes you think you are right and all the others wrong? Are you more intelligent or better trained in geology, archeology, cosmology, paleontology, or whatever?
    You still haven't answered these questions. You said that your belief that earth is a few thousand years old is based on the Bible. But that is not correct. According to what you wrote, it is based on 11 generations from Adam to Noah, comprising about 1,556 years (Bible) AND the claim that the flood took place a few thousand years back (scientific or rather pseudo-scientific claim). While the first part of the argument is based on the bible, the second clearly is not. Do you agree that the Bible does NOT say earth is a few thousand years old?
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  14. #154  
    Quote Originally Posted by TreoNewt View Post
    Intelligent design is an intriguing theoretical construct sprung from the need to address a number of questions raised by the strict creationist dogma. I do not embrace its conclusions (i.e., our existance confirms God's) and that was the point I was trying to make.

    Got it.

    Chris
  15. #155  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    One can never know everything, but one can infer some things pretty confidently, e.g. your future is fuzzy, but you KNOW you are going to die.

    Its only religion who claims (falsely) certainly.

    Surur

    clever but...

    There's a a Perfectly HuhUGE!!! difference between infering one's future and analysing one's past.
  16.    #156  
    To deny there is a God is to rid one's self of accountability.
  17. #157  
    1. On three sepearate occasions I sat in a hospital operating room and watched doctors cut open my wife's abdomen and womb and remove a child.

    2. For a period of approximately nine months prior to each of those occasions, I recall visiting doctors' offices where I received numerical, auditory and visual indicators of the development of the children who were removed from my wife's womb

    3. Regarding those occasions, I recall my wife and I engaging, approximately nine months prior to the occasions, in activity that lends itself to the initiation of the process that resulted in those children being removed from her womb

    4. I am aware of two occassions where my wife and I, having engaged in such activity, received numeric, auditory and visual evidence that the same process had been initiated, only to see the process terminate prematurely approximately 14 weeks later.

    5. Over the past 7.5, 4.5 and 2 years, respectively, my wife and I have provided food, clothing, shelter, information and affection to those children and observed their development. The children's appearances and behaviors are similar to my wife's and my own. Yet each is easily and obviously, uniquely identifiable, despite near identical appearances at birth (we have photographical evidence of those similarities).

    6. To date, neither my wife nor I, nor any doctors have identified any characateristics that would preclude either of the children from engaging in similar activity and experiencing similar outcomes.

    7. There are two women who as children received food, clothing, shelter, information and affection at the same time I did, at the same location as me, from the same people. Our appearances and behaviors are similar to those people, yet we are obviously, uniquely identifiable from those people and from each other. Based on conversations with those people, I am confident that I and the two women I mentioned resulted from the occurence of the process above, with the exception of our emergence coming through having an abdomen and womb cut open.

    8. My wife has one man with whom she received, as a child, food, clothing, shelter, information and affection at the same location, from the same people. She and he have similar appearances and behaviors as those people, yet are obviously, uniquely identifable from those people and from each other. Based on conversations with my wife and with those people, I am confident she and and the man resulted from the occurence of the process above, including emergence through having an abdomen and womb cut open.

    9. I am aware of at least one women in my extended family who, despite resulting from the occurence of the process above, and despite having physical and behavioral characteristics similar to the people who provided food, clothing, shelter, information and affection for her, lacked the physical capability of sustaining the process described above.


    Based on my observations of the microcosm of the world that is my immediate family, I find it reasonable to conclude that:

    a. living beings likely have predecessors
    b. living beings tend to be similar with their predecessors
    c. despite these similarities, living beings tend to be uniquely distinguishable from their predecessors
    d. living beings tend to be able to reproduce in a manner similar to their predecessors
    e. it is possible for living beings to fail to develop fully
    f. it is possible for living beings to develop in a way that precludes reproduction

    I believe all these conclusions are compatible with the theory of Evolution. There are two components of the theory of Evolution that were not observable in my personal experience. The first is variation on statement 'f':

    I. it is possible for living beings to develop in a way that precludes reproduction with some, but not all of the beings similar to their predecessors

    The second is a variation of statement 'a':

    II. all living beings share one of three common predecessors


    I think these are the areas that skeptics have difficulty with. From my learning to date, largely from the participants in this forum and from resources recommended in this forum, I believe statements 'I' and "II" are reasonable conclusions based on application of logic and statistical probability. However, I have not seen a clear demonstration of observational evidence. That is not to say that the statements are therefore false. Rather, it is a potential gap in the body of data. I also believe that fossils that have been identified as "transitional" are so-designated based on the compatibility with the reasonable logical conclusion rather than based on undeniable evidence of predecession. Again, this does not say that the statemtns are therefor false.

    I think it would be helpful for someone to walk us through that area in particular.
  18. #158  
    Shopharim, all your statements are perfectly reasonable. What conclusion do you draw from them?

    Here's a beginner's text on reproductive isolation.

    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...rticle//evo_44


    A Google search will show many examples of reproductive isolation found in nature at present.
    http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...pulation&meta=

    Surur
    Last edited by surur; 04/26/2007 at 09:27 AM.
  19. #159  
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicman247 View Post
    To deny there is a God is to rid one's self of accountability.
    Interesting...lets see, I don't believe in gods, ferries, goblins, gremlins, witches/wizzards, ghosts, devils, angels...I know I'm forgetting a few more.

    Inspite of this I find myself accontable to my wife, children, clients, business partners, neighbors, government...and most importantly to myself.

    I honestly fail to see the validity of your statement.
    Have a great one...Doc D.

    Phillips VELO > Palm III > Palm V > Palm 505m > Treo 180 > Treo 300 > Samsung i500 > Treo 700p > HTC 6800 > Treo 800w > Treo Pro > Palm Pre > HTC Evo
  20. #160  
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicman247 View Post
    To deny there is a God is to rid one's self of accountability.
    Really? I've never been arrested. Never even got a speeding ticket. My kids are all taught to take responsibility for their actions. But I am agnostic - as in I am not a "practicing atheist but I have serious serious doubts about religion in general".

    Is it possible some people need religion to establish the accountability you speak of while others may be perfectly able to be "accountable" simply because of their upbringing?

    Talk about insensitive rhetoric.
Page 8 of 34 FirstFirst ... 34567891011121318 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions