Creationism?

[littleCJelkton]

Mickiel;1347777 wrote: I consider this baseless, I have listed plenty of facts to support my premise, you are simply ignoring them.

Peace.


I consider this baseless, as the post this is in reference to is blatently "Contrary to what you might think".

[yaaarrrgg]

Mickiel;1347776 wrote: I do not accept the 6 day creation view, I think that is grossly in error. The days that God took to create this universe were thousands of years each, as he would consider a day, not how we consider a day. And God did design certain creatures to evolve, like butterflys, but those who he designed that way, will continue to evolve that way repeatedly, not stop and never evolve again.

Peace.


Isn't also possible then that a "day" could also be interpreted to mean a million years, or billion years? One may equally believe that God created man from the dust of the Earth, over a longer period of time.

[Mickiel]

yaaarrrgg;1347791 wrote: Isn't also possible then that a "day" could also be interpreted to mean a million years, or billion years? One may equally believe that God created man from the dust of the Earth, over a longer period of time.




Well yes, I agree with that possibility, it could have been a billion " Earth Years", as man measures time, but I think its obvious that they were not " 24 hour days", science has proved that in my view, and so has archaeology. We just really don't know, but they were " Days" as God considers days, not how man measures time. The bible has already stated that a thousand years is like a day to God, which I think means he considers time far differently than we do. He " Rested" on the 7th day. It then makes more sense to me that he did millions of years of work to " Take a rest." I don't see him taking a rest from 6 days of 24 man hours of work.

Peace.

[littleCJelkton]

So the sabbath day is a bunch of Bull, and we should all get a sabbath million years

[Mickiel]

littleCJelkton;1347813 wrote: So the sabbath day is a bunch of Bull, and we should all get a sabbath million years




The sabbath day is meaningless to me. Its old school, old law, its a new day. Old things have passed away.

Peace.

[littleCJelkton]

Mickiel;1347814 wrote: The sabbath day is meaningless to me. Its old school, old law, its a new day. Old things have passed away.

Peace.


Baby steps

[gmc]

YouTube - Eye2EyeIIV's Channel

YouTube - Eye2EyeIIV's Channel

Confused about creationism?



Laugh and the devil gets you. Or you are damned as a heretic, take your pick.

[Ahso!]

Mickiel;1347794 wrote: Well yes, I agree with that possibility, it could have been a billion " Earth Years", as man measures time, but I think its obvious that they were not " 24 hour days", science has proved that in my view, and so has archaeology. We just really don't know, but they were " Days" as God considers days, not how man measures time. The bible has already stated that a thousand years is like a day to God, which I think means he considers time far differently than we do. He " Rested" on the 7th day. It then makes more sense to me that he did millions of years of work to " Take a rest." I don't see him taking a rest from 6 days of 24 man hours of work.

Peace.Genesis 1 - verses 3-5 are pretty specific about the definition of one day. genesis1:3-5 wrote: 001:003 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

001:004 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the

light from the darkness.

001:005 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called

Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

[Mickiel]

[QUOTE=Ahso!;1347831]?

Now before you go making excuses, nowhere in Genesis does it state that during God's 6 creative days God made the sun and the moon.

QUOTE]





If you think that I make excuses, then go ask the christians your questions, and ask me no more.

Peace.

[freethinkingthuthseeker]

yaaarrrgg;1347525 wrote: Any creationists care to explain how if all people descended from Adam and Eve, we don't all look the same? There's an amazing amount of variation within the human species:

YouTube - Abigail & Brittany Hensel (Age 19)


hI,

It is all clearly explained in the Bible, unlike animals we are all unique individuals

Bless you

[yaaarrrgg]

freethinkingthuthseeker;1347869 wrote: hI,

It is all clearly explained in the Bible, unlike animals we are all unique individuals

Bless you


Shouldn't we all look like brothers and sisters?

How does being an individual allow two black-haired parents to have a blond-haired or red-headed child?

[freethinkingthuthseeker]

Snowfire;1347590 wrote: It very much scares me that there are people who are very selective in the science they wish to believe. I'm scared that there are people who think the world is only c6,000 old and that we walked with dinosaurs.I'm scared that people scoff at "magically crawled out of the sea" but are prepared to believe in the magical myth of "God created the world in 6 days". And presumably the other billion galaxies that we cant see with the naked eye. What did God do to amuse himself, for the infinity before he created the universe. You are not prepared to accept the Big Bang from your perceived nothingness but are willing to believe in a nothingness before God, as surely there has to be a beginning to everything

This thinking certainly does scare me


Greetings,

Firstly not all Creationists believe that the universe in 5-6 thousand years old but equally on ALL the big questions of life scientists are still debating. This unique world in this universe is amazing and awesome.

God is outside of time which is itself a spurious dimension in science, The big bang debate is far from settled, many scientists are creationists and I would like to ask you, WHO wrote the DNA code? The most awesome code that no human could have produced as a blueprint for all life on earth. Even today, could any computer develop a code to produce a non carbon based life form?

The belief that we with our abilities to imagine and create art, music, and so much more and to appreciate it is way beyond any animals potential.

I am not saying I do not believe in evolution within classes of animals - especially at the micro level - but we still await compelling evidence of divergent life forms coming from previously established different life forms and I will believe that we came from apes when Monkeys (who after all have been around at least as long as us) learn to drum

Bless you

[freethinkingthuthseeker]

koan;1347532 wrote: How the world was created:





I do hope your joking for your own sake, Check out Kingdom of the antichrist on you tube by wallid shoebat

Bless you

[freethinkingthuthseeker]

Ahso!;1347591 wrote: That's too bad, Mickey, life must be hard for you. I guess with the idea that you'll go to hell hanging over your head if you disagrees with the dogma of the religious right, you should be scared - they count on it having exactly that effect. I'm glad I'm not manipulated like that any longer (I was at one time, you know), I'm free now.

BTW, the fear comes across quite strongly in your posts, but you must have known that, since you wear it like a badge.


If you are truly free, why do you feel the need to get into debates with people who are creationists, are you dawkins in disguise?

As for living in fear, this shows a very poor spiritual understanding of a relationship with God. I have been an atheist for many years but now I feel freer than ever and so happy in life and so blessed. My life has been incredible for the last 5 years and yes miracles do occur.

You do not really need to do a great deal yourself to be saved and some people actually believe that the fire of hell and gnashing of teeth in hell is spiritually a great frustration that they will be without Love from God for a long long time.

Check out the documentary " to hell and back" on tvshack or tbn video archives

Bless you

[Ahso!]

Nobody said you came from monkeys, only that somewhere there is a common ancestor. You are part of a species that is a unique breed of monkey, however.

Secondly, nobody really cares whether or not you believe it. Your belief or non-belief changes nothing. What we're doing here is trading ideas and facts as they've been established to this point. Belief has got absolutely nothing to do with it. One person who recently backed out of the thread did so because he finally came to understand that. His beliefs got in his way.

[freethinkingthuthseeker]

littleCJelkton;1347635 wrote: Mickey should be more like this parrot




I wonder how old you are, are you alowed out alone yet or still only on walking rstraps?

[yaaarrrgg]

freethinkingthuthseeker;1347875 wrote: I will believe that we came from apes when Monkeys (who after all have been around at least as long as us) learn to drum




Monkey Drumming Suggests the Origin of Music | LiveScience

[freethinkingthuthseeker]

gmc;1347673 wrote: Have you ever been in a plane mickiel? Why does it stay in the air? Do you believe in the theory of flight, which is after all still just a THEORY rather like the theory of evolution. Where in the bible does it say mankind can fly?



So you don't believe then that god became christ, a human and a mortal then because it's not allowed? Pity then the poor catholic who is required to believe in transubstantiation, protestants hold to Consubstantiation but they are anthema anyway and so don't really matter in the great scheme of things but I don't want to go in to that. After you opine it is a load of cobblers and not worth arguing about what else is there to say?

Mankind didn't evolve in to a different species from apes, we still are apes. much the same way as a dalmation or a yorkshire terrier evolved from wolves. Unless you are going to argue they are different species. The offspring of a yorkshire terrier and a wolf would be fertile, if a bit surprising.

You don't offer reason, you can't, reason is the enemy of faith and the faithful have been trying to stamp out reason for centuries, you can't afford to think because you fear might come to the "wrong" concluscion about religion and find yourself losing your faith.



Let's assume for a moment that the religious are right and some supreme being went shazan and created everything. You are a plaything of god brought in to existence at a whim and will be snuffed out on a whim so you live your life in fear of upsetting god. An atheist doesn't believe in a supreme being as the creator of all things. That's it, there is no set of mysteries and beliefs you need to follow to be an atheist, no need to kill someone because they are the wrong kind of atheist. You do have to work out your own moral code because you are resposnsible for your own actions, no one will tell you a type of lifestyle is a sin or you should despise this or that person you take responsibility for yourself and your actions, no one will pat you on your head and say I forgive you because you passed some religious test. But at least you won't be living in fear all the time. You decide what makes you happy and gives you a fulfilling life not someone else.

The religious fear atheists because they are free while they are enslaved by their faith. I know from your post in another thread you won't bother reading this. But you're a miserable sod and I wish you could be happy. Try thinking about what you reading ratherv than just copy and paste.


Wow, you have such a jaundiced view of Living with God in your life I would not be surprised if you were raised as a non Charismatic Catholic.

Man does not fly, machines that were designed carry us!

You also show little evidence that you have read even one tenth of the Bible. How you can possible be a critic of a belief based upon a scant and no doubt superficial analysis of the little you have read.

As for being free from worries, isn't it mostly the secular world, who worry the most about crime, illnesses, drug dependancy, peadophilia, international slave trafficking, corruption in politics, wars, pollution, rape et al that have no real answers to these problems and never will?

There are still many mysteries in this world for science is still looking at all the big questions of life and there is far less when you know and understand the Bible

I have never felt so free and alive and free from worries about those things (although I still care about them) above.

It is not about tests and I am still responsible for my own actions.

Where do atheists get thier moral code from? Hello its stright from the Bible in every country to a greater or lesser extent.

Without those codes, this would be a much more brutal world!

Yes there are so called religious people who do some of the above but there are also plenty of secular people involved in the above as well as being residents of mental institutes?

Science still does not explain mental illness it merely chemically subdues it.

The Bible contains the answers to all questions in life from Creation to crime, corruption, mental health and all negaitive things in this world as well as the real meaning of LOVE! The Bible IS our hitchhikers guide to the universe. God loves us and wants us to get to know Him.

Bless you

[freethinkingthuthseeker]

Ahso!;1347714 wrote: But only you and members of the religious right (which you claim to have no agreement with), come to those conclusions. How do you square that?


What do you believe?

what do you actually know for sure?

are you an expert in all the sciences or are you exercising a huge faith in people in white coats? Have you examined and tested all the science or are just trusting all that?

[littleCJelkton]

freethinkingthuthseeker;1347884 wrote: I wonder how old you are, are you alowed out alone yet or still only on walking rstraps?


I am not the one who believs in fairy tales

[Mickiel]

Ahso!;1347880 wrote: Nobody said you came from monkeys, only that somewhere there is a common ancestor. You are part of a species that is a unique breed of monkey, however.

Secondly, nobody really cares whether or not you believe it. Your belief or non-belief changes nothing. What we're doing here is trading ideas and facts as they've been established to this point. Belief has got absolutely nothing to do with it. One person who recently backed out of the thread did so because he finally came to understand that. His beliefs got in his way.




Many evolutionist have tried to argue that humans are 99% simular " Chemically" to apes, which I agree with, blood precipitation test do indicate that the Chimpanzee is our closest relative. Yet reguarding this we must also accept their other test results;

Milk chemistry test indicates that the Donkey is mans closest relative.

Cholestrol level test indicates that the Gartersnake is mans closest relative.

Tear enzyme chemistry test indicate that the Chicken is mans closest relative.

On the basics of other most recent blood chemistry test, the Butter Bean is our closest relative.

Peace.

[littleCJelkton]

Mickiel;1347890 wrote:

On the basics of other most recent blood chemistry test, the Butter Bean is our closest relative.

Peace.




so we are related to big monkeys.

[Ahso!]

freethinkingthuthseeker;1347888 wrote: What do you believe?Verified and verifiable facts and data.

freethinkingthuthseeker;1347888 wrote: what do you actually know for sure?I know, for example, I read this question and, I know I responded to it.

freethinkingthuthseeker;1347888 wrote: are you an expert in all the sciences or are you exercising a huge faith in people in white coats? Have you examined and tested all the science or are just trusting all that?No, I'm not an expert in science, but I check, double-check, triple-check and quadruple-check the evidence from other "experts", then I listen to argument for and against a thing and develop an opinion on the veracity of everything I've read and heard. I also apply my subjective experiences wherever and whenever possible. Then finally, where feasible, I apply what I've learned to myself and test it to the extent I can.

I have no faith at all in people wearing white coats unless and until they have earned my respect and trust through observing their actions and researching them. I may even do a background check. But one thing is for sure, I have to be able to confirm their existence.

[Ahso!]

Mickiel;1347890 wrote: Many evolutionist have tried to argue that humans are 99% simular " Chemically" to apes, which I agree with, blood precipitation test do indicate that the Chimpanzee is our closest relative. Yet reguarding this we must also accept their other test results;Don't patronize, Mickey, it looks cheap.

It's about DNA, not chemicals. And it's aroun 96%. Link>Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds

Scientists have sequenced the genome of the chimpanzee and found that humans are 96 percent similar to the great ape species.


LINK > A Closer Look at Some Biochemical Data that "Support" Creation | NCSE

"Scientific" creationists insist that scientific data demand creation. Yet very few creationist writings contain any data at all. Their "evidence" usually consists of quoting questions raised by scientists (but not the answers), redefining terms to suit their own purposes, misstating evolutionary theory, and implying their own omniscience by saying that evolution is impossible because they cannot imagine how it could happen.

Sometimes, however, creationists interpret data published by scientists without actually presenting the data for the reader to see. They apparently have good reason for withholding this information. One good example relates to the biochemical data that scientists claim agree with morphological, developmental chromosomal, and genetic evidence in showing that humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas all shared a recent common ancestor. Of course, creationists disagree, and some almost infer that evolutionists are involved in some sort of collusion. They say that evolutionists have to search for the rare "right" molecules that seem to support their case, because most biochemical data actually refute the theory of evolution (Gary Parker, Creation: The Facts of Life, Creation-Life Publishers, 1980; also Homology, Embryology, and Vestigial Organs: Common Ancestor or Common Plan? Institute for Creation Research).


Mickiel;1347890 wrote: Milk chemistry test indicates that the Donkey is mans closest relative.Milk chemistry. We have not found a direct comparison of human and chimpanzee milk chemistry. R. E. Sloan, et al., showed that human milk proteins (whey and casein) were much more like macaque milk than donkey milk (Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, 1961, 4:47-62).


Mickiel;1347890 wrote: Cholestrol level test indicates that the Gartersnake is mans closest relative.Cholesterol level. Cholesterol is a simple lipid (a wax) and its structure doesn't vary among species. Furthermore, its concentration can vary several hundredfold in an individual human depending upon diet and genetic background. Therefore, it is a useless molecule for determining genetic similarity. This datum isn't just wrong, it's nonexistent.


Mickiel;1347890 wrote: Tear enzyme chemistry test indicate that the Chicken is mans closest relative.Tear enzymes. The enzyme referred to here is lysozyme, which is found in human milk, tears, leukocytes, and so forth. Variants exist in tissues of other species, for example, in chicken egg whites. Prager and Wilson showed that chicken lysozyme differs from human lysozyme by fifty-one out of 130 amino acids (in E. F. Osserman, Lysozyme, Academic Press, 1974, pp. 127-141). Chimpanzee lysozyme is identical to human lysozyme. It is apparent that the creationists either had not bothered to look at this paper when they made their claims or they believe that fifty-one is less than zero.


We have just examined several typical examples of "scientific facts that fit the creation model better than they fit the theory of evolution." If the creationist had any real data that supported their claims, why would they publish such patent nonsense?You keep quoting stuff from those you claim to have no agreement with. :wah:

[Mickiel]

Ahso!;1347918 wrote:

You keep quoting stuff from those you claim to have no agreement with. :wah:




I never said I have " No" agreement with them, you are misleading again. I said I agree with Atheist and Christians and Universalist on some things. Your desire to discredit me is greater than your false quotes of me. Just settle down, focus, and find that fault in me without using misleading statements.

You can do it, just use the truth, it goes much farther.

Peace.

[Ahso!]

So that's it, huh, Mickey? That's all you've got to say? Tell me, do you still believe what you posted in post #121?

[Mickiel]

Ahso!;1347921 wrote: So that's it, huh, Mickey? That's all you've got to say? Tell me, do you still believe what you posted in post #121?




Ahso why don't you ask the christians your questions, ask someone you respect your questions. You know you keep saying these negative things about me, yet you still ask me questions. Whats up with that? You keep trying to find a weakness in me, a fault in me, your digging at me, for what?

I am not worthy of your attention, why keep giving it to me?

Peace.

[BaghdadBob]

Mickiel;1347890 wrote:

Milk chemistry test indicates that the Donkey is mans closest relative.

Cholestrol level test indicates that the Gartersnake is mans closest relative.

Tear enzyme chemistry test indicate that the Chicken is mans closest relative.

On the basics of other most recent blood chemistry test, the Butter Bean is our closest relative.

Peace.


Huh, I've eaten all of those at one time or another.



.

[littleCJelkton]

Here we go again with the I know, he thinks, she knows, they think, he knows, they know, that she believes, he believes what I said, running in circles proof that I agree to disagree with nothing you disagree to agree upon.

[freethinkingthuthseeker]

littleCJelkton;1347732 wrote: I think I figured it out you believe in believing in the opposite of whatever this person or that person happens to be believing in right now. So I am going to try this and see how it works probably come out really confusing and make no sense but I think that is the point



I care alot about the religious right, and the atheist doctrine, both groups have things I disagree with, I am an athiest, I am a christian, but there are views from both I disagree with.

I walk with everyone in my belief.

War.
Quite amusing but what do you believe in?

I know a lot have replied to me but please be patient, I have been working my way from the beginning of this thread

Have a Glrious Christmas to you all

[freethinkingthuthseeker]

yaaarrrgg;1347726 wrote: Although in the scientific community there is essentially universal agreement that the evidence of evolution is overwhelming, and the scientific consensus supporting the modern evolutionary synthesis is nearly absolute,[1][2] creationists have asserted that there is a significant scientific controversy and disagreement over the validity of evolution.[3][4][5]

from:

Level of support for evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The evidence for evolution is indeed convining but not in any sense for the macro level in that we all came from a single organism and I see your faith is for scientists

I hope they are not your GOD

[littleCJelkton]

freethinkingthuthseeker;1347938 wrote: Quite amusing but what do you believe in?

I know a lot have replied to me but please be patient, I have been working my way from the beginning of this thread

Have a Glrious Christmas to you all


Your going to have to be specific here are you asking, about gay marriage, God, creation vs evolution, atheism, christianity, budhism, islam, the health care bill, the deficit

Specifics

[freethinkingthuthseeker]

Lon;1347735 wrote: Just how old do you think Biblical Archaeology is Mickiel, and how specifically does it disprove Evolution?


The Bible is not here to disprove evolution. Evolution - depending upon your interpreation of it - is either proven beyond doubt ( in the same genus and micro world

or wholly to be proven by man in the macro new clases from old evolutionary ideas. Even evolutionists argue amongs themselves

[littleCJelkton]

freethinkingthuthseeker;1347943 wrote: The evidence for evolution is indeed convining but not in any sense for the macro level in that we all came from a single organism and I see your faith is for scientists

I hope they are not your GOD


There you guys go again thinking I think, he thinks, he knows , you know, he belives in god.

[freethinkingthuthseeker]

yaaarrrgg;1347747 wrote: That goes back to my previous point though. If you set up a religion that attacks science, you'll just see a brain-drain where the best scientists leave the religion. However, many prominent scientists believed in God (e.g. Newton and Einstein) and saw natural science as a way to learn about God, not as a threat to their religious beliefs. The only groups that see science as a threat are the religious cults, because they require a top-down control of all information. Allowing people to look at the real world evidence pokes a hole in that closed information system.

Self designed??? That sounds wilder than the spaghetti monster theory

Non-religiouis people can still accept that some "intelligent design" has occured, but just not have God play the role of the designer. IMO we are to some degree responsible for designing ourselves as a species, actively selecting better qualities for survival, and breeding ourselves. We are self-designed to some degree.


Self designed??? That sounds wilder than the spaghetti monster theory

[freethinkingthuthseeker]

Mickiel;1347794 wrote: Well yes, I agree with that possibility, it could have been a billion " Earth Years", as man measures time, but I think its obvious that they were not " 24 hour days", science has proved that in my view, and so has archaeology. We just really don't know, but they were " Days" as God considers days, not how man measures time. The bible has already stated that a thousand years is like a day to God, which I think means he considers time far differently than we do. He " Rested" on the 7th day. It then makes more sense to me that he did millions of years of work to " Take a rest." I don't see him taking a rest from 6 days of 24 man hours of work.

Peace.


Mickiel with respect the 6 days of creation in the Bible and the 7th day rest was a lesson for God to have a rest from work at least once a week and make that day Holy all day for God. The Bible is a lesson for all mankind to live by.

Even if the creation was literally 6 human days ( 7 being the perfect number) we have no idea how long Adam spent in Eden naming all the animals, plants and marine life before even eve was introduced let alone before the fall.

Perhaps Adam only began to age once he became mortal.

Anyway these questions are far more pressing for non believers than us who know we will find out soon when we join our Lord in Heaven,

I am sure God does not need to literally "rest" as we humans think of rest

Bless you

[freethinkingthuthseeker]

Mickiel;1347814 wrote: The sabbath day is meaningless to me. Its old school, old law, its a new day. Old things have passed away.

Peace.


I am so pleased to read you state that Mickiel.

It means you know that when Jesus drove the animals out of the temple he was telling us not to be religious any more

Bless you

[yaaarrrgg]

freethinkingthuthseeker;1347951 wrote: Self designed??? That sounds wilder than the spaghetti monster theory


So there is no intelligence used on your part, when it comes to picking a mate?

[freethinkingthuthseeker]

gmc;1347828 wrote: YouTube - Eye2EyeIIV's Channel

YouTube - Eye2EyeIIV's Channel

Confused about creationism?

YouTube - The Story of Creation

Laugh and the devil gets you. Or you are damned as a heretic, take your pick.


The first two links are verbally very flippant although I enjoyed most of the music and the third one shows he thinks the Bible is to be read as a novel when it is so much deeper than a simple novel

Not what I would call a sophisticated argument against God but I can smell the anti theist spirit in there

God bless the presenters

[freethinkingthuthseeker]

yaaarrrgg;1347873 wrote: Shouldn't we all look like brothers and sisters?

How does being an individual allow two black-haired parents to have a blond-haired or red-headed child?


If everybody looked the same......

It is our amazing gene pool, who wrote that code again?

[yaaarrrgg]

freethinkingthuthseeker;1347965 wrote: If everybody looked the same......

It is our amazing gene pool, who wrote that code again?


That doesn't answer the question.

[yaaarrrgg]

freethinkingthuthseeker;1347943 wrote: The evidence for evolution is indeed convining but not in any sense for the macro level in that we all came from a single organism and I see your faith is for scientists

I hope they are not your GOD


Sorry but the macro/micro evolution distinction was invented by young earth creationists. Add up enough micro evolution (small changes) over a long time, and you get macro evolution (large changes).

[freethinkingthuthseeker]

Ahso!;1347880 wrote: Nobody said you came from monkeys, only that somewhere there is a common ancestor. You are part of a species that is a unique breed of monkey, however.

Secondly, nobody really cares whether or not you believe it. Your belief or non-belief changes nothing. What we're doing here is trading ideas and facts as they've been established to this point. Belief has got absolutely nothing to do with it. One person who recently backed out of the thread did so because he finally came to understand that. His beliefs got in his way.


I have never seen any proof that we came from a common ancestor but if the apes have been around as long as us and longer and are our Closest "cousins", why have they not at least learnt knock out a few rhythmns?

Maybe the person who backed out got bored rather than accepting alternatives.

What is your own belief about life the universe and everything?

[freethinkingthuthseeker]

yaaarrrgg;1347886 wrote: Monkey Drumming Suggests the Origin of Music | LiveScience


Big deal, its hardly any kind of even simple repetitive rythmn is it!

[freethinkingthuthseeker]

littleCJelkton;1347889 wrote: I am not the one who believs in fairy tales


Good to know, can you demonstrate with your own understanding of "the sciences how you know how the universe started; how life began on earth, where the amtmosphere came from on earth, how the earth was formed, where amino acids came from, how the smallest simple cells self assemble and how special development happened and your own personal definition of natural selection to begin with?

If not then you are just trusting the words of others

I bet you have not read the whole Bible

[yaaarrrgg]

freethinkingthuthseeker;1347955 wrote: Mickiel with respect the 6 days of creation in the Bible and the 7th day rest was a lesson for God to have a rest from work at least once a week and make that day Holy all day for God. The Bible is a lesson for all mankind to live by.

Even if the creation was literally 6 human days ( 7 being the perfect number) we have no idea how long Adam spent in Eden naming all the animals, plants and marine life before even eve was introduced let alone before the fall.

Perhaps Adam only began to age once he became mortal.

Anyway these questions are far more pressing for non believers than us who know we will find out soon when we join our Lord in Heaven,

I am sure God does not need to literally "rest" as we humans think of rest

Bless you


If you want to go the route of reinterpreting Genesis, you can equally take a deistic approach. You can say he got the ball rolling (designing the mechanisms for physics and evolution) and then stepped back and "rested." Meaning adopted a hands off approach. By designing the organisms, you might interpret this to mean the mechanisms that would give rise to these things.

My point is even on theological grounds you can't rule out evolution. All you can conclude is that some interpretations of the stories are incompatible with science, some are not.

[yaaarrrgg]

freethinkingthuthseeker;1347969 wrote: Big deal, its hardly any kind of even simple repetitive rythmn is it!


Talk about moving the goal posts

[freethinkingthuthseeker]

Ahso!;1347902 wrote:

No, I'm not an expert in science, but I check, double-check, triple-check and quadruple-check the evidence from other "experts", then I listen to argument for and against a thing and develop an opinion on the veracity of everything I've read and heard. I also apply my subjective experiences wherever and whenever possible. Then finally, where feasible, I apply what I've learned to myself and test it to the extent I can.

I have no faith at all in people wearing white coats unless and until they have earned my respect and trust through observing their actions and researching them. I may even do a background check. But one thing is for sure, I have to be able to confirm their existence.


So how do you check and double check and verify everything? By the opinions of others? How would they earn your respect?

Does your respect equate to you trusting them with your life?

How can you personally confirm that they are even alive without actually being in a room with them?

My subjective experience is rich indeed

God bless you

[freethinkingthuthseeker]

Don't patronize, Mickey, it looks cheap.

It's about DNA, not chemicals. And it's aroun 96%.




Yes but even 1/2 of 1% amounts to an incredible amount of different details, After all the fruit fly is not far behind the apes!

[littleCJelkton]

freethinkingthuthseeker;1347970 wrote: Good to know, can you demonstrate with your own understanding of "the sciences how you know how the universe started; how life began on earth, where the amtmosphere came from on earth, how the earth was formed, where amino acids came from, how the smallest simple cells self assemble and how special development happened and your own personal definition of natural selection to begin with?

If not then you are just trusting the words of others

I bet you have not read the whole Bible


I have read it I have a catholic uncle, and born again uncle, like you wont shut up about it.