61. Enoch, you havent offended me. We have different beliefs and debate is good for the soul. All sides of the debate refer to the bible; you have yourself, but there was a slight error in your story of Saul. Saul was a jew who went about killing Christians, having them killed and sometimes just imprisoned. He was on his way to Damascus to bring back Christians to Jerusalem for trial. On his way, he became blinded by a light, and he heard a voice saying, "Saul, Saul,why persecutest thou me?" Saul asked, "Who art thou, Lord?" And the Lord said, "I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks." And Saul was terrified and asked, "what would thou have me to do?" And the Lord said, "Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what ye must do." The men with Saul heard the voice too and had to guide Saul to the city where he met with Ananias, who had already been instructed by Jesus to meet with saul. Saul was filled with the Holy spirit. Afterward, Saul went about preaching Christ and the jews sought to kill him. He did not 'write' the New Testament. The new Testament is a compilation of letters that Paul wrote and some were accounts of others. The 4 disciples who are mentioned in the N.T. beginning were accounts and are as a witness of the life of Jesus. Somebody had to testify to events to get the story out. But not all disciples' accounts were needed, as they would seem redundent. As for the cults, there were many false prophets, teachers, religions, etc., but the biblical account is the only one still in existence. God preserved His word. As for its fallacy, Moses alloed some things and wrote them into law because the people's heart was hardened. Not everything in the old law was Moses' doing, since they were before he was born. But got had reasons for everything, though we don't always understand, He knows. Those times were different. As for John being used as the Revelator, He was the only desciple not murdered. And many prophets spoke about the end-times. They also spoke of the Messiah's first and second coming. They were the voices of God, warning the jews what will take place. Daniel, David, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Joel, Hosea, Amos, Obadiah..... Enoch was called up alive to heaven by God because Enoch loved God so much. Another prophet, Elijah, was called up into heaven alive. These two will be the 2 men who descends from heaven back here to preach 3 1/2 years into tribulation, then they will be murdered (so that they may ascend in spirit back up) and Revelations tell us that the whole world will see those two lying in the streets and that many will rejoice at their death. How did John know that we would have the media that we have now? The whole world is NOW able to see events live from satelites and receivers. T.V., the internet, phone cams.....thousands of miles away, the other side of the world and beyond. How would John know? Enoch and Elijah will raise up from the dead and the whole world will be capable of SEEING it. I am an analytical person by nature and sometimes to a fault. I am usually skeptic of alot of things until I study and put 2 and 2 together. As for evolution, my disbelief in it actually has very little to do with the bible. Nothing can come from nothing. This alone would be enough to sway most people, since there are only 2 possibilities; evolution and Creationism.

DENA at 6:34AM on Jan 3rd 2008

62. LOL I couldn't help but laugh, t g athena, that was funny. But, God also cursed the serpent, who, at that time had legs, to crawl on its belly and all serpents thereafter. Naturally when you have something coming through you there is pain and discomfort, but we don't know that animals then didn't already bear 'pain' or discomfort. Take the fig tree where Jesus found no figs. He cursed it because since no figs were available to Him, it withered so that no one else would take from that particular tree. But when sin entered into Adam and Eve, God's Spirit left them and they were doomed to live 'in the flesh', doomed to die. This was not Gods intent. The intent was for Adam and Eve to live forever in the garden where God supplied all that they needed. But, because they were separated from Him, they were banished from the garden and forced to work the land for their food, which God still supplied, as He does today.


alan, I did read # 55. I do believe that people adapted to their environments and their bodies changed accordingly. At one time, everyone was the same, until they started migrating. I also believe that while God created everything and Adam and Eve in the beginning, life became autonomous, and this is where evolutionists get their theory. But they are studying something already in existence. They cannot possibly determine HOW the universe and everything in it happened from nothing. Only a higher authority can create something from nothing. If evolutionists put up a glass encagement and waited for something to be created, hell would freeze over first. They may collect matter, dust, etc., but these were already there before the encagement went up, so why would the big bang happen only once and poof, everything is so perfect? How would a mindless bang know that we would need water and food, clouds to lift up water and deliver rain everywhere? How could a mindless nothing give us brains to think with? No, we were never blobs in swamp pools. Even if we were tadpoles, where did we get our thought processes, our feelings? Fish have no nervous system, so where would that come from? Evolutionists think we were swamp boogers and suddenly we emerged into perfect human beings. And atheists think the BIBLE is a crock???!!!?? No one in the bible came from slime. It didn't take Adam millions of years to be. And where did our lungs come from and How did the big bang know to make oxygen for us? How did it know to make us a digestive system and a place to deposit and drop the food? How can any intelligent person believe this? Like I said, it is not so much that atheists believe this crap, but use it to justify their belief that no God, no Creator, no intelligent Being could possibly be alive and be more intelligent than all the minds that have ever been created and yet to be created, put together. And that is not theory. That is a fact. Nobody can be so stupid as to believe we came from a sudden bang.

DENA at 6:40AM on Jan 3rd 2008

63. OK, ENOCH, THIS ONE IS DEDICATED TO YOU. NO BIBLICAL ACCOUNTS. JUST A FEW QUOTES FROM SCIENTISTS...................



Fred Hoyle
(British astrophysicist)
“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

George Ellis
(British astrophysicist)
“Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word ‘miraculous’ without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word.”

Paul Davies
(British astrophysicist)
“There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all. It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe. The impression of design is overwhelming.”

Alan Sandage
(winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy)
“I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.”


John O’Keefe
(NASA astronomer)
“We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures. If the universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in.”


George Greenstein
(astronomer)
“As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency—or, rather, Agency—must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?”

Arthur Eddington
(astrophysicist)
“The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory.”

Arno Penzias
(Nobel prize in physics)
“Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan.”

Roger Penrose
(mathematician and author)
“I would say the universe has a purpose. It’s not there just somehow by chance.”

Tony Rothman
(physicist)
“When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it’s very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it.”

Vera Kistiakowsky
(MIT physicist)
“The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine.

Stephen Hawking
(British astrophysicist)
“What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? …

Up to now, most scientists have been too occupied with the development of new theories that describe what the universe is to ask the question why?”


Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician)
“We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it.

Ed Harrison
(cosmologist)
“Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God—the design argument of Paley—updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one. Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument.”

Edward Milne
(British cosmologist)
“As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God].”

Barry Parker
(cosmologist)
“Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed.”

Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel
(cosmologists)
“This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with ‘common wisdom’.”

Arthur L. Schawlow
(Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics)
“It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.

Henry “Fritz” Schaefer
(computational quantum chemist)
“The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, ‘So that’s how God did it.’ My goal is to understand a little corner of God’s plan.”


Wernher von Braun
(Pioneer rocket engineer)
“I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science.”

DENA at 7:07AM on Jan 3rd 2008

64. dena,
thank you again for giving me christian bible study.
i am well aware of the story of paul,
and everything you posted.
it's part of my studies,and my teachings.
but i feel you have misinterpreted my points.
i am a man of faith.
an ordained minister.
my life is devoted to service.
my scriptural discrepencies i point out are not against faith,or a creator,but a fundamentalist mindset that believes these words to be absolute.
they are not.
faith should not be conflated with religion.
then you post quotes from scientists who make my point.
that evolution is a far better and more beautiful example of a creator that what the bible portrays.
the more liberal christian denominations agree also.
it's the fundamental's who rebuke evolution because it goes against scriptural doctrine.
what makes evolution and creation so intriguing is that there is so much more to learn.
so of course then end analysis to what we know so far about the universes beginnings are still incomplete.
we dont know..but we are trying.
relying on biblical text that is wrought with inaccuracies and contradictory texts,is a path to intellectual stagnation.
there is far more in heaven and earth than we can possibly conceive,but putting faith in words is a dead end.
read george miller from brown university if you are struggling with understanding the true beauty of evolution.
read josephius flavius,enoch or hermes.
read about the assienes.
gilgamesh and the great flood.
there are so many wonderful books to give context to the bible.
read about genesis and it's metaphorical representation of the kabballah.
i find it odd that you dismiss evolution on scriptural grounds,then dismiss scripture by posting scientists who believe in evolution AND a creator.
the picture is far bigger than the one you posted.
till next time..peace.
Enoch D.D.S

enoch at 9:47AM on Jan 4th 2008

65. "Father John" pontificates and others post against the Bible and embrace evolution as a fact. It is interesting that you defend your faith in a theory that cannot be proven with the zeal of the most radical religious fanatic. Why is that?

"Faith is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links unseen". :)

Educated Christians believe in micro evolution. It is going on around us (changes within the species). Macro evolution (at the level of families,phyla, and genera) is not proven. One problem alone is the major gaps in the fossil record (no series of gradual change are found in those stratas). Any honest and objective scientist will admit to this. (Of course, there are a number of "possible" explantations offered, none of which are provable.

There are many educated and intelligent Christians whom you ridicule. I note that the evolution proponents' posts consist mostly of insults, ad hominen arguments, and name calling as well as distortions of Biblical data (exhibiting an abysmal lack of knowledge of the Bible).

Lets try dealing with the data, if you want to debate the subject.

Tom Davis at 4:02PM on Jan 3rd 2008

66. Let's talk about mythology. I have a fantastical story composed by atheist dreamers whose very purpose in life hinges on the impossibilities in this myth.

It goes like this:

Once upon a time there was nothing. Well, there was something, but it was like nothing because it was nothing like the something we know as the universe. In fact, this nothing that was something was so small that it could fit in the palm of your hand. And the nothing that was something existed in another something that must have been the universe before the nothing exploded into something. And we're not quite sure where this something called the universe, in which the nothing which is something existed, came from. It just always existed. And since we can't figure out where it came from or how it always existed, we won't bother trying to figure that out. And, even though it is unreasonable to believe that something can exist infinitely or eternally within a time/space domain, we will choose to believe it anyways - but we are not people of faith.

Anyways, this this nothing that was something, or the something that came from nothing, was very tightly compressed. So tightly compressed was it, that it exploded into all of the matter and energy we see in the universe. Over time, the matter and energy released from this really big bang turned into stars and planets. Luckily, there was this one planet called earth, which was the perfect distance from this star called sun, and this moon called moon. And it contained all of the basic elements for the creation of organic material - life. Well, one day, some of these elements got together and chemical reactions took place, then life happened. We can't recreate it in a lab, but it is definitely scientific fact. Then, this life matter figured out how to reproduce, even though it doesn't have a mind... it just somehow knew what to do. Then it started changing. And now we have humans.

The End

Mark at 1:28PM on Jan 3rd 2008

67. Evolution is based on scientific FACT whereas creationism is based on the Bible which any learned person knows is based on the opinions of numerous people and their perceptions of the time.

Pull your head out of your Bible and pick up a science book or even National Geographic, you will be surprised at what you will learn that you obviously missed in school.

Michelle at 12:22AM on Feb 9th 2008

68. LOL........MARK........THAT WAS A BRILLIANT STORY. WELL DELIVERED. LOL, I AM ON THE VERGE OF SPLITTING MY GUTS AND CAN BARELY SEE THIS FROM THE TEARS RUNNING FROM MY EYES. THAT IS AS GOOD AS THE CAT IN THE HAT AND GREEN EGGS AND HAM...SAM I AM..LOL. YOU HAVE A CALLING, MAN. AESOP FABLES, LOOK OUT. LOL. WAIT....REMEMBER THE SONG BY BILLY PRESTON? NOTHING FROM NOTHING LEAVES NOTHING? LOL

DENA at 6:57PM on Jan 3rd 2008

69. 'father' john, you are only muddying the water and playing into satan's hands. You do believe in satan, don't you? As a 'priest?' If you don't believe the bible, why do you call yourself a christian? A wolf in sheep's clothing is what you are. A hypocrite. I am not going to stop defending creationism and i will appreciate it if you stopped trying to tell the rest of us what to do because I don't believe your pathetic lie of priesthood. You are not Christ-like but you won't to wear the garment. Take your hypocriting anti-Christ a** and shut your own self up.

DENA at 7:56PM on Jan 3rd 2008

70. Luckily, there was this one planet called earth, which was the perfect distance from this star called sun, and this moon called moon. - Mark

Perfect distance? First of all, the earth is not even a constant distance from the sun much less the perfect distance. There is no 'perfect' distance. There is a range in which conditions would suit life as we know it. Same with the tilt of the earth's axis. It isn't perfect, it falls within a range and even then any tilt between 15* and 40* would probably support life on Earth as we know it.

What would make me scratch my head and wonder if the earth were here by divine design - just to lay some major doubts to rest? Well we have a year that is out of synch with our day. Our moon is out of synch with our year. If there were exactly 30 days in a month and exactly 12 months in a year, and thus exactly 360 days in a year.. well I might consider the divine design argument. Even 30x12=360 is kind of arbitrary. Why not a nice binary 32x16=512? Why don't we have a nice binary number of fingers for that matter? We use a clumsy base 10 in a universe better suited for powers of 2 - 4 on each hand would have made more sense.

But back to the earth and moon - what do we have? We have a full moon every 29.5 days (not 30 - not 29.5 - not exactly anyway) We have 365 days and 1/4 (again - not 360 - not 365 - not even 365.25 - not exactly). I mean if the Earth is God's hand chosen planet for life, wouldn't He line everything up nice and neat and leave no doubts? Why are the # of days/months/year so sloppy?

Also, the earth orbit is elliptical - This is what vexed astronomers until Kepler abandoned his insistence that God would only use perfectly circular orbits for the planets. Once Kepler realized the orbits were elliptical (including the earth's) and not circular, the motions of the planets suddenly made sense. So why not a nice perfect circle for the Earth to orbit the sun?

Discuss....

fabio at 7:54PM on Jan 3rd 2008

71. God didn't create the orbits to suit a measurable time...man came up with time measurements and timeframes. God's design is perfectly set and perfectly in balance. If man creates measurements and then cannot understand why those measurements don't fit into how the universe works, then the error is in man's invention, not God's creation.

DENA at 8:04PM on Jan 3rd 2008

72. Evolution doesn't occur. It doesn't happen in the morning, or in the
evening, it doesn't happen with a fox (dog family, and it will
continue to be a dog and continue and continue...)or in a box. When
neo-darwinists start dealing with empirical data, then creationists
will have something to contend with.

Anyone can counter evolution with the most ridiculous reasoning or
belief system. Why? There's no raw, currently happening data to
confirm the main pillars of evolutionary faith. These blowhards can
talk a good game. But they're in the same boat with all the other
religions.

All their posing and vitriol is like the wicked witch of the east
yelling, "I'm melting!"

They are melting, facts tend to do that.

Signed,

Atheistic Neo-Darwinism is for Putzes

oneblood at 8:28PM on Jan 3rd 2008

73. Fabio fabio fabio,

Tut tut Fabio, you didn't answer any of Mark's assertions (albeit they were implied through sarcasm). You simply side-stepped and attacked (well I might add) the unprovable ID proposition.

oneblood at 8:42PM on Jan 3rd 2008

74. Only someone like you would suggest that God would have to be created.
If the creator needed to be created, he would not be a creator.
__________________
So it is reasonable for you to question the evolutionary theory of life created from non-life, but it is unreasonable for someone else to ask where the supposed creator came from, who, according to you is a something from nothing?
How arrogant and illogical.

emma at 8:47PM on Jan 3rd 2008

75. And where did our lungs come from and How did the big bang know to make oxygen for us? How did it know to make us a digestive system and a place to deposit and drop the food? How can any intelligent person believe this? Like I said, it is not so much that atheists believe this crap, but use it to justify their belief that no God, no Creator, no intelligent Being could possibly be alive and be more intelligent than all the minds that have ever been created and yet to be created, put together. And that is not theory. That is a fact. Nobody can be so stupid as to believe we came from a sudden bang.
____________________
Dena, I have said this to you before and I will say it again. You must first know science to present an argument to the contrary. Your statement (on lungs, oxygen, digestive system)clearly shows that you have NOT studied evolutionary theory in the slightest detail. You are presuming the predestination of man to counter evolutionary observations. You are incapable of imagining a world without humans, so there will never be any logic or objectivity in your argument.
You claim that no one can be so "stupid" as to believe that "we" came from a bang. Well, no intelligent person does. However, we believe that the Earth came from such an event, which we can observe in similar fashion in the universe TODAY when new solar systems with new planets are created by exactly such "bangs" (you should study that, too, as there's a lot more to it than a bang). Man then evolved from very simple organisms over billions of years. You obviously don't have the capacity to grasp time exceeding 6,000 years.
And while you're at calling evolution "crap" and atheists "stupid", please tell us what is so logical or intelligent about believing in a creator who simply was, without being created himself, or believing in a book of stories stolen from ancient egyptian and pagan religions, or telling people if they don't live as you believe they will suffer eternal torture? Tell me why evangelical christians are preaching "wars" for Christianity rather than environmental preservation, good health, education and respect? Don't fool yourself. Christianity is nothing more than an agenda to control and exploit those who are sheepish enough to follow it. (no offense to the sheep)

emma at 9:09PM on Jan 3rd 2008