Evolution and Creationism

[Tokoyami]

I believe god exists and i beleive he also made what influences sciences today.

I was brought up to beleive in god and i always have. But latly my faith has been shaken by science and the theory of evolution. I recently saw "Inherit the Wind" from which i heard a most interesting statment about when the lord made everything. One of the lawyers asked. "what if the first day was 'one hundred million years'?". He was refering to genesis before the sun was made. It is called the first "day" but there was no sun to go by yet. This would mean that evolution did occur but at the hand of creationism. But latly i have been asking myself if there is a god. In revelations prophecys are stated which have been coming true latly in some parts of the world.

(im not exactly sure if he said exactly one hundred million thats why its in quotes years but it was a large number : )

Also back in genesis its stated that god said on the second day, " Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together and one place and let the dry land appear". This leads me to beleive that the water was in one place unseperated by a land mass. Meaning the land that appeared would be in one mass, as theorized by scientist who study the beginning histories of earth. And if what the lawyer in "inherit the wind is true. That 'one hundred million years' would be plenty of time for the continents to drift and for dinosaurs and other life to appear and evolve. Now this evolution would happen in the first two "days" before the sun was made by God.

With all of this, i believe that creationism and Evolution go together perfectly.

[Nomadic Dragon]

I agree with you. What could be considered a day for us, might not be what a day is in the terms of our Heavenly Father. If you think about it like this than you can see how things could have evolved and how what science says the world came into being and what is said in the bible about the creation of earth. This is what I have always believe and to me it makes perfect sense. What is time to a being that is eternal?

[justx645]

oh goodness....according to genesis...the begining was God making the heavens adn the earth...the heavens refers to the stars...and in any event...if you just read it:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
And God said, "Let there be light" and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he spearated the light from the darkness. God called the light day and the darkness night. And there was evening, and there was morning, the first day."

The first day was not announced until after the sun was created. Therefore you're incorrect.

[Nomadic Dragon]

He called the light day as in the length of time that the sun shines on the earth, but to him, and I mean of course God if you aren't that bright as the recognize that is who I mean, a day could be an entirely different length of time (as in that a day doesn't last the same on every planet). Here is a graph to show you if you don't believe me.
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b84/Nomadic_Dragon/Planetaryday.gif

Like how the length of a day is different as you travel from planet to planet. Who is to say that maybe the length a day to God, our Heavenly Father might be different from what we consider a day, a day to him might have been thousands of years long, who knows. This I believe shows that both Creationism and the theory of evolution are in perfect harmony.

[Sahiden]

Lol, another thread on this subject... I won't post a lot but this is a small one.
Both theories can be combined, but I really think that it's completly impossible for humans in the first place to write a story about God 2000 years ago that would be 100% correct.
The same applies for evolution, it was a theory devised 100's of years ago, and shows serious holes.

So basically, whatever you write surely won't be 100% correct. Therefor there is no "correct" theory.
But that what the word theory implies in the first place anyway...

[yukino_silvermaine]

Oh well... I'm not really sure either. With this evolutionary thingy and creation and big bang and stuff. O.o It's all very confusing.

I think nomadic is right. They go together in harmony.
I remember what our Physics teacher said: "I believe in the big bang. God spoke, then BOOM!".

[8davryu suno8]

mm... Yea I agree with Nomadic and Tokoyami, God exists and science derives and is influenced by what he makes. Both interwined, the same story told from different aspects and therefore inspire tremendously different opinions in some people, but both still combined in harmony, they could even fill al the holes Sahiden mentioned, but still.. u cant hope to fill every hole in life.

[justx645]

Days on other planets have nothing to do with this debate. I hate to break it to you, but if you're going off of how a day is some odd thousands of years to God then it must've been 40 some odd thousands of years of a flood as opposed to 40 days and nights, correct? Also, when God stopped the sun for Joshua to have an extra day of sunlight to win a battle, they must've had some odd thousands of years of battling, right? The commandment, remember the Sabbath DAY? Yes, do be sure to remember the sabbath thousands of years. If the word DAY is used in the Bible anywhere i'm afraid that it means DAY. Even the original word for day used in genesis, yom, means a day, an actual 24 hour day in the HEBREW context, not God's. Genesis is being written from Moses's contexual understandings to be read by those with the same.

[Nomadic Dragon]

Days on other planets have nothing to do with this debate. I hate to break it to you, but if you're going off of how a day is some odd thousands of years to God then it must've been 40 some odd thousands of years of a flood as opposed to 40 days and nights, correct? Also, when God stopped the sun for Joshua to have an extra day of sunlight to win a battle, they must've had some odd thousands of years of battling, right? The commandment, remember the Sabbath DAY? Yes, do be sure to remember the sabbath thousands of years. If the word DAY is used in the Bible anywhere i'm afraid that it means DAY. Even the original word for day used in genesis, yom, means a day, an actual 24 hour day in the HEBREW context, not God's. Genesis is being written from Moses's contexual understandings to be read by those with the same.

You are the most ignorant and stupid person that I have ever talked to. I was using the example of the different lengths of days on different planets to indicate that a 'day' might be a different length to different people. As I said before a 'day' to god might be a different length than what we might consider a 'day'. In a kind of way what you said proves my point, when god said day to Noah and to Joshua, and the many other times he said day to Men, he meant it in the time of men, not to him. I highly doubt when he said day to Noah or Joshua he meant thousands of years, he meant 'mens day', not 'gods day'. Considering this you can see how creation might have taken thousands of years, while the days mentioned in the bible where actually days.

[justx645]

How dare any of you belittle God? God is GOD for crapping out loud. God could have created the entire everything ever in an instant. He's GOD. He's that amazingly awesome. God CHOSE to make the world and universe and everything else in seven days because seven is the number God chose to be the number of completion. To say that it would take God thousands or millions of years to make everything is saying that God is incapable of doing as He pleases. God could have created the world in an instant, so how is it so unbelieable that God actually made the world in seven 24 hour days? Why do people have to go around making "sense" of it by personifying God? God is not us, and His power is supreme.

I should have just out and said that to begin with instead of trying to use logic. When God made the universe and said it was a day I believe it was a literal day, because to say otherwise would be calling God a liar. God didn't look down to Moses and treat him like an idiot. When God said DAY He meant DAY and to say he meant otherwise would mean that God was a deciever which is NOT in His job description. To belittle God in any manner makes YOU the ignorant person. My God is big enough to do as He pleases.

[Sandal Hat]

What hes trying to say is that a day for God could be different because he IS God. Why belittle him and make his idea of a day OUR idea of what i day should be. God even says that our lives our like a wisp of smoke that appear one moment and disappear the next.Your right,God is not us.

And if you take everything in the bible in a literal sense then nothing would make any sense and all the stories in there would just be stories

What hes trying to say is that a day for God could be different because he IS God. Why belittle him and make his idea of a day OUR idea of what i day should be. God even says that our lives our like a wisp of smoke that appear one moment and disappear the next.Your right,God is not us.

And if you take everything in the bible in a literal sense then nothing would make any sense and all the stories in there would just be stories.

[visualscope]

Um..this is going back to whole if god exists kind of question - first if he does exist you can analyze days and crap, but if he doesn't then how do u know? Evolution started with tiny organisms and such and then over the years Evolution occured. You can't combat Charles Darwin with petty religion, sorry, but it's true :)

[justx645]

CHARLES Darwin never said a thing about tiny organisms evolving into bigger creatures, so get your science right if you plan on using it. Erasmus Darwin is who you're thinking of. And I hate to break it to you but "petty" science takes just as much faith to believe as my "petty" religion. You go off of scientific theory that isn't proven nor can be proven and I go off of scripture that isn't proven nor can be proven.

I'm not belittling God by binding Him to our definitions. And taking the Bible literally is the only way to read it and understand it. You can't take the things written in it as just "symbolism" or whatever. If you don't believe that the events in the Bible actually occured as written then there's nothing anyone could ever prove to you from it. The Bible was meant to be taken literally except for what is said to be parables or symbolism (such as Jesus' stories and prophetic visions).

God's word is true, end of sentence. He would not say a day and not mean a day. If a literal day wasn't meant in the bible, it would say something else--whatever time was correct. You cannot separate God from the Bible, nor the Bible from God, so this whole "God's day" and "man's day" crap isn't cutting it. It's the same day because God created it for us. God doesn't need time, but gave us the only thing called a day for us to tell time by. God doesn't have a different day because there is only one day, the morning and evening, created by God in the beginning for us to have.

[visualscope]

sigh...this thread is like boiling water..it hurts to dive into

[8davryu suno8]

Um..this is going back to whole if god exists kind of question - first if he does exist you can analyze days and crap, but if he doesn't then how do u know? Evolution started with tiny organisms and such and then over the years Evolution occured. You can't combat Charles Darwin with petty religion, sorry, but it's true :)
*sigh*.. some people just need to see something right in front of them to believe anything.
Bro if u really believe in somin its not like that, u dont believe with ur eyes

[ningo]

Whoa...easy folks
justx645, as you take the bible at its word (and no doubt this won't be new to you, but humour me), what is your stance on fossils?

[justx645]

well obviously many things died and were covered in the flood. If your earth science teacher taught you that it takes millions of years for something to fossilize, that's outdated and you can do your own research for it, but it takes anywhere from a few hundred to a thousand, not million, years for something to fossilize. According to the bible, the flood was about 5000 years ago, plenty of time for a lot of fossils to form from the multitudes of dead creatures caused by the flood and buried in the aftermath. Hence why we have fish fossils on TOP of mount everest!! we have "fossilized" roman soldiers and many of the same type of things from where pompeii's volcano blew.

Here's one page of many that show proof of things fossilizing in hundreds and even five to ten years. http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/fossilboot.html

Check it out.

[8davryu suno8]

just wonderin justx645, which type of christian r u?

[justx645]

I'm a Biblicist. If you mean what kinda of church i go to I go to a Southern Baptist church.

[ningo]

I am aware of the argument proposed...under the correct conditions perishable objects can be made to "fossilise" in short periods of time. However, this must be in favourable conditions, and depends very much also on which minerals are present.
What then, may i ask, is your take on carbon dating and the use of other radioisotopes for dating fossils, and other objects?

[8davryu suno8]

^was wonderin the same

[justx645]

From what I understand, and I'm not gonna be perfect on this...but from what I understand carbon dating is flawed because everything seems to either be from present to the past 5000 or so years and then it jumps straight into the millions. There is a tree that is embedded in about six different layers of rock. The rock surrounding the tree is dated to millions of years back. The tree is still intact and above ground. You can do research on this if you would like, and I will try to find a source for you as soon as possible. Big changes in geological conditions can cause things to look thousands--or even millions-- of years older than they actually are. Rocks after a volcanic eruption that just hardened from lava can be "radioisotopic"ally dated to millions of years. Sea shores (like in California) that have cliffs and that are heavily pounded by weathering can seem to be much much older than they really are. I'll try to get a source for that as well ASAP.

The reason, in my thoughts that these things go back to 5000-ish and then jump is because of the flood spoken of in Genesis. A massive change in the very structure of the earth itself caused many "favourable" conditions to be present for things to fossilize, and the wear that was put on the fact of the earth itself in my opinion could have made many things appear millions of years older than they actually are. According to the Bible, the earth itself is only 7000-ish years old. Not the milllions that most ignorant (and i use that term as politely as possible) geologists and paleontologists would say.

Here's a site that shows the flaws in carbon dating. http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html

[ssjharsh]

Actually, C-14 dating is useless beyond about 50,000 years back. Older fossils are dated by comparing half-lives of other elements, like uranium or thorium. Also, the link cited was sort of misleading, I think. I did not read all of it, but looking it over, the first thing that stuck out was that it said that plants can distinguish between Carbon 14 and carbon 12, which is true, but that does not mean we are unable to find the ratio between C14:C12. Also, it is true that different types of plants discriminate differently (there are C3 and C4 plants), but we can find ratios for each type. This info is from http://www.plantphys.net/article.php?ch=9&id=135
Also, it mentions that C14 levels on the planet change, which they do, but longterm changes occur at a very slow rate, while short-term changes are cyclic and therefore really don't change overall average levels. Basically, all this comes down to is that C-14 dating is pretty accurate. Its not exact, but it provides a decent idea as to how long ago the fossil (or whatever you are looking at) has been around.

[Sandal Hat]

Hey im a christian too but can you explain how the great flood never appeared on any calendars that civilizations had dating back farther than the flood....like the chinese calendar for instance.

[justx645]

Hmm...you see...the Chinese Calandar begins in 2600 BC. This makes a grand total of 4600 years...now, biblically, the Flood was 5000+ years ago, so you're question answers itself. The chinese calandar doesn't go back beyond the flood.

[Sandal Hat]

Oh, thankyou i just read on a site that the flood was made up because the chinese calendar dates back farther than that

[Nomadic Dragon]

Wow, I am gone for eight hours and this thread boomed, Well mostly it was against the ignoratly stupid (And I mean that in the most 'polite' way :rolleye09 ) justx45. Sandel Hat if you were referring to me in that first post on the second page. I'm a she not a he but thank you. I wanted to take up the attack that justx45 about the idea of symbolism and the bible, let me just tell you this, Jesus taught in parables (which if you didn't know is a short, simple STORY with a moral). All of the stories that he used to teach moral lessons never occured, thus the ULTIMATE example of symbolism in the bible, the scrificing of the first born lamb before the death of Christ was symbolism for his death and the redeption of our sins. If the bible seems to be full symbolism, who is to say that the use of the word day in the creation story is not also symbolism? I don't doubt that God is all powerful, and that he exists, cares and loves us as his children, but I also believe that the world took thousands to millions of years to be made. This ideas are not mutally eculsive, to me they go hand in hand.

[justx645]

nomadic, why would God make just the word "day" symbolic? Every time in the Bible something was symbolic or a "simple story" it was explained afterwards. The wording for the very first use of the word "day" in Genesis is said in this manner: "There was morning, and there was evening--the first day." This is God defining what a day is for us. There had never been a day before this mark..there had never been a day for God because God exists outside of what we know as "time." God made a day. He made the morning, and the evening, and he called that a DAY. If all we're going to do here is go against me, as you like to put it, then why don't you just make a new thread called "attack justx645". I don't appreciate the attack because I'm not attacking any of you. I just want to know, WHY would God do that? WHY would God decieve us by using a word that doesn't mean what it means? God created the DAY and made it morning and evening, which is a day. If you don't want to see it as it plainly is, then you are the one who is ignorant here. Since I'm being targeted and insulted here, I'm prompted to leave and let you all alone seeing as what you really want isn't a debate it's a "we're all right" discussion. It's christians like you that make christians like me sick to my stomach. You might as well side with the athiests if you start attacking a Bible believer.

I like having fun and debating, I like answering questions and getting different views. I despise being attacked and insulted. I'm not always right, but neither are any of you.

[Sandal Hat]

well i can tell by your avatar that your a she but i quess i too much into typing the post to put an S sorry.

[Nomadic Dragon]

I say this to you. What makes you think that you are right and we are wrong? And for the record, you insulted us first, all fairs in love, war and debates, I say. It is Christians like you that make me sick, people who cling so tight to the Bible that they can't see past the words, and into what is really meant by what they say. I also answered about the day, in an earlier thread, about made, oh maybe that a day in Gods time might be different, and yes I also believe that he was also defining what a day is for us and giving us the form for our week (you know 7 days of creation a 7 day week, not to say that creation took place in seven of our days mind you). I hate to insult people, because I have been insulted alot in my life, but sometimes I see it as neccessary.

I am a Latter-Day Saint or a Mormon if you didn't know what Latter-Day Saint is. And as I said in my earlier post I believe in God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost. So you can ring me in with the athesist, because I do believe in God (How many times am I going to have to say this 'sigh'). I just also believe that the world wasn't made in just seven of our days, but seven of gods days.

(Note to Sandel Hat, I really don't mind. I was just letting you know)

[ningo]

Whoa...easy folksWell, at least I tried...
I cannot believe how this thread has deteriorated...though I personally think that the argument over days is a side issue in the debate of evolution/creationism, it was nonetheless refreshing to read such an open minded first post on the topic. Now we have descended to squabbling. justx645, perhaps this is not your intention, and perhaps this hasn't been brought to your attention before, but you do have a style of writing and replying that could be interpreted as inflammatory, and to some extent condescending. And if you do chose to pick people up on technicalities, you have to be prepared for a backlash of sorts...I know I do.
nomadic, please use the PM function if you want to personally insult someone...in a debate a person is allowed to be stubborn, of completely opposing views, and repeatedly tell you that you are wrong, but they should not resort to direct insults.
Phew, as for the debate on days, this really feels like a side issue, but here's my two cents. I agree with Sahiden , we cannot take the whole of the bible an unequivicalluy state that none of it is open in anyway to any sort of interpretation...large sections were passed on by word of mouth for hundreds of years before being put down in writing, and what we read as the bible today is translations of copies of copies...of copies of original manuscripts. As members of this site, everybody must see that there are many ways of translating the same source material, and discretion in large is given to the translator to translate any idioms as they see fit. As my ancient hebrew is a little rusty(actually nonexistant), I can't really talk about this in any sort of detail; if Sahiden decides to come and rejoin the fray I believe he's read up on this area.

[Nomadic Dragon]

I didn't think that I insulted anyone, but sometimes in debates I can get a little carried away. I do agree with ningo that justx645 writing style made him come off inflammatory, but looking back at my writing my wasn't much better so, justx645 if you are still reading this thread, I would like to appologize for my rude and insulting comments. No matter what the situation or how you writing made you come off, what I said was un called for, and I sincerely appologize. As I said, I can get a little carried away, but that isn't an excuse for my horrible behaviour. I respect that that is what you believe, and I shall believe what I believe. As one of my favorite songs say 'oh just leave it alone, 'cause we can't see eye to eye, there ain't no good guys, there ain't no bad guys, there's only you and me and we just disagree' :sadd:

[Tokoyami]

Hola everyone! :redbiggri
MY TOPIC IS BOOMING!! YAY!!!

I did not mean for thisd topic to become to hostile :sadd: , lol and it was only like my 5th post. HA, well anyways. I read most of your posts up to this point and i beleive what i first posted is as close to 100% as we can get. Because if u just got with Evolution, then there are many gaps and hole as one of you stated before. If u go with just creationism then the question about why there are bones or prehistoric animals within the earth.

Knowing that, is it not logical to see that both can go together?
justx645 said all we(which refers to me also)want this to be a "we're all right" debate. thats not true, I want a good debate. If and Evolutionist has a good reason to not beleive in Creationism. Then i want him to speak, and share his theory and Vice Versa.Not flame each other till one quits.

Some of you still beleive the "days" in Genesis were our 24hour days which is fine, thats your beleif. But the sun was not made until the third day along with the stars. (Genesis 1:14-18) Therefore there was no sun rising in the morning and setting in the evening to be called a 24 hour day. Knowing this, i say these "days" in genesis could have been millions of millions of years. To us that may seem to be a long time, but for God.... what is time to such a powerful being?The Bible cannot be taken literally, Gods word is to be interperted and then used in your life.



I beleive i that people who think evolution and god cant mix are wrong, because i beleive the evidence is in Genesis. But that is only my opinion. I also beleive that everyone is entitled to there opinion. Just because i beleive its wrong doesnt mean the next person will. Everyone has there own beleifs, faiths, and theories. And everyone has the right to beleive what they want. A theory is just a theory, an idea, not necessarily fact.

Thanks for listening to mine

[ssjharsh]

Not to offend anyone, but it seems that christianity is at odds with science alot. I am not christian, I am Hindu, and I can believe my faith and science without any real problems. Science says that we all originated from the same place, and that the universe is incredibly old. So does Hinduism.

[Tokoyami]

Not to offend anyone, but it seems that christianity is at odds with science alot. I am not christian, I am Hindu, and I can believe my faith and science without any real problems. Science says that we all originated from the same place, and that the universe is incredibly old. So does Hinduism.

I couldnt say much about that, i dont kno anything about Hinduism.

[8davryu suno8]

Not to offend anyone, but it seems that christianity is at odds with science alot. I am not christian, I am Hindu, and I can believe my faith and science without any real problems. Science says that we all originated from the same place, and that the universe is incredibly old. So does Hinduism.
Most religions do..^^

[ISAMU]

http://www.creationevidence.org/

Go there if you want to see some interesting stuff about creation. Also his show is on winamp (tbn station) i forgot the time i will have to ask my brother lol i make him tape it off the tv for me to watch later. :p

[justx645]

I accept the apology and make my own. I read back and a few times here or there I sounded hostile myself.

Anywho, this time instead of being on the recieving end of tough questions, I'll drop one of my own. This is directed towards anyone, no matter the belief, if they can answer it. For those who believe the bible, it's a simple thought of how the first humans did not evolve. They were created instantly by God himself. Adam made of dirt and Eve from Adam's rib. Now it also says that God created all the animals in the sea, land, and sky. Evolution says it took millions of years, but Adam and Eve were made on the spot. Now, the animals as well listed as in Genesis were spoken into creation also in an ex-nihilo fashion, because God said "let it be" and "it was." All creatures and different animals types were created at the same time, because all were told at once to "be fruitful and multply." So how can evolution match up with creation when the Bible clearly states that massive amounts of creatures of massive amounts of different types were all created at the same time?
(Genesis 1:20-25 is my reference for this)
Please, if you have researched facts or websites please site them I try to be the same on this.

[Sandal Hat]

I thought he made the first of each type of animal and then they evolved and branched from that animal

[8davryu suno8]

mhm..but i never got 1 thing, adam and eves children, cain and abel, the one killed da other, so then he went and had kids all over the place , ...? with who? just wonderin^^

[ISAMU]

The bible never really mentioned women all that much. It was because they were really sexist back then :mad: but i wont rant about that lol.....

[8davryu suno8]

^lol, yea that wud go on for a while as a debate, but yes, the bible is extremely paternalistic and derives power from man mainly. The church is not the only way to reach God, there are so many different ways every sec, every day. Besides, all the mistakes churches have committed over the years, women not being allowed to b priests, priests not being allowed to marry.. its all wrong

[Tokoyami]

Two people asked very common questions and i beleive i have the answer.
PLEASE READ THE ENTIRE POST, IF YOU READ ONLY A PART YOU WILL MISUNDERSTAND!!!

FIRST QUESTION
I accept the apology and make my own. I read back and a few times here or there I sounded hostile myself.

Anywho, this time instead of being on the recieving end of tough questions, I'll drop one of my own. This is directed towards anyone, no matter the belief, if they can answer it. For those who believe the bible, it's a simple thought of how the first humans did not evolve. They were created instantly by God himself. Adam made of dirt and Eve from Adam's rib. Now it also says that God created all the animals in the sea, land, and sky. Evolution says it took millions of years, but Adam and Eve were made on the spot. Now, the animals as well listed as in Genesis were spoken into creation also in an ex-nihilo fashion, because God said "let it be" and "it was." All creatures and different animals types were created at the same time, because all were told at once to "be fruitful and multply." So how can evolution match up with creation when the Bible clearly states that massive amounts of creatures of massive amounts of different types were all created at the same time?
(Genesis 1:20-25 is my reference for this)
Please, if you have researched facts or websites please site them I try to be the same on this.

Now seeing as the first 2 days were not normal days and could have been millions of millions of years, that would give plenty of time dinosaurs to evolve correct? And science tells us that dinosaurs evolved into birds, or rather some did. In the section u referenced, it says, "...and let the birds fly above the face of the earth. across the face of the firmament of the heavens." I beleive that firmament means the sky, the border between earth and space. It does not say that he simply created the birds. As for the sea creatures it says, "Let the Waters abound with an abundance of living creatures,..." now these living creatures could simply be small organisms that survive in water. Now necesserly an actual fish. Abounded means to be in abundance or to be many. Some synonyms of Abound is to Grow, Flourish, Thrive, multiply.

Multiply....

This means when the bible says, "So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind...." It also means the waters multiplied. Now this fourth day is a normal day, because the sun and moon are now in effect here. But being the mighty god our lord is. When he speaks it happens. And whos to say that when he told the waters to multiply they did not reproduce quickly. When reproduction occurs there is chance for evolution. Right after the Bible says that, God says "Be Fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth." Meaning both the Sea creatures and the birds were told by god to multiply, and when things multiply they reproduce, and when things reproduce, Evolution can occur whether in major or minor increments.

This is all in Genesis 1:20-22
SECOND QUESTION
mhm..but i never got 1 thing, adam and eves children, cain and abel, the one killed da other, so then he went and had kids all over the place , ...? with who? just wonderin^^

Now In Genesis 1:24-27 God says "let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind" The lord here brings forth the animals that live on the land. Now then god made the animals he made them "according to their own kind" Kind has many synonyms, such as brand, breed, classification, family, genus, ilk, race, set, sort, species, variety. Now if god meant to bring them forth according to their kind it is possible to say he brought them forth according to there species. It does not say he simply made them appear. He could have brought them through evolution, which would explain why he brought them forth, or made them according to their own kind, or species. This means he brought forth animals accoding to what species they were. In other words evolution. Now with this evolution there were also primate like creatures, not monkeys, primal creatures, that were evolving. Now in Genesis 1:26 God says to the animals after making them,"Let Us make man in our image, according to Our likeness, let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." Now the capitals on Our and Us are in the bible, i didnt add them. They are emphisized. Now if man is being made, it means men and woman are being formed, it does not say just one man and just one woman. Now in Genesis 1: 27-28 the bible says, "So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." So God has just created man, he has created man, in the form of men and women, males and females. Now then it goes to say, "Then God blessed them and God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue is; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth'." This means Man Multiplied, reproduced, meaning there is not one man and one woman, but there are many now. Now God took the man he formed, the original male, Adam and put him in Eden. Now remember the other men and women were all children of the original man and woman god made in Genesis 1: 27. He took adam and placed him in Eden and then he mad eve from adams rib and what not. Lets skip to when Cain was introduced. Now when Cain ran away, he found his wife, meaning he found another woman outside of Eden, like the ones who were children of the original two humans God formed in Genesis 1:27. That is where the woman Cain found came from.


Also woman were ruled over because Eve was cursed to have Adam rule over her, as said in Genesis 3: 16.

[Nomadic Dragon]

That makes a lot of sense, I could see how this could be true. I always wondered about the lack of men at the beginning, I was wondering how cain could go and find a wife if the only men and women created were adam and eve. It also fits in with evolution. I never really thought of it in that way.

[Sahiden]

I can't help but to keep wondering why you guys would like to quote directly from the Bible as a form of arguement, like it' some kind of General truth. While in reality it has been proven that the current version of the bible has been manipulated and rewritten in many ways, therefor most things in the bible aren't at all what they were in the original version, that also contained errors due to the fact that the stories used to be passed on mutually and have been altered for an unknown number of times.

So I guess the bible really can't be used as a point of arguements in any discussion.
Also seen that most stories in there were written to contain a life lesson, and not actually were meant to say the thruth about how the universe was created...
Moreoverly it was the church who created the religion and not the person who wrote the bible, knowing the background of the european church, we can determine that many parts of the bible were left out or altered to be closer to the church visions on the matter and some were actually altered to make people easier to manipulate, that's why the church got an awesome lot of power during the middle ages.

I didn't really tried to make a point with this... But this is what we Belgian people learn during history and religion classes. Just as a sidenote: I did go to a catholic school.

Unless you happen to have the last copy of the original bible and are able to read a language that no longer exists, you can't quote the bible as a general thruth.

[Tokoyami]

I can't help but to keep wondering why you guys would like to quote directly from the Bible as a form of arguement, like it' some kind of General truth. While in reality it has been proven that the current version of the bible has been manipulated and rewritten in many ways, therefor most things in the bible aren't at all what they were in the original version, that also contained errors due to the fact that the stories used to be passed on mutually and have been altered for an unknown number of times.

So I guess the bible really can't be used as a point of arguements in any discussion.
Also seen that most stories in there were written to contain a life lesson, and not actually were meant to say the thruth about how the universe was created...
Moreoverly it was the church who created the religion and not the person who wrote the bible, knowing the background of the european church, we can determine that many parts of the bible were left out or altered to be closer to the church visions on the matter and some were actually altered to make people easier to manipulate, that's why the church got an awesome lot of power during the middle ages.

I didn't really tried to make a point with this... But this is what we Belgian people learn during history and religion classes. Just as a sidenote: I did go to a catholic school.

Unless you happen to have the last copy of the original bible and are able to read a language that no longer exists, you can't quote the bible as a general thruth.


Its true the church created the religion, but they did not write the bible. The bible is a collection of the stories god told prophets and other people towrite as his word. No one person wrote the bible. It is true some churches manipulated the bible, as do homosexual churches today, but the european churches weren't the only churches in the world. Know this, the word church also means a gathering, congregation, a body, a faith. A church is not jsut a building as some people think. Many of the stories in the bible take place in northeast africa and what we now call the middle east, the middle east is in asia. Its true many catholic european churches manipulated the bible, thats why catholic forms of christianity have so many rules, many of which are not in the bible.

EDIT: also the bible was translated, so sometings in the bible dont make sense because often when u translate grammer is different. Thats why the bible somewords cant be taken literally and need to be replaced with synonyms to understand it more clearly.

[Nomadic Dragon]

Also I have to add, that these multiple translations, and how they were done might have changed the exact words that were written. Consider this, the bible has been in existance for a long time, with many different people translating it or copying it. One spelling error could change the whole meaning of a verse. Think of it as the game that I am sure most of you have played called telephone (You know where the first person whispers a phrase or word into the ear of the person next to them and in continues down until the last person, The word or phrase by that time is usually totally different from what it started as). This could be the reason why there might be so much misunderstanding about some things in the bible, a long time ago a monk or who ever was copying or writing the bible might have accidently left out a word or copyed a word wrong, and this continues as others copy from the copy with the error in it.

[Tokoyami]

i think that the word still makes sense in all cases, u just have to read it more thoroughly than other books.

[ningo]

I can't help but to keep wondering why you guys would like to quote directly from the Bible as a form of arguement, like it' some kind of General truth. Though there has been no formal definition of what we mean by creationism in this debate, all of the posts have talked about Christian creationism;Tokoyami's first post and all of the subsequent discussion has been on the ways in which a balance may be struck between evolution and creationism. As such it's hard to argue successfully from a creationistic point of view without quoting from the bible (I appreciate the sentiment, however, and agree with the rest of the post). Creationists of varying degrees may well dispute this and point out flaws in the theory of evolution, and experimental discrepencies, but none of these in any way prove creationism as a theory; they just discredit evolution.
justx645, in response to your post, an evolutionist would probably very easily dispose of your question by pointing out that basis of your statement that the species appeared all at once is a quote from one book, and that this was probably a metaphor as opposed to be taken literally i.e. all the different species where not all created in one go. I won't provide sources on why evolutionists don't believe the various species were created all in one go...this is elementary theory of evolution i.e. occurence and non-occurrence of fossils of various ages etc.
I have to admit that i'd never really read genesis in any sort of detail before (i was christened a christian, but i'm not now and never was a church-goer), but your interpretation is interesting Tokoyami. But if someone takes the view that genesis is a metaphor of sorts, that it was written with poetic license, then as you say there is no conflict between the two schools of thought; the means and mechanism by which the earth stands as it does now is much the same, only the belief as to whether it was by design this way or not differs. And that question already has its own thread.

[Tokoyami]

What question do u mean?

[ningo]

only the belief as to whether it was by design this way or not differs.Sorry, on re-reading that wasn't terribly clear...the point I was getting across was that if a creationist believes that god created the world through evolution, then that theory is entirely equivalent to evolution in as far as we can never disytinguish the two theories by any sort of test; the only difference between the two is the prior belief of whether or not there is a "god" or creator. And that question, "does god exist?", already has its own thread.

[Tokoyami]

Sorry, on re-reading that wasn't terribly clear...the point I was getting across was that if a creationist believes that god created the world through evolution, then that theory is entirely equivalent to evolution in as far as we can never disytinguish the two theories by any sort of test; the only difference between the two is the prior belief of whether or not there is a "god" or creator. And that question, "does god exist?", already has its own thread.

ok, well that is true, but i just dont see why people cant see why evolution and creationism can go together

[Sahiden]

Because else there would be one discussion less.
Everyone likes to see the religious people go against the evolutionists.
Now that's good TV.

(I'm so off topic...)

[ningo]

lol yeah...JERRY!JERRY!JERRY! :biggthump ok, well that is true, but i just dont see why people cant see why evolution and creationism can go togetherIt depends what you mean by creationism. If you mean creationism to mean the concept of a creator, then as previously noted there is no conflict, or not a huge conflict. But then again, the conflict rages on because of the extremes on both sides; the uber-atheists like Richard Dawkins, who seems to do his utmost to wind all of the creationists up, and the extreme creationists, some of whom still believe that the sun orbits the earth, or worse still that the earth is flat( quoting passages such as Revelations 7:1 "After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth").
If we discount Richard Dawkins and similar evolutionists (part of their issue with creationism is that they believe there is no god, which as previously noted is a subtley different issue), then the conflict occurs over whether god acted "unnaturally" or not in creating the world. By that i mean, did God work within the laws of the universe we observe at the moment, or did he work outside of them? If a creationist accepts that the bible may be open to interpretation, and that God may have worked within the laws of the universe he created to create life, then there is no conflict. There is only conflict if a creationist interprets the bible to imply that god acted oustide of the laws of physics etc that now govern us.
If, an alternative theory to evolution were to be put forward, which explained the gaps currently left by evolution, experimental data, and was experimentally verified, but still occurred over a similar timescale; would the evolutionist community accept it? Now consider if the creationist movement would accept it...
[edit] fixed a typo

[Apocalypse]

I see we have a pretty religious bunch around here. Not bad, of course, I'm pretty religious myself. Of course, when debating, I realize that you sometimes have to look past that. Now then...

Can either idea be proven beyond the doubt with 100% accuracy? Obviously not, as both ideas go back to times far beyond the knowledge of man. Religion is based on stories past from elders who are now long since gone. Science is based on information man has gathered about our universe over our existance. This all comes down to one element; where your faith lies. Why? Simply because there is no way to proove either. There is NO way to proove the existance of God (we have faith, but there is no actual hard proof), nor is there any method of seeing the events that brought about our existance.

Taking this in to account, you must then think of it this way. There was a void of nothingness in the beginning. Whether or not you are a creationist or evolutionist... this much is the same. At some point, something happened (keep in mind, this is a total void of nothingness) that changed this nothingness in to something. The question is, what is this something, and how did it come about from nothing? Hard question, right? In a scientific approach, it is said matter and energy are completely interchangeable. It is also said that nothingness has the greatest potential for energy. However, even then... the conditions would have to be just right. Looking at it from a paranormal sense, all spirits tend to have a kind of energy to them. God is the most powerful spiritual embodiment to ever exist. Is it not then possible that perhaps the energy which fueled the beginning of literally EVERYTHING derived from energy, which could in a totally theoretical sense... been God himself? To even further blow your minds, we can even claim that since all matter would have originated from God, technically we are all a part of God.

This is all just a thought, but you have to admit, it is pretty damn deep when you think about it. :winking56

[Tokoyami]

I see we have a pretty religious bunch around here. Not bad, of course, I'm pretty religious myself. Of course, when debating, I realize that you sometimes have to look past that. Now then...

Can either idea be proven beyond the doubt with 100% accuracy? Obviously not, as both ideas go back to times far beyond the knowledge of man. Religion is based on stories past from elders who are now long since gone. Science is based on information man has gathered about our universe over our existance. This all comes down to one element; where your faith lies. Why? Simply because there is no way to proove either. There is NO way to proove the existance of God (we have faith, but there is no actual hard proof), nor is there any method of seeing the events that brought about our existance.

Taking this in to account, you must then think of it this way. There was a void of nothingness in the beginning. Whether or not you are a creationist or evolutionist... this much is the same. At some point, something happened (keep in mind, this is a total void of nothingness) that changed this nothingness in to something. The question is, what is this something, and how did it come about from nothing? Hard question, right? In a scientific approach, it is said matter and energy are completely interchangeable. It is also said that nothingness has the greatest potential for energy. However, even then... the conditions would have to be just right. Looking at it from a paranormal sense, all spirits tend to have a kind of energy to them. God is the most powerful spiritual embodiment to ever exist. Is it not then possible that perhaps the energy which fueled the beginning of literally EVERYTHING derived from energy, which could in a totally theoretical sense... been God himself? To even further blow your minds, we can even claim that since all matter would have originated from God, technically we are all a part of God.

This is all just a thought, but you have to admit, it is pretty damn deep when you think about it. :winking56

:redbiggri haha, i never thaought of that, you have an excellent point. I beleive that could be how it all started. But its hard to invision the beginning of the universe, not because it was before our existence, but because there was nothing. An endless void of nothing. Ive read up on this. And some scientists at various colleges and universities have thought of a new theory. That our universe came from another demension, meaning another existence, where certain energies slipped into our level of existence. But thats on a different topic, maybe one we can start. (hint hint....nudge nudge.......slap with fly swatter......)

Ningo, i was was refering to Creationism in the sense of a creator, God. Sadly some people are to close minded to even research the possibilty of creationism and evolution as one (Creatiolution :biggrinlo ). But those are there beleifs, and i respect that.

[ssjharsh]

I see we have a pretty religious bunch around here. Not bad, of course, I'm pretty religious myself. Of course, when debating, I realize that you sometimes have to look past that. Now then...

Can either idea be proven beyond the doubt with 100% accuracy? Obviously not, as both ideas go back to times far beyond the knowledge of man. Religion is based on stories past from elders who are now long since gone. Science is based on information man has gathered about our universe over our existance. This all comes down to one element; where your faith lies. Why? Simply because there is no way to proove either. There is NO way to proove the existance of God (we have faith, but there is no actual hard proof), nor is there any method of seeing the events that brought about our existance.

Taking this in to account, you must then think of it this way. There was a void of nothingness in the beginning. Whether or not you are a creationist or evolutionist... this much is the same. At some point, something happened (keep in mind, this is a total void of nothingness) that changed this nothingness in to something. The question is, what is this something, and how did it come about from nothing? Hard question, right? In a scientific approach, it is said matter and energy are completely interchangeable. It is also said that nothingness has the greatest potential for energy. However, even then... the conditions would have to be just right. Looking at it from a paranormal sense, all spirits tend to have a kind of energy to them. God is the most powerful spiritual embodiment to ever exist. Is it not then possible that perhaps the energy which fueled the beginning of literally EVERYTHING derived from energy, which could in a totally theoretical sense... been God himself? To even further blow your minds, we can even claim that since all matter would have originated from God, technically we are all a part of God.

This is all just a thought, but you have to admit, it is pretty damn deep when you think about it. :winking56

Sorta off-topic, but... do u know about hinduism? because from your post, its sounds as if you do... The most powerful, all encompassing spiritual power, the total embodiment of God, of which we all are simply lost pieces, trying to get back, is a fundamental idea in Hinduism. That is where reincarnation comes from. Our souls, being part of God, can only return to Him when we have lived many pure lives, and achieved a greater wisdom. When we achieve this, our souls will become free of the cycle of reincarnation and find peace returning to our Origin.

As for the discussion, is it not possible that God, who is omniscent, did not see that he needed let us know how He works? Perhaps evolution is only God's mechanism for life. I don't know much about the Bible, and so I won't quote it or anything, but I will say that I think completely shutting out either idea will do more harm than good.

[Apocalypse]

Sorta off-topic, but... do u know about hinduism? because from your post, its sounds as if you do... The most powerful, all encompassing spiritual power, the total embodiment of God, of which we all are simply lost pieces, trying to get back, is a fundamental idea in Hinduism. That is where reincarnation comes from. Our souls, being part of God, can only return to Him when we have lived many pure lives, and achieved a greater wisdom. When we achieve this, our souls will become free of the cycle of reincarnation and find peace returning to our Origin.

As for the discussion, is it not possible that God, who is omniscent, did not see that he needed let us know how He works? Perhaps evolution is only God's mechanism for life. I don't know much about the Bible, and so I won't quote it or anything, but I will say that I think completely shutting out either idea will do more harm than good.

Nope... not at all. I have quite literally no experience in regards to the Hindu faith. But you know, in regards to religion... I don't think anyone has it just right. Is it not entirely possible that God appeared to different cultures in different forms, if he really did have these "Godly" powers? My religious beliefs are strange ones, at best. For I do not believe the good of other faiths (I am technically a Roman Catholic) go to Hell. In fact, I have begun to think that most religions today have quite a few things in common. Think about it rationally. How can EVERY other religion in the world been entirely wrong... except for yours? Would it not make more sense to believe that perhaps all are right, or at least, a little right? God can appear to people in many ways, and I think he wouldn't have just interacted with those in a certain region if he had the ability. The likely case would be that he would let himself be known, in some form, throughout the world. Furthermore, I don't think God... an all-compassionate being, would be cruel enough to send a GOOD person of differing faith to Hell. It is totally opposite of his nature. Think about it, religion, in a sense... is given to you by the way you are brought up (usually). If you are raised under the beliefs of a "wrong" religion, but are a truely good-hearted person... do you think the compassionate God we know would let that person fall to the depths of Hell? I do not beleive so. Instead, I think we would all learn the error of our thoughts in the end, be corrected, and then be welcomed to join a kind of "heaven".

Can't dispute what is impossible to know though. One can only rationalize... which isn't much different than guessing when it comes to something of such massive scale...

[Tokoyami]

Nope... not at all. I have quite literally no experience in regards to the Hindu faith. But you know, in regards to religion... I don't think anyone has it just right. Is it not entirely possible that God appeared to different cultures in different forms, if he really did have these "Godly" powers? My religious beliefs are strange ones, at best. For I do not believe the good of other faiths (I am technically a Roman Catholic) go to Hell. In fact, I have begun to think that most religions today have quite a few things in common. Think about it rationally. How can EVERY other religion in the world been entirely wrong... except for yours? Would it not make more sense to believe that perhaps all are right, or at least, a little right? God can appear to people in many ways, and I think he wouldn't have just interacted with those in a certain region if he had the ability. The likely case would be that he would let himself be known, in some form, throughout the world. Furthermore, I don't think God... an all-compassionate being, would be cruel enough to send a GOOD person of differing faith to Hell. It is totally opposite of his nature. Think about it, religion, in a sense... is given to you by the way you are brought up (usually). If you are raised under the beliefs of a "wrong" religion, but are a truely good-hearted person... do you think the compassionate God we know would let that person fall to the depths of Hell? I do not beleive so. Instead, I think we would all learn the error of our thoughts in the end, be corrected, and then be welcomed to join a kind of "heaven".

Can't dispute what is impossible to know though. One can only rationalize... which isn't much different than guessing when it comes to something of such massive scale...


Well in Christianity, the parent of a child is responsible for that child's soul til the age of manhood. Which is 12. From what has been ministered to me in church, i kno that many good people go to hell everyday. The only way to get into heaven is to accept jesus christ as your lord and savior. Im not sure if the child 12 and under will go to hell if his parents dont teach him to do so, or if the child automatically gets into heaven.

what you said about god appearing to people in different ways, ive thought of that over the years. Some told me that other religions are wrong, but i dont see how every last major religion can be wrong and mine be the only one thats right. There has to be a connection somewhere.

[Apocalypse]

Well in Christianity, the parent of a child is responsible for that child's soul til the age of manhood. Which is 12. From what has been ministered to me in church, i kno that many good people go to hell everyday. The only way to get into heaven is to accept jesus christ as your lord and savior. Im not sure if the child 12 and under will go to hell if his parents dont teach him to do so, or if the child automatically gets into heaven.

what you said about god appearing to people in different ways, ive thought of that over the years. Some told me that other religions are wrong, but i dont see how every last major religion can be wrong and mine be the only one thats right. There has to be a connection somewhere.

I never heard about parents being responsible for their child's soul until the age of 12. So what happens then? If the child does horrible deeds his entire life up until he/she dies... at the age of 12; the parent would then be responsible... and thus... would go to Hell? That seems a little flawed.


There really is no way to tell why all of these differing beliefs came from, but when you think about it... why did they start up in the first place? We humans are a curious creature. We naturally strive to find where we came from. There is one concept that has plagued our minds since as far as we could comprehend it... how were we created? With the knowledge we have even thus far, it can not really be explained. First of all, why would God punish people raised in circumstances that make them not believe in Jesus Christ? It is not their fault that they were raised in a society not believing in Christ. Think of it in a different manner.

Lets change things around a little, just for arguements sake. Lets say YOU believed in Jesus, but it actually turned out he was false. It turns out that those NOT believing in Jesus were correct all along. All followers of this false prophet BELIEVED they were doing the right thing. They lead good and honorable lives. Do you believe the God that is all-compassionate would send these people to the depths of Hell to suffer for all eternity? Would God choose a murderous non-believer of the false prophet over a good believer of the false prophet?

Then there is also the issue with God appearing to different cultures. Who is to say such an all-powerful being couldn't appear differently to different culture or even people. Why would God, having the power to do anything, constantly wish to look the same? Perhaps he shifts form almost constantly. We have no way to know that. The sterotypical God that those of the Christian faith believe in is typically a wise-looking older male, bearded, and dressed in pure white garbs. Why would he look like that? Who is to say he couldn't just be a form of pure light, a tiger, a monkey, a snowman, a shovel, a truck, a baseball bat, superman, spock, or even a floating :doindadom .

Simply put, I don't beleive God has a single look to him. I don't believe he, such a compassionate being, would let good people suffer. I also am beginning to believe that perhaps all religions in some wierd way are related to one another. Agreed, there has to be some connection. :toocool:

[Sandal Hat]

None are rightous(probably mispelled) before God

[Tokoyami]

(yay a good arguement without constant flaming)

I also think maybe god appears to people in different ways. But as for christians thinking hes an old baerded man. Well my ministers and pastor have said that we do not kno his face, or his clothes. I still think of him as the burning bush that spoke to moses. No real reason why, i just do. As for the 12 year old thing, i will have to look it up in the bible, i kno its there i just have to remember where. But i dont kno all the details about it, but i dont think god would send a child who ahs no way to learn of jesus to hell. I dont beleive my god would do such a thing. But then again, i just dont kno enough to say factualy that he would or wouldnt. I just dont kno, all i can do is have faith. Just like i have faith that jesus is not false. If he turned out to be false, it would devistate me, and much of the world, well those who are christian. But since we dont kno all the details, all you can do is try to find out more and just have faith in your own beleifs.

[Sandal Hat]

Well in the bible God sent bears to kill a bunch of little kids just cuz they were picking on some guy and they probably just didn't know any better and just being kids. Maybe they still went to heaven but who knows?

[Tokoyami]

Well in the bible God sent bears to kill a bunch of little kids just cuz they were picking on some guy and they probably just didn't know any better and just being kids. Maybe they still went to heaven but who knows?

O.o wtf? when?
I think theres more to that story than just god killin little kids.

[ISAMU]

Sandal Please tell me the book, chapter and verse/s that this happens in.

[Sandal Hat]

2 kings 2:20 And he said, Bring me a new cruse, and put salt therein. And they brought it to him. (2:20-22)
Elisha "heals" the waters by adding a pinch of salt.
2:21 And he went forth unto the spring of the waters, and cast the salt in there, and said, Thus saith the LORD, I have healed these waters; there shall not be from thence any more death or barren land.
2:22 So the waters were healed unto this day, according to the saying of Elisha which he spake.
2:23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.

2:24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

http://www.pitts.emory.edu/woodcuts/1712BiblA/00002416.jpg
Looky i found a pic

[ssjharsh]

Well in Christianity, the parent of a child is responsible for that child's soul til the age of manhood. Which is 12. From what has been ministered to me in church, i kno that many good people go to hell everyday. The only way to get into heaven is to accept jesus christ as your lord and savior. Im not sure if the child 12 and under will go to hell if his parents dont teach him to do so, or if the child automatically gets into heaven.

what you said about god appearing to people in different ways, ive thought of that over the years. Some told me that other religions are wrong, but i dont see how every last major religion can be wrong and mine be the only one thats right. There has to be a connection somewhere.

I dunno if this counts as an "official" source, but according the Dante's Inferno, which I believe he wrote after some rather intense studying of biblical scriptures, the first (or highest-up) ring of hell, is full of the virtuous pagans and unbaptized infants/children, as well as those who lived before Christ.All these people are condemned to live in eternal darkness (no pain, just they cannot recieve His light). The only light that is in this ring is that of the human intelligence, such as that of the great Greek thinkers and ancient rulers. It said something like that this light is great, but it pales in comparison to that of divine light (I paraphrased, cant remember the exacts).

As for the belief that God came in different forms to different people, I definitely believe that is true. I mean, we often find that we only know 1 side of a single person (like our parents, who may behave very differently at work, or when they were younger). If we cannot even know all the facets of someone who has been with us our whole lives, then how can we assume we know all the facets of an all-mighty God? I believe God takes avatars (or earthly forms) when He finds a need to intervene, and each time he has done so, we have percieved him differently. It can be Christ or Krishna or Mohammed or Buddha or any number of other forms. Each prophet (or avatar or whatever you want to call them) existed to aid and unite humanity, not divide it or destroy it. All the differences in religion exist because two people can see the same thing, but concieve very different ideas out of it. In the end, it all comes down to two words... play nice.

[ISAMU]

2 kings 2:20 And he said, Bring me a new cruse, and put salt therein. And they brought it to him. (2:20-22)
Elisha "heals" the waters by adding a pinch of salt.
2:21 And he went forth unto the spring of the waters, and cast the salt in there, and said, Thus saith the LORD, I have healed these waters; there shall not be from thence any more death or barren land.
2:22 So the waters were healed unto this day, according to the saying of Elisha which he spake.
2:23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.

2:24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

http://www.pitts.emory.edu/woodcuts/1712BiblA/00002416.jpg
Looky i found a pic

I commend you for actually having the scripture :D but the bible isnt all about that stuff. You see the old testament is filled with violence because that was the only way. After jesus died though we have another option, so less violence.

[Sandal Hat]

Oh i know, i was just saying that just because your young doesn't mean God might so merciful on you. oh and im not an atheist its just the site where i found the scripture from was kinda atheist :)

[Tokoyami]

I dunno if this counts as an "official" source, but according the Dante's Inferno, which I believe he wrote after some rather intense studying of biblical scriptures, the first (or highest-up) ring of hell, is full of the virtuous pagans and unbaptized infants/children, as well as those who lived before Christ.All these people are condemned to live in eternal darkness (no pain, just they cannot recieve His light). The only light that is in this ring is that of the human intelligence, such as that of the great Greek thinkers and ancient rulers. It said something like that this light is great, but it pales in comparison to that of divine light (I paraphrased, cant remember the exacts).

As for the belief that God came in different forms to different people, I definitely believe that is true. I mean, we often find that we only know 1 side of a single person (like our parents, who may behave very differently at work, or when they were younger). If we cannot even know all the facets of someone who has been with us our whole lives, then how can we assume we know all the facets of an all-mighty God? I believe God takes avatars (or earthly forms) when He finds a need to intervene, and each time he has done so, we have percieved him differently. It can be Christ or Krishna or Mohammed or Buddha or any number of other forms. Each prophet (or avatar or whatever you want to call them) existed to aid and unite humanity, not divide it or destroy it. All the differences in religion exist because two people can see the same thing, but concieve very different ideas out of it. In the end, it all comes down to two words... play nice.


Hey can u send me a link to somewhere where i can look at the 3 rings of hell thing. I heard about that a while back and i never found much about it. It would really be interesting to read.

[ssjharsh]

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/8789/8789-h/8789-h.htm

This is Project Gutenberg's complete online copy of Dante's Inferno, in english. They also have it in a whole bunch of other languages. Just search on their main page. Also, I think its 9 circles of hell, some of which are further divided into rings. The further down you go, the worse your sin and the more severe your punishment. At the middle is a frozen Lucifer

[Sandal Hat]

I thought all sin was equal or is this a different religion?

[Apocalypse]

I thought all sin was equal or is this a different religion?

"Dante's Inferno" is a book written well... a very long time ago. To my knowledge, despite the fact that it is based on religious thought, it has no religious backing. The book tells you of Dante's journey through Hell, to (I think) wash away his sin. Very interesting book. Of course, if it has no religious backing, then that is just a mere concept of what hell MIGHT be like.

[ssjharsh]

I thought all sin was equal or is this a different religion?


Wow... I had no idea that in Christianity all sin was considered equal... thats an interesting thought... So, if you were to steal a loaf of bread becuase you were on the street and had no money, it is as bad as Satan's blashphemy towards God? :eek:

[Sandal Hat]

I would have to say yes Sin=Sin but all sin can be thrown in the Sea of Forgetfullness :)

[Tokoyami]

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/8789/8789-h/8789-h.htm

This is Project Gutenberg's complete online copy of Dante's Inferno, in english. They also have it in a whole bunch of other languages. Just search on their main page. Also, I think its 9 circles of hell, some of which are further divided into rings. The further down you go, the worse your sin and the more severe your punishment. At the middle is a frozen Lucifer

Thanks man, ive always wanted to read abotu this. Yea all sin is equal, but like Sandal Hat said, it can all be washed away like that. All ya gotta do is ask and beleive in Jesus.

[ssjharsh]

Thanks man, ive always wanted to read abotu this. Yea all sin is equal, but like Sandal Hat said, it can all be washed away like that. All ya gotta do is ask and beleive in Jesus.

Ok, so those who believe and repent will be saved right? I thought hell was reserved for those who willingly did not repent, and therefore suffer for their conscious act of defying the laws of God. So, maybe I got this wrong, but what it seems to me is that to that forgiveness for a sin is equal, no matter how heinous the sin, but that does not mean that those who do not look for forgiveness are all punished equally.

[Sandal Hat]

Hell is for sinners and is not reserved for anyone because it wasn't intended for anyone to go there thats why the Bible says it is always expanding.About the forgiveness part,you need to reword because i can't understand what your trying to say.

if you sin you can ask for forgiveness and if you really are serious when you ask then you will be forgiven but if you keep doing the same sin and asking for forgiveness then you will not be forgiven.Ofcourse if you do not ask for forgiveness then you will be punished when you go to Heaven which makes sense.

[General Cox]

im not sure, i know all sin is meant to be forgiven if you ask for it , but what about mass murders and other such people? What if everytime the kill someone or some people they ask for forgiveness? Do they also have their sin removed and can pass into heaven?

[Sandal Hat]

but if you keep doing the same sin and asking for forgiveness then you will not be forgiven.Ofcourse if you do not ask for forgiveness then you will be punished when you go to Heaven which makes sense.

That goes along with mass murdering people, if you do it and ask for forgiveness and you don't mean it then you will not be forgiven.

[Apocalypse]

That goes along with mass murdering people, if you do it and ask for forgiveness and you don't mean it then you will not be forgiven.

...Punishment in Heaven? Isn't that a little contradictory to what we all believe heaven to be? :eek13:

[Sandal Hat]

When i said punished when you get to Heaven i mean when you are brought before God and determined whether or not you go to Hell

[ssjharsh]

Hell is for sinners and is not reserved for anyone because it wasn't intended for anyone to go there thats why the Bible says it is always expanding.About the forgiveness part,you need to reword because i can't understand what your trying to say.

if you sin you can ask for forgiveness and if you really are serious when you ask then you will be forgiven but if you keep doing the same sin and asking for forgiveness then you will not be forgiven.Ofcourse if you do not ask for forgiveness then you will be punished when you go to Heaven which makes sense.

What I was trying to say is that the people who either continue commiting a sin or never repent, maybe each sin is worth differently? For example, an unbaptized child who dies, has original sin, and therefore will go to Hell. Also, a mass murderer will go to Hell. Will they end up next to each other? I don't think that is the case. I think, in Hell, there is a certain punishment for a certain sin. All the murderers would be together facing the same punishment, while all the unbaptized children would be elsewhere facing a different punishment than the murderers.

[General Cox]

you could look at it like the acient greeks do or the other ancient races, they believed they got different punishments in hell for the sins they had comitted, i remember one was they got strapped down and eaten by crows every day, never being able to move and there were other not so grumsome ones as well

sorry for being vague, my ancient religeons aint upto scratch :P

[Tokoyami]

you could look at it like the acient greeks do or the other ancient races, they believed they got different punishments in hell for the sins they had comitted, i remember one was they got strapped down and eaten by crows every day, never being able to move and there were other not so grumsome ones as well

sorry for being vague, my ancient religeons aint upto scratch :P

That would make sense, having a different punishment for each lvl of sin. But is Satan that merciful?.....

[ssjharsh]

That would make sense, having a different punishment for each lvl of sin. But is Satan that merciful?.....

Is it Satan himself that decides what punishment the Damned recieve? I know in medieval times, Lucifer picked up the traits of a scoundrel who scoured the world for souls to be bought. However, I thought the souls that he bought would be those souls that would fight with him during the Apocalypse, and Hell was the only place left in God's universe that allowed Satan to work unhindered. However, the punishments for those who are there, I thought, would come from a power other than Satan, since he himself is there in punishment and exile.

BTW... we are sooooo off-topic :biggrinki

[Tokoyami]

Yea we are off topic, but we are havinga productive conversation and not just randomly spamming.

I never stopped to think who deals out the punishments in hell. I thought it was just everyone down there burned in fires that do not consume.

[Sandal Hat]

^Well the Devil is the god of this world but i think God controls hell since he made it

Even though all sins are equal as stated in the bible, when you get to Hell there might be certain categories for people who did different things but i intend never to find out the answer to this question :)

[Apocalypse]

...since we're off-topic anyway...

...what exactly do you think "Hell" is? Is it just a realm of (as mentioned in the previous post) unconsuming flame? Is it (as mentioned in Dante's inferno) an area in which sinners are thrown in according to their sins, or perhaps does it have some different form?

Personally, I think "Hell" is in the eye of the beholder. I do not believe each person has the same EXACT "Hell". Rather, I think Hell is the WORST method of torture one particular person can think of, lasting for an eternity... non-stop. Furthermore, I do not believe God would put people there under normal situations. I think they have to have commited unspeakable sins, and have literally no sense of remorse for it. Otherwise, I believe that people are thrown in to a kind of "purgatory", in which they must cleanse themselves of their sin. Of course, if their sin is GREATER, then they will be DEEPER in purgatory (thus having to repent for a longer period of time). This idea explains why people who DO commit sins may still go to heaven, so long as they realize and confront this sin in life and then repent for it (for a time) in the afterlife. Of course, these are just my beliefs. I'm quite sure many of you have far different ideas.

[Sandal Hat]

I ofcourse believe that some sins are worser than others but i have to go along with the bible and understand that no sin is greater or worser than another one

I think Hell is a giant pool of fire which was stated in the bible

Even though sometimes i think it is unfair that we have to go to hell of eternity and suffer a greater torture than Jesus did when he died on the cross for not believing in him

also if the dangers of not accepting Jesus as your lord and savour are so great why didn't God give us more information in the bible to prove that he exist?

[General Cox]

he left us with our own choice i suppose, the thing is these days 2005 years after he was here, we have started to doubt what might have happend all those years ago, how do we know what is true and what is not 2005 years later?

It says so in the bible you could say and the preists also say it regularly but then fiction books are books written by someone?

Take the da vinci code for example, i know its fiction but its good fiction, it build s onto something that could quite possibly have happend (i dont really believe a word of it, but its a good book) but this doesnt make it true.

The only way to find out is to die i suppose

[Tokoyami]

I ofcourse believe that some sins are worser than others but i have to go along with the bible and understand that no sin is greater or worser than another one

I think Hell is a giant pool of fire which was stated in the bible

Even though sometimes i think it is unfair that we have to go to hell of eternity and suffer a greater torture than Jesus did when he died on the cross for not believing in him

also if the dangers of not accepting Jesus as your lord and savour are so great why didn't God give us more information in the bible to prove that he exist?

I dont kno, i beleive hell is to great a punishment for anyone to go through. I dont see why But im not sure its for eternity. The bible says it is, but also at the end of the bible, in revelations, It says that there will be 2000 years of peace after jesus returns, then satan will be released again to test us. I dont kno the exact location in revelations that it says this but i can find it if anyone wants to read it for themselves.

When satan is released, does that everyone in hell will be tested again? given a second chance?

Did god change his mind about us being trapped in hell for eternity?

[ssjharsh]

This is the nth thread on evolution, because the other topic on christianity was leading towards this topic anyway. Well, you guys know what to do... I'll wait on my opinions til after I finish studying... and please keep it above the belt.

[Sou12eaper]

Well imo i perffer a scientific answer, rather than an answer based on faith… But i've never been a religious kind of person.

[Polygon]

I believe evolution was gods way of putting man on earth. We can't be so narrow-minded to think that God may have put adam and eve on earth in a way we can't comprehend.

[mistified]

I have to open up with, I am a Christian, but I wasn't always, so don't say I'm closed minded because of it. To me, microevolution does not disagree with the Bible, Macro does. But that's not enough since I also think somewhat scientifically so I need backing for my belief. Thus I've done my homework and found that there are actually alot of major flaws with it. Especially with the four icons, which some were disproved yet are still being taught in schools. I just think if people are going to totally deny God, fine, but I think that a more logical and reasoned scientific theory should take the place of evolution in the near future. It seems to me the scientific community is slowly moving in this direction so honestly, I'll be waiting to see for that day.

[Sou12eaper]

I believe evolution was gods way of putting man on earth. We can't be so narrow-minded to think that God may have put adam and eve on earth in a way we can't comprehend.

How can u be so hypocritical and call me narrow-minded because I don’t share the same opinion as you, for your information I do believe in a higher power it is just not “God”.

[Polygon]

How can u be so hypocritical and call me narrow-minded because I don’t share the same opinion as you, for your information I do believe in a higher power it is just not “God”.


What are you talking about? I meant man as a whole. I have no idea how I am being a hypocrite. I wasn't talking to or about you. If I was I would have given some indacation that I was.

[Sou12eaper]

You can't call people narrow-minded because they dont share your opinion, without being narrow-minded yourself.

[Polygon]

You can't call people narrow-minded because they dont share your opinion, without being narrow-minded yourself.

Stop making assumpions. I didn't call anyone narrow minded. I simply said that we can't be so narrow-minded that we couldn't have thought that god put adam and eve another way. In simple terms "someone in time must have thought that god put us here another way"

EDIT: I understand how my first post could be percieved the wrong way. but no the second. Just to clarify I am not a christian but a muslim.

[Sou12eaper]

Oh ok. I was just offended by your first post, but i understand what you are saying now.

[Tokoyami]

man, i wish my evolution vs creationism topic was still around, I explained there how both go together perfectly

[Sandal Hat]

Can you tell me the chapters in the bible that state that, it sounds interesting i wonder why my Head Youth Leader hasn't preached on anything about that yet?

Also. you have to take in to account that God give his only son to die on the cross for people he didn't even know. Ever think about what it would feel like telling whoever you loved the most to be beaten, ridiculed, and beaten on the cross?

That's all i can think of at the moment to help bump this thread ( i heard you couldn't find it lol)

[ssjharsh]

I have to open up with, I am a Christian, but I wasn't always, so don't say I'm closed minded because of it. To me, microevolution does not disagree with the Bible, Macro does. But that's not enough since I also think somewhat scientifically so I need backing for my belief. Thus I've done my homework and found that there are actually alot of major flaws with it. Especially with the four icons, which some were disproved yet are still being taught in schools. I just think if people are going to totally deny God, fine, but I think that a more logical and reasoned scientific theory should take the place of evolution in the near future. It seems to me the scientific community is slowly moving in this direction so honestly, I'll be waiting to see for that day.


Could you explain more about the 4 icons? I googled it, but nothing really seems to deal with any icons..
Also, macroevolution and microevolution are just different degrees of the same idea. That is to say, both share the concept that in times of change due to external pressures, certain phenotypes die out while others survive. Those that are able to survive, will reproduce thereby perpetuating and strengthening (in numbers and in chance of occurence) of that phenotype. The only real difference between microevolution and macroevolution is the time scale on which it occurs. Bacteria and other microorganisms can evolve very quickly simply because they have very short generations. Since in a single day certain bacteria can undergo several generations, their evolution is more readily visible. However, for larger species, who have longer lifespans, evolution would take proportionately longer. In addition, evolution requires circumstances in which a population is significantly lowered, due to an external factor. This occurs less commonly in larger species, especially humans, who often find artificial methods to resist such change, and not relying solely on natural laws of speciation to run their course.

[justx645]

A lot of people want to say Creation and Evolution go together perfectly, because there's supposedly 6 stages of evolution and then there's 6 days of creation, meaning that each "day" was really some-odd million years. Well...that doesn't work. Day 3 God made plants and all types of vegetation. Day 4 God made the sun (Genesis 1). This in NO WAY lines up with any beliefs in evolution, because how on earth could plants survive some-odd millions of years without sunlight? The grammar in the original language for the term "and it was so" signifies an action, one action. One event and all plants were. This isn't a progressive thing. Same with animals. Man was created on the 6th day. Biblically Adam was made of dust and God breathed life into him (Genesis 2:7). The word for life is very similar to the word found later on when God says don't eat the blood of animals, because it's their life. When God breathed life into Adam it (to me at least) means that he breathed everything into him, blood, organs, everything. Made it all inside of Adam. Therefore Adam was made of dust and given these life features by God directly. The word for dust means dust, not "basic parts" as some like to say to support evolution. I don't see how on earth people can say that evolution and creation "go together perfectly" if one says things were created in an instant and the other says things were created over time. Evolution says that the sun existed long before the earth did, and the sun was a major factor in the "birth" of the first life on earth. The Bible says the sun (the "greater light" mentioned in Genesis 1) wasn't created until after plants were. Evolution states that all things came from these one-celled organisms that changed over time into animals and plants. Creation states that all things were made in one week, section by section. First plants, then animals in the sea and sky, then animals of the field, then man. Why do people try to support evolution with creation or vice-versa? Believe one or the other, but you can't believe both to be true because of obvious contradictions. I don't care if you believe in evolution or creation, just pick one and stay there, don't try to combine the two. Am I narrow-minded? Yes. That's the only way to be in my opinion.

[Polygon]

A lot of people want to say Creation and Evolution go together perfectly, because there's supposedly 6 stages of evolution and then there's 6 days of creation, meaning that each "day" was really some-odd million years. Well...that doesn't work. Day 3 God made plants and all types of vegetation. Day 4 God made the sun (Genesis 1). This in NO WAY lines up with any beliefs in evolution, because how on earth could plants survive some-odd millions of years without sunlight? The grammar in the original language for the term "and it was so" signifies an action, one action. One event and all plants were. This isn't a progressive thing. Same with animals. Man was created on the 6th day. Biblically Adam was made of dust and God breathed life into him (Genesis 2:7). The word for life is very similar to the word found later on when God says don't eat the blood of animals, because it's their life. When God breathed life into Adam it (to me at least) means that he breathed everything into him, blood, organs, everything. Made it all inside of Adam. Therefore Adam was made of dust and given these life features by God directly. The word for dust means dust, not "basic parts" as some like to say to support evolution. I don't see how on earth people can say that evolution and creation "go together perfectly" if one says things were created in an instant and the other says things were created over time. Evolution says that the sun existed long before the earth did, and the sun was a major factor in the "birth" of the first life on earth. The Bible says the sun (the "greater light" mentioned in Genesis 1) wasn't created until after plants were. Evolution states that all things came from these one-celled organisms that changed over time into animals and plants. Creation states that all things were made in one week, section by section. First plants, then animals in the sea and sky, then animals of the field, then man. Why do people try to support evolution with creation or vice-versa? Believe one or the other, but you can't believe both to be true because of obvious contradictions. I don't care if you believe in evolution or creation, just pick one and stay there, don't try to combine the two. Am I narrow-minded? Yes. That's the only way to be in my opinion.


Your "thoery" doesn't work. There is no way in the universe that you can prove that they don't go toeghter perfectly. I will continue to believe that they are part of each other. Of course scientists do not really understand evolution at all. All they know is Orginisms change over time. I do not agree thatAll of tis is a coiencidence. I mean really, what are that chances that single'celled orginisms who were living in the oceon learned to breath like they say. It makes no sense to me.

[justx645]

You can't say they're both right. They can't be. There has to be one truth. There cannot be many truths. The law of non-contradiction states that if A says one thing, and B says something in direct contradition, both A and B cannot be correct. Both of them may be wrong, but they both cannot be correct. My statements above supported my belief in pure creation, not pieces of one and pieces of the other. Many people say that I'm narrow-minded for saying that only one is right. Yeah, I'm narrow-minded. You have to be. You can't just say "we're all right" or "we all need to agree" or some crap like that. If there is no one thing you believe in, you have no firm stance on anything. Why take pieces from different beliefs? Why mix them? It's pointless. Believe in one thing. In this case, believe in either Evolution or Creation. Don't try to intertwine the two. They DO contradict each other, otherwise there wouldn't be a massive debate about it world-wide. Stand for one thing and one thing alone, don't try to appease everyone. There's nothing wrong with believing in something that someone else disagrees with. Pick a side, but research both. Understand both sides and pick for yourself, but do pick a side. I just can't stand people who stand in the middle and say "well maybe you're both right" because I will not compromise my beliefs to conform to another and I don't want some evolutionist to do that either. I want that evolutionist to come over and believe the Bible fully, or I want him to stay on his side and fight me tooth and nail.

[Polygon]

You can't say they're both right. They can't be. There has to be one truth. There cannot be many truths. The law of non-contradiction states that if A says one thing, and B says something in direct contradition, both A and B cannot be correct. Both of them may be wrong, but they both cannot be correct. My statements above supported my belief in pure creation, not pieces of one and pieces of the other. Many people say that I'm narrow-minded for saying that only one is right. Yeah, I'm narrow-minded. You have to be. You can't just say "we're all right" or "we all need to agree" or some crap like that. If there is no one thing you believe in, you have no firm stance on anything. Why take pieces from different beliefs? Why mix them? It's pointless. Believe in one thing. In this case, believe in either Evolution or Creation. Don't try to intertwine the two. They DO contradict each other, otherwise there wouldn't be a massive debate about it world-wide. Stand for one thing and one thing alone, don't try to appease everyone. There's nothing wrong with believing in something that someone else disagrees with. Pick a side, but research both. Understand both sides and pick for yourself, but do pick a side. I just can't stand people who stand in the middle and say "well maybe you're both right" because I will not compromise my beliefs to conform to another and I don't want some evolutionist to do that either. I want that evolutionist to come over and believe the Bible fully, or I want him to stay on his side and fight me tooth and nail.


Blah, Blah, Blah using that kind of logic is weak. So what If a law states otherwise? I believe what I believe. Besides this is not combining A and B this is aking a point C. You cannot tell people what to believe. How do you think thesers ideas where thought up? Using that kind of weak logic you wont get very far. All these rules and laws of philophisy were made based on opinions that is what philasiphy is. Opinions. I believe what I want to. Nothing in this universe can MAKE me change my opinion. Only give contridictions, I have to say what I believe. Ad this is what I believe, no question.

[justx645]

And that's the EXACT point I was making. I want people to believe ONE thing. I don't want people taking points from both. And the law of non-contradiction isn't weak logic, it's common sense. If you say that the object on the table is a quarter and I say it's a spider, one or both of us are wrong. That's all I said. I just don't want people coming up and saying "well maybe you're both right." Because obviously the thing on the table has to be something, it can't be both a quarter and a spider. Plus, this thread is about evolution and Octagon I'm not pointing a finger at you, I'm talking in general to everyone. Sorry if you thought I was aiming at you. I just want people to stop thinking that there's something wrong with you if you believe one thing and one thing only.

[Polygon]

And that's the EXACT point I was making. I want people to believe ONE thing. I don't want people taking points from both. And the law of non-contradiction isn't weak logic, it's common sense. If you say that the object on the table is a quarter and I say it's a spider, one or both of us are wrong. That's all I said. I just don't want people coming up and saying "well maybe you're both right." Because obviously the thing on the table has to be something, it can't be both a quarter and a spider. Plus, this thread is about evolution and Octagon I'm not pointing a finger at you, I'm talking in general to everyone. Sorry if you thought I was aiming at you. I just want people to stop thinking that there's something wrong with you if you believe one thing and one thing only.


I know you'r not pointiong a finer at me. What I'm saying is that you cannot tell people what to think? That's like saying vaizards are either only hollow or only shinigami.
I know this isn't goning to happen, but what if the quater was a quater-spider?

[ssjharsh]

I think I would have to agree with Octogon on this one... because in order to remove the possibility that both creationism and evolution are dually true, one would need to know everythhing about both creation and evolution, and no one knows everything, at least about evolution. As for the point about plants coming into existence on the third day,
while the sun came to being the next, there is a large span of time when life was based solely on chemosynthetic processes in order to gain nutrition.
And on a side point, plants and animals evolved simultaneuously. It isn't that first plants as we know them formed and then animals. Of course autotrophic cells existed before heterotrophic, but for the most part plants and animals evolved at the same time, under two different paths.

[justx645]

Okay, well how can evolution and creation both be right if evolution says plants and animals evolved at the same time and creation says that plants came first and all animals afterwards?

Quarter-spider? *sigh* Look people, I'm not saying I know everything. But since you don't either, and since no one knows everything, then according to your own conditions no one has the right to talk about anything ever. I don't know everything about Bleach, but when I'm talking about it with my friends or people on this forum we're allowed to think thoroughly based upon what we've seen and draw our own conclusions based upon facts and inference. Don't say that just because I don't know everything I have no right to "know" something. I KNOW that evolution and creation directly contradict each other, and therefore I KNOW that one of them has to be wrong. That is a fact in my head based upon my own thoughts, research, meditations and decisions. It's also a fact in many other's heads, so I know I'm not alone. I don't know everything, but I don't have to. That's the glory of thinking. Decide what you believe but if two things contradict THEY CANNOT BOTH BE RIGHT. There are no quarter-spiders. There cannot be. You can't be both male and female. You cannot be both dead and alive. You cannot be bald and have a full head of hair. God cannot create all living things in six days and nature create it all through millions of years of evolution. Evolution and Creation are as different as black and white, and the only way it will ever be grey is if you make it a quarter-spider out of your lack of knowledge. Pick a side.

[Polygon]

Okay, well how can evolution and creation both be right if evolution says plants and animals evolved at the same time and creation says that plants came first and all animals afterwards?

Quarter-spider? *sigh* Look people, I'm not saying I know everything. But since you don't either, and since no one knows everything, then according to your own conditions no one has the right to talk about anything ever. I don't know everything about Bleach, but when I'm talking about it with my friends or people on this forum we're allowed to think thoroughly based upon what we've seen and draw our own conclusions based upon facts and inference. Don't say that just because I don't know everything I have no right to "know" something. I KNOW that evolution and creation directly contradict each other, and therefore I KNOW that one of them has to be wrong. That is a fact in my head based upon my own thoughts, research, meditations and decisions. It's also a fact in many other's heads, so I know I'm not alone. I don't know everything, but I don't have to. That's the glory of thinking. Decide what you believe but if two things contradict THEY CANNOT BOTH BE RIGHT. There are no quarter-spiders. There cannot be. You can't be both male and female. You cannot be both dead and alive. You cannot be bald and have a full head of hair. God cannot create all living things in six days and nature create it all through millions of years of evolution. Evolution and Creation are as different as black and white, and the only way it will ever be grey is if you make it a quarter-spider out of your lack of knowledge. Pick a side.


Fool. I'm gonna stop after this post because frankly you think you KNOW they can't contridicy each other. Forgive me but that's just stupid, especially how you CLAIM no 2 things can ever be right. Fact is this is what you think not me. So stop acting as if you know so much. Unless you can PROVE that evo and creation can't go hand in hand. Which you CAN'T and never will be able to.

[justx645]

Well thanks for stopping the thread. If I can't prove evolution don't go hand in hand none of you can prove they do. None of you can prove anything and therefore this entire thread is void anyway. How can you say I'm wrong and you're right? Can you prove it to me?

Fool. I'm gonna stop after this post because frankly you think you KNOW they can't contridicy each other. Forgive me but that's just stupid, especially how you CLAIM no 2 things can ever be right. Fact is this is what you think not me. So stop acting as if you know so much. Unless you can PROVE that evo and creation can't go hand in hand. Which you CAN'T and never will be able to.

I never said no two things can ever be right. I said no two things can be right if they both contradict each other. Secondly, I gave a simple reason behind that contradiction, one that you didn't address.

...how can evolution and creation both be right if evolution says plants and animals evolved at the same time and creation says that plants came first and all animals afterwards?

You said stop acting as if I know so much, and I clearly said in my statement that I don't know everything. I never claimed to know everything and I don't hope to either. Stop acting as if YOU know so much. Consider this my resign on this thread, because obviously all you're going to do is drop crap on me and not back up anything you say. SSJHarsh was supplying scientific information in his posts, and he didn't claim to know everything either.

Why is it that when people offer up the Bible as a solution that everyone jumps on it? It's just as valid a resource as any science book. It's all about faith anyway. Whether you'll admit it or not evolution takes faith. We weren't there when the first cells were formed, and we weren't there when the first monkey stood upright, starting a human race. You claim that through research and inference. And I repsect that. I on the other hand wasn't there when God said "let there be light." Nor was I there when Jesus walked to the site of his own crucifiction. I claim it's truth through research and inference. I have faith. It's all the same. Why does mine have to be wrong over here, because I can't prove it? You can't prove it. No one can prove anything if they don't know EVERYTHING about it. So why even discuss anything? Octogon, please in the future consider what yousay before you say it. You're the one sounding like a fool. I quit this discussion, because everyone wants to make quarter-spiders instead of wondering what they can spend the quarter on.

[ssjharsh]

You can't be both male and female. You cannot be both dead and alive. You cannot be bald and have a full head of hair. God cannot create all living things in six days and nature create it all through millions of years of evolution. Evolution and Creation are as different as black and white, and the only way it will ever be grey is if you make it a quarter-spider out of your lack of knowledge. Pick a side.

You are right to say that both creation and evolution in their current forms cannnot be right, and that you are welcome to think about them... that is how new ideas come about. I am just saying do not rule out possibilities.
You said one cannot be male and female, and yet we have hermaphrodites. You said you cannot be bald and have a full head of hair, but then what is a wig? You said that God cannot create life in 6 days and in millions of years, but then this is God, and seriously what do we know about that guy? You said that the two topics are as different as black and white and the only way to create shades is from a lack of knowledge, and that is the same thing I say. We all suffer from a lack of knowledge. If we didn't then science would not have a point. Personally, I'm not even christian so I don't believe in creationism anyway, but for those that do, its fine. You said that black cannnot be white, but take any photograph and look carefully enought and you will find some white in that black. You said that not choosing a side is being ignorant. but not recognizing that the world is not limited to only two sides is much worse.


EDIT: Heh... sorry I missed you 2nd post Justx645.. guess we were writing at the same time,

[haruki_jitsunin]

Wow, so, this is not as formal as some of the debates I've gotten in to, but here it goes...

I believe that darwinism takes just as much, if not more, faith to believe as creationism. Think about it, what can science prove? Gravity, no... a murder, maybe beyond a shadow of a doubt, but ultimately, no... The beginning of the universe, yet alone, evolution, cannot come even close to being proven, so re