This is why religious believers should pay very close attention to evolution.

reply to post by spy66


Thanks spy66 for giving me the oppurtunity to converse with you. As you say we will not be able to se eye to eye on this matter. But it's not all lost because we have something in common, that is that we aggree that life came from one source which is God.
On a side note, ive read your posts and it's fascinating concept, it's just that I can't accept that God used evolution as the vehicle for creating life. i guess to each its own.

Anyway, I'll still be around if you don't mind.

edmc^2

reply to post by undo

hrm, no you seem to have missed the point. what you appear to be saying is: yes the church made ancient history into a myth, but that's where they were wrong - it's a myth. you appear to be saying they were wrong because it's really what they said. lol

No, you have missed the point. I'm not saying they were wrong. Quite the contrary. You are still stuck on the definition of "myth = false; end of story" and that is not the essential feature of myth. Myths are not required to be factually true in the sense that you mean. They are required to teach and explain something about the human condition and the human relationship to the world around, and it is in this sense that they are true.

This should not be a difficult concept, Jesus spoke in parables, stories understood to reveal an underlying truth, not necessarily precisely, factually, true on a surface level. "The good Samaritan" is not a story about a man who did a good deed. It is a lesson that helping your fellow man is the right thing to do, even if that fellow man is not 'one of our tribe' and it causes us hardship.

Do you see the essential difference here? Read as a simple story about a man who did a good deed, then if the story is false it doesn't place any obligation on us at all, its just a lie and who cares? If it is true then it is 'just' a story of an individual who did a good deed and that means nothing to me.

But, when read as a life lesson describing the behaviour that should occur between fellow human beings on their shared life journey, it doesn't matter if it is actually factually true or not, that kind of truth is irrelevant to the lesson. The lesson is true, that is the important thing.

You can see the difference in this interpretation all around you all the time. Those who would see the "Good Samaritan" as a ripping yarn could not care less about their fellows and anything to with welfare, foreign aid, emergency relief, etc, etc, etc, is completely unreasonable to them. Those who see the "Good Samaritan" as a lesson on responsibility to others do have a care for their fellow man, and look upon welfare, foreign aid, emergency relief etc as part of their duty to others; we are all on the same life journey (yes, I'm generalizing here to make a point, please don't over analyze this too much).

So I'm saying (actually I'm interpreting Joseph Campbell here) that every society requires a mythological structure that awakens us to the wonder of the world, describes that world in a coherent fashion that enables us to react to real life events in a sane manner, explain our relationships and responsibilities to our fellow humans and the rest of the world, and give us guidance on how to live our lives and die our deaths in a sane and joyous manner.

The Pentateuch admirably fulfills all four of those functions for tribal Hebrews 4000 years ago. And the New Testament modernizes it for the world of 2000 years ago. Science and Secular Government and Art/Culture/Psychology modernizes it for the world of today.

church insists on virgin birth. erm, it's not scientifically impossible, which was the reason given before! the enlightenment period offered up as rationale for labelling ancient history "religious" and tossing it out of historical consideration, that these things were not scientifically possible! But they ARE scientifically possible. this is the thing that i don't understand about your argument. you really should clarify and just state that you don't believe it was historical. and your reasoning for that is ..........what?

You have again missed the point. I'm not arguing the scientific plausibility or otherwise of the virgin birth, or resurrection of the dead, or how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I am not even really talking about Judaism/Christianity/Islam, though that tradition is most familiar to me so it is easiest to draw examples from.

I am asserting that religion (perhaps 'spirituality' would be a better word but it just sounds too 'airy-fairy' for what I am trying to say) has a role to play in modern society and the lives of individuals, and by fanatically and single-mindedly insisting on roles it is manifestly no longer required to fulfill, it is leaving the societal roles it is suited to to rot from neglect. And by doing so they are leaving a huge gap in the psyche of modern society, and society is suffering as a result.

What I'm saying is that those vocal "religionists" have explicitly abandoned the two "psychological" functions of the necessary mythological structure (those of awakening our wonder at the beauty of the world and guidance on our life journey) in order to pursue the "operative" functions (cosmology and social law) beyond their ability to maintain credibility. And by doing so they leave a void that can be filled by charletons and hucksters.

People understand that religion has little role to play in either Science or Governance in today's world and desperate attempts to regain that role with obvious irrationality just defeats the purpose. So if it abandons the other vital functions where it does have an important role to play, then that leaves no reason for people pay attention to religion for anything.

Does that not ring alarm bells when you look at failing church attendances and difficulty in finding priests and pastors to minister to those who do still find the church useful to their lives?



[edit on 19/5/2010 by rnaa]

Originally posted by jokei
reply to post by spy66

 

Hi, I would like to ask firstly if you're advocating Intelligent Design? I'd like to state I'm an Atheist and that I don't believe in the idea of God, especially not the christian one, but you know - maybe there is some kind of creator out there, if there was I think they're long gone...

If you are an advocate of Intelligent Design then I have one more question for you...

Why is the male g-spot so "awkward" to reach?

Long gone? I would suggest that whatever you are doing...do it more, or do it less, while taking careful notes.

Look for the spark of life. It creates. You can evolve all you like, and science will be more than willing to assist. Since the myth is that 'we evolved', this allows unlimited meddling in our design. There's more than a few transistors being shaken from my flesh, which explains my faith, and my scope of understanding 'God'.

As to the G spot...just use your mind. Many times more powerful than the flesh.

reply to post by rnaa


along with the components you mentioned, are also prophetical texts, many of which have yet to be fulfilled. you've seen examples of some of things in the texts, posted on ATS several times, i'm sure. in this regard, the historical premise and potential futuristic premise, is still viable beyond providing us a guideline for living daily. the only ways in which this would not be so, is if: 1) it was all a fabrication or 2) it wasn't historically valid or 3) it has a deeper meaning for adepts which is not common knowledge amongst the laity.

if it's #3, and the time spoken of is futuristic, this suggests several things as well, such as: 1) those are astronomical events being described that we need to prepare our families for, if and when the time approaches, and hopefully we won't be so far out of the loop we don't see it coming. i mean the texts tell you to recognize the times and the seasons, for a reason, or 2) it was contrived to give the future govs of the world a premise by which to genocide more than half the planet in a population management scenario and then just blame it on god, or 3) the data is meant strictly for a certain sector of the populace and has no bearing on the body of believers or the rest of the planet.

anyway, there are too many personal areas, where the text talks directly to the individual, occassionally referring to data that is said to reveal itself as the time for its revelation approaches. revelation really is about revealing what all this has been about. i don't think it's going to be just another day on planet earth at that point.

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by spy66

 

On a side note, ive read your posts and it's fascinating concept, it's just that I can't accept that God used evolution as the vehicle for creating life. i guess to each its own.

Anyway, I'll still be around if you don't mind.

edmc^2

This is why we see things differently. You dont see the different dimensions of energies that separate the waters from the waters. This is explained in verse 4 and 6.

Verse 4: God separate Light from darkness! NB. You also have to notice that light expands. That is a observed fact Even you can observe this as a fact.

Verse 6. Gods says: let It (the firmament) separate the waters from the waters. All solids emit energies. That is a observed fact.

Creation has to be based on evolution because of the above. And it is backed up by what these verses say:

11. And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed...

20. And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life...

24. And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind....

God is explaining the order of evolution.

The order of evolution is:

1. light.

2. The firmament.

3. Atmosphere.

4. Dry land.

5. The seas

6. The grass and the seeds.

7. Insects.

8. Fish in the seas.

9. Creatures on land.

10. Man.





[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

If Evolution works; why do Mom's only have 2 hands?
Think about it.

Originally posted by jokei
reply to post by spy66

 

Hi, I would like to ask firstly if you're advocating Intelligent Design? I'd like to state I'm an Atheist and that I don't believe in the idea of God, especially not the christian one, but you know - maybe there is some kind of creator out there, if there was I think they're long gone...

If you are an advocate of Intelligent Design then I have one more question for you...

Why is the male g-spot so "awkward" to reach?

*laughing* hmm not sure how I feel right this very moment...I had no freaking clue what you wre talking about with this male g spot thing...googled it...and was like...no way, omg, wtf, ....how...Im 34 and did not know anything about that.

But how many men are willing to even venture into trying that?

Im just besides myself right now...thanks for teaching me something new!

*still giggling to myself* how weird!

Sorry...so far off topic here...but I just had to acknowledge this. My guy would be like 'WHAT' NO FREAKING WAY....but just wow, no wonder guys may go gay?

And then onto girls...their g spot being outside of the Va gae gae....Ive known about this (female myself) but alot of guys dont seem to acknowledge taking the time to work with that *cough cough*

Edit to add..yes some females are different...some though have a very hard time with the whole normal vaginal sex. It might not be literally outside but there are reasons why the little hooded character outside of the Va gae gae is so important for some women.



Just wow...

[edit on 20-5-2010 by LeoVirgo]

This deserves a thread for its own self, really....

[edit on 20-5-2010 by LeoVirgo]

[edit on 20-5-2010 by LeoVirgo]

reply to post by LeoVirgo


Thanks - that's why I come here, to learn new things. Glad you took my comment how I intended it. I'm learning a lot from this thread, people are posting some interesting links and opinions.

"No comment" on how I learnt, although I remember her fondly.

reply to post by jokei


This really made my day...laughter and smiles are so healthy.

Reading through the rest of the thread now and lving the discussions...but just had to get that one out of the way.

I bet there are alot of men that are clueless to this.

Plus should add that the female g spot could also explain why girls may go gay as well...if the man doesnt understand ect...trying to not use too many details here...kinda feel a little filthy talking in the god thread about such things...

For some reason having ciggies on my mind too *laughs*

Still wowed and cant wait to talk to some of my girlfriends and guy friends about this (the ones that I can without them turning and walking away at least).

I would love to see a poll on ATS about how many men know of this.

OK...so Ill try to go back on topic of the thread...

Sure makes me wonder...with that whole creation thing...WHAT WAS GOD THINKING! Damn...whod a thunk it.

reply to post by spy66
Interesting about your evolution summations, here’s what I posted on another (older) thread:

…

So to summarize the sequence of the creative 'day':

1)Planets, sun moon stars already existed (created) billions and billions of years.
2)Watery earth was formless.
3)Preparation for earth to be inhabited.
Day 1: Light (of some sort) came to be on a formless watery earth.
Day 2: Separation between waters above and waters below, expanse (sky) appeared.
Day 3: Dry land, vegetation, organism appeared and water basins formed (seas).
Day 4: Lights from the luminaries became discernible from earth. Days and seasons.
Day 5: Animals of every sort appeared; fish, flying creatures, sea monsters – dinosours.
Day 6: More animals -wild and domestic and finally man was created.
Day 7: Creation stopped.

Now, here's what science say about the mathematical probability of the Genesis creation account - proof that it must have come from a source with knowledge of the events. The account lists 10 major stages in this order:

(1) A beginning.
(2) A primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water.
(3) Light.
(4) An expanse or atmosphere.
(5) Large areas of dry land.
(6) land plants.
(7) sun, moon and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning.
(8) sea monsters and flying creatures.
(9) wild and tame beasts, mammals.
(10) man.

So like what I said before, I’m not going to question your personal belief only comparing what I know about true creation by a loving God.

But there’s one thing that would like you to clarify.

How did the following “things” you’ve listed below evolved, that is by what process did evolution occurred? Was it by the process as described by “evolutionist” or something totally different that even the most educated “evolutionist” is not aware of?

God is explaining the order of evolution.
The order of evolution is:
1. light.
…
10. Man.

For example, did “man” “evolved” from what evolutionist called “the great apes” and from what did “the great apes” evolved from?

If you can’t answer my inquiry, no problem, I understand. Reason behind the questions is where to place your belief/understanding. Is this a new kind of “teaching/theory” coming from the “evolution” side or coming from the “fundamentalist” religious side? Or is this just your own understanding?
If this idea/teaching is from the (any) religious group then it would mean that they are saying that God guided mankind into its present diseased and distressed state as if part of his plan for mankind. A complete contradiction with the Bible for it says:

“The Rock, perfect is his activity, for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness, with whom there is no injustice; righteous and upright is he. They have acted ruinously on their own part; they are not his children, the defect is their own.” (Deuteronomy 32:4, 5 NWT).

Which in turn INVALIDATES the most basic and fundamental teaching of True Christianity, that is that “Christ died for our sins.” (1 Corinthians 15:3; 1 Peter 3:18)

Thus as a defender of the Bible a proper warning to them is warranted:

Rev 22:18,19:
“I am bearing witness to everyone that hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone makes an addition to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this scroll; and if anyone takes anything away from the words of the scroll of this prophecy, God will take his portion away from the trees of life and out of the holy city, things which are written about in this scroll.” (NWT)

2 Pet 2:1-3: … just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them,...and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed.(ESV)

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by jokei
reply to post by spy66

 

Why is the male g-spot so "awkward" to reach?

Well everything has its place for a reason lol.

...like our tailbone?

Hmmm.


edmc^2, just because it's in the bible doesn't make it true, or even relevant.
No amount of biblical quoting, especially when it is bolded is going to make me a believer.

[edit on 20-5-2010 by aorAki]

[edit on 20-5-2010 by aorAki]

reply to post by edmc^2



First of, i am not saying anything different than what the bible is saying. That is my whole point. But i am saying something that is different than what the traditional teaching is teaching every one.

Every verse that i have used have not been altered by me at any time.

If you cant read the bible the way it is written, how do you expect common people to understand it. Why would some one write something that does not mean what it says?

If God said: Let earth bring forth grass and the seed. Wouldn't you read that as, earth bringing forth the grass and the seed?

If God created the grass and the seed. Wouldn't the verse say: And God created the grass and the seed?

IN Genesis chapter one it doesn't say any where that God created the grass or the seed.

verse 12.

And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding....

Verse 12 plainly states that the earth brings forth the grass and the seed.

So that must mean that earth is bringing forth the grass and the seed by evolution by evolving.

I don't know how to do this any easier to make people understand it!

Originally posted by aorAki

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by jokei
reply to post by spy66

 

Why is the male g-spot so "awkward" to reach?

Well everything has its place for a reason lol.

...like our tailbone?

Hmmm.


edmc^2, just because it's in the bible doesn't make it true, or even relevant.
No amount of biblical quoting, especially when it is bolded is going to make me a believer.

[edit on 20-5-2010 by aorAki]

[edit on 20-5-2010 by aorAki]

If you dont believe. I might change your mind.

But first i have to ask you a question about the infinite.

Do you think the infinite is a constant?

If it is what would that imply?


NB. This is a trick question. So pay attention to what you wrote in your post.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

reply to post by spy66


I would have to agree with you on this. God isn't creating in this verse. It's more like He is observing what He created come to fruition. I suppose you can say He is commanding the grass to grow but I think that would be reading in between the lines.

The Bible fits nicely with the scientific view if you ask me.

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by edmc^2

 

First of, i am not saying anything different than what the bible is saying. That is my whole point. But i am saying something that is different than what the traditional teaching is teaching every one.

Every verse that i have used have not been altered by me at any time.

If you cant read the bible the way it is written, how do you expect common people to understand it. Why would some one write something that does not mean what it says?

If God said: Let earth bring forth grass and the seed. Wouldn't you read that as, earth bringing forth the grass and the seed?

If God created the grass and the seed. Wouldn't the verse say: And God created the grass and the seed?

IN Genesis chapter one it doesn't say any where that God created the grass or the seed.

verse 12.

And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding....

Verse 12 plainly states that the earth brings forth the grass and the seed.

So that must mean that earth is bringing forth the grass and the seed by evolution by evolving.

I don't know how to do this any easier to make people understand it!

I got that part already, that you are interpreting or reading the Holy Scriptures literally - word for word. What I was trying to understand - if you say God used evolution to "Let" things come up (evolved) - was the process (i.e.: evolution) the way evolutionist described it? That is, for example man "evolved" from "the great apes" - great apes evolved from lower species, etc...? Or was it some other way that even knowledgeable “evolutionists’ “are not aware of?
And if that’s so – how did “light” evolve?

Btw, since you are reading the "creation" account in Genesis literally, may I ask also, do you also read the rest of the Bible the same way, for example book of Revelation?

Thanks,
edmc^2

I hope I don't bug you too much with my Qs.

Originally posted by aorAki

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by jokei
reply to post by spy66

 

Why is the male g-spot so "awkward" to reach?

Well everything has its place for a reason lol.

...like our tailbone?

Hmmm.


edmc^2, just because it's in the bible doesn't make it true, or even relevant.
No amount of biblical quoting, especially when it is bolded is going to make me a believer.

[edit on 20-5-2010 by aorAki]

[edit on 20-5-2010 by aorAki]

Well aorAki, all I can is this:

2 Timothy 3:16-17

"All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.

Only to the "man of God" is the Bible usefull thus you don't have any concept of it's true meaning and contents because to you it's "foolishness".

"For it is written: “I will make the wisdom of the wise [men] perish, and the intelligence of the intellectual [men] I will shove aside.” Where is the wise man? Where the scribe? Where the debater of this system of things? Did not God make the wisdom of the world foolish? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not get to know God, God saw good through the foolishness of what is preached to save those believing. ”—1 CORINTHIANS 1:18-21.

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by edmc^2

 

First of, i am not saying anything different than what the bible is saying. That is my whole point. But i am saying something that is different than what the traditional teaching is teaching every one.

Every verse that i have used have not been altered by me at any time.

If you cant read the bible the way it is written, how do you expect common people to understand it. Why would some one write something that does not mean what it says?

If God said: Let earth bring forth grass and the seed. Wouldn't you read that as, earth bringing forth the grass and the seed?

If God created the grass and the seed. Wouldn't the verse say: And God created the grass and the seed?

IN Genesis chapter one it doesn't say any where that God created the grass or the seed.

verse 12.

And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding....

Verse 12 plainly states that the earth brings forth the grass and the seed.

So that must mean that earth is bringing forth the grass and the seed by evolution by evolving.

I don't know how to do this any easier to make people understand it!

I got that part already, that you are interpreting or reading the Holy Scriptures literally - word for word. What I was trying to understand - if you say God used evolution to "Let" things come up (evolved) - was the process (i.e.: evolution) the way evolutionist described it? That is, for example man "evolved" from "the great apes" - great apes evolved from lower species, etc...? Or was it some other way that even knowledgeable “evolutionists’ “are not aware of?
And if that’s so – how did “light” evolve?

Btw, since you are reading the "creation" account in Genesis literally, may I ask also, do you also read the rest of the Bible the same way, for example book of Revelation?

Thanks,
edmc^2

I hope I don't bug you too much with my Qs.

No you don't bug me with these questions. Its just that i have to understand them correctly to make a correct answer.

I don't think Man evolved from Apes like evolutionist describe that part of evolution. The evolution of Man happened in a totally different way.

The way i see it, the Bible is spot on, but it is misunderstood and misread by us.

First i read Gods creation as a plan. God had everything planed and figured out before he created the Heaven and the earth (Firmament).
God created the heaven and earth (firmament) with all the ingredients included to make his creation evolve slowly to be just like he had it planed.

God chose the planet earth to be his bases for his great plan. That is what verse 1 is all about.

But as you can see by reading Genesis, God didn't create the heaven and the earth initially. First God created the Firmament. The firmament caused the appearance of light. The firmament is the total existence of energy and matter that separates the waters from the waters.

When God created the Firmament, God had already created everything he had planed. From that point on everything is going to evolve just as he had it planed from the very beginning.

Its from the firmament which earth is appearing out of, by a sequence of events taking place. Which is very well described in genesis if you just understand the science behind it. This is what i described in my other post.

"Genesis described with a bit of pseudoscience".

Man did not evolve from Apes even though Apes was brought forth by earth before Man. This is confirmed in verse 24.

Verse 24 specifically say that earth bring forth living creatures. But there are specific sequence of events that must take place before even this can happen.

The sequence of events that had to take place before verse 24 can take place:

1. The light.
2. Firmament.
3. Atmosphere.
4. Water and dry land.
5. Grass and seeds.
6. Insects.
7. Fish in the sea.
8. Creatures on land.

Now, the grass did not evolve into insects, and the insects did not evolve into fish in the sea, and the fish did not evolve into creatures on land. And the creature on land did not evolve into Man.

This is were evolution is totally wrong.

The sequence is actually described in how the grass must first die to bring forth new life. I am not going to say to much because it will confuse you.

I am still working on how everything evolved, So i am not going to answer this question right now. I am going to make a new post about it when i have figured it out. I have figured out how earth brought forth grass and the seed. Right now i am trying to figure out how earth brought forth the insect.

This part is actually very easy to figure out,because its all a part of a sequence of steps. The study of evolution can help you put the right pieces together where they belong.


















[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

reply to post by spy66


Very specific to your last post - kudos! Very nicely stated and whilst I am a non-believer, you're going a way to improving my respect for Christianity.

I like EdMc2's thoughts as well - I'd too be interested in your thoughts on revelation.

Kudos to everyone here.