The Genesis Account...

Religion is a religion. I don't have enough faith to believe in religion.

but you sure do have enough faith to believe that you came from a rock, which is pretty religious.

EC

I would have to say that the creative days are really long epics of time. Some of them could be billions of years long. There is much to be said about the opening statement, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Whose to say that this wasn't the Big Bang that started it all? If this could be true then the stars were already burning brightly before the fourth creative day, including our own sun. I believe that the earth was filled with thick gas clouds, just as Venus is today. The gas covering was so thick that it kept the sun light from reaching the surface of the planet. The call for, 'Let there be light' was the beginning of the clearing of the atmosphere. It was a gradual process and the sun, moon and stars were not visible from the surface of the earth until the end of the fourth creative day.


With the other subject on the, 'who the US are?" in the creative account, it has to be the the Master Worker of the Creator, his first heavenly born son.

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher

Religion is a religion. I don't have enough faith to believe in religion.

but you sure do have enough faith to believe that you came from a rock, which is pretty religious.

EC

I don't believe I came from a rock.

You however do believe you came from clay magically animated into a man.

back to the Genesis account

I would have to say that the creative days are really long epics of time. Some of them could be billions of years long. There is much to be said about the opening statement, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Whose to say that this wasn't the Big Bang that started it all? If this could be true then the stars were already burning brightly before the fourth creative day, including our own sun. I believe that the earth was filled with thick gas clouds, just as Venus is today. The gas covering was so thick that it kept the sun light from reaching the surface of the planet. The call for, 'Let there be light' was the beginning of the clearing of the atmosphere. It was a gradual process and the sun, moon and stars were not visible from the surface of the earth until the end of the fourth creative day.


With the other subject on the, 'who the US are?" in the creative account, it has to be the the Master Worker of the Creator, his first heavenly born son.

so what you are saying is that God used evolution to make everything. he couldnt just speak it unto existence. thats one retarted god. second, if he used the big bang and the earth was comprised of gases and such then why did he say in the bible that the earth was nothing but water at first and that on the fourth day, he made the lights in the heaven to give light upon the earth.
now is each day billions of years to you? remember, nothing died until adam sinned. nothing died. plants are not alive in the biblical sense. read Genesis and you will see the difference between plants and animals.

I don't believe I came from a rock.

You however do believe you came from clay magically animated into a man.

if you believe in evolution, than yes sir you certainly do believe that you came from a rock. but just for argument sake, where did we come from?

EC

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
[if you believe in evolution, than yes sir you certainly do believe that you came from a rock.

No, sir, I don't. I believe I came from my parents.

Evolution does not address how life got started, it only addresses the diversity of life.

However, naturalism as a whole must come up with an answer to the abiogenesis question, or at least show that it is possible. Right now, the best guesses involve organic chemicals that we observe to exist even in the lifeless void of space, not rocks.

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
but just for argument sake, where did we come from?

I don't know, and neither do you.

The difference is I admit my ignorance whereas you feel compelled to fill it in with a magical transformation of dirt into people.

well lets see.
I happen to know how life got started, however, you as an evolutionist do not know at all how or when it got started.
life was designed, it was designed to be passed on and to last forever.

you didnt answer my question, where did life come from? according to the dictionary, evolution is a gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.
note that this has never been observed. it is assumed to have happened.

but just answer the question. where did the first living organism come from?

EC

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
well lets see.
I happen to know how life got started, however, you as an evolutionist do not know at all how or when it got started.
life was designed, it was designed to be passed on and to last forever.

*snip*

evolution is a gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.
note that this has never been observed. it is assumed to have happened.

You can't possibly know how life started that is a ludicrous statement,just as you said of evolution,whoever wrote the Genesis story didn't observe creation it is only assumption as are your beliefs.

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
well lets see.
I happen to know how life got started,

No you don't. You merely think you do.

Your explanation of magic is no explanation at all. Why did god need to mold Adam from clay first, why not just poof him into existence like he did everything else?

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
however, you as an evolutionist do not know at all how or when it got started.

You are correct, and I have already stated as much. Since I am willing to admit ignorance, my arguments are worthy of consideration as they are not based on mere assumption.

Those who will not admit ignorance when it is blindingly obvious they are ignorant are discounted.

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
you didnt answer my question, where did life come from?

I did answer it. I said "I don't know". That's the best I can do for now.

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
according to the dictionary, evolution is a gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.
note that this has never been observed. it is assumed to have happened.

It has been directly observed in both nature and the lab. Creationists simply refuse to accept the evidence, or equivocate to make arbitrary distinctions between 'macro' and 'micro' evolution.

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
but just answer the question. where did the first living organism come from?

Life eventually evolves to the point where it is capable of going back in time and creating itself. I know this is true because I have faith. My faith is really just a sensor we all have evolved to receive this message of good news from the future - that we created ourselves.

Happy?

I just want to point out that I personally do not believe in gradual evolution of living things. When creatures were made according to their kinds, I believe that the creature was molded on the spot. -The chicken before the egg.

When I spoke of the creative days being billions of years I should have been more specific. I would say the billions of years would mainly apply to the,intro of Genesis when it says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." So its more likely that the other creative days were thousands of years each. The earth preparation days could have been a lot longer than the sea, air and land animal creation epics.

The motion of the Galaxies are so immense that it seems appropriate that God execute a slow gradual process to make the earth habitable.

2 Peter 3:8 "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, a thousand years as one day."

The one place I make exception on a gradual formation of the geology of the earth is the event that took place to purge the waters after the great deluge.

I know this is true because I have faith.

so if you use that as evidence or as your proof or even as your answer to my questions then can I use the same answer you just gave me? " I know its true because I have faith."
that is religious and you just admitted to me that you have faith in evolution. meaning that its your religion.

As for the days being thousands of years. I dont think God wrote that on a rock for Moses if it wasnt 6 days. to Moses, 6 days is 6 days, not 6 thousand years or 6 millions years. a day is a day.
the only evolution that has been observed is micro evolution. this is scientific because it has been observed, tested and demonstrated. macro evolution has yet to be observed or demonstrated. it is assumed to happen, but no one has ever witnessed it.

The Genesis account is 10 eye-witness accounts edited by Moses. and I trust that those accounts are accurate just like I trust that the account of George Washington is accurate along with the account of Abraham Lincoln along with the account of the Titanic. I trust all of these accounts. with that logic, I trust the same account that was recorded 600 years ago the same as I would trust the account recorded 6000 years ago. I know them to be true because I have faith. (what a joke if you are going to use my logic to use that as evidence for your religion claiming its not a religion).

EC

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
The Genesis account is 10 eye-witness accounts edited by Moses. and I trust that those accounts are accurate

This just gets better and better,who are these 10 eyewitnesses and where did they come from ?

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.-Gen1.1

not

In the beginning God created 10 eyewitnesses to watch what he was about to do-EC1.1

You can't possibly even know for certain that Moses wrote Genesis or for that matter that the Moses of the bible is a historical figure,no matter how much you may want it to be true it's all assumption and myth.You claim you know these things through faith,well the act of faith implies lack of true knowledge.
Faith is the belief in something without proof,if you can know and show something beyond all realms of possible doubt faith doesn't come into it.I'm not knocking your beliefs,believe whatever you want but don't pass your belief off as something it is not.

[edit on 8/9/2005 by Ras Dedan]

The first thing that I must point out is that the God of the bible (the God I worship) is not limited by anything, he has no limits. He is all powerful and all knowing. He is everywhere and nowhere. God is eternal meaning, he is not limited by time, space, or matter or anything else (if there is anything else that could be a limiting factor).

The first thing I point out is The above statement is FALSE. God cannot be all powerful (logic dictates that this would create paradoxes), it cannot be all knowing (negates free will and choice which we DO all have) and God IS limited in the fact that not everyone believes in it and ascribes those attributes to it.

In the Beginning (time), God created the heaven (space) and the earth (matter).
Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, The earth started out under water. unformed and unfilled.

Ok makes no sense how can the earth be created and then be "without form"?

Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. Genesis 1:4 And God saw the light,

Who was god talking to and how did he manage it? Excuse me if I'm wrong but you need vocal cords to speak and a medium for sound to travel. Also god seems to have eyes which begs where was god when this creating was going on??

Genesis 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

The Earth hasn't always had seasons and also does not spin uniformly i.e the earths spin is slowing so when god was doing his creating the length of a day was less than today. Plus the moon IS known to have been part of the earth.

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

The "us" part being the trinity NO NO NO NO NOOOO. Why start off as a three parter and then forget about them, as in Gen 1:29 "Behold I" wheres the "we" or "us" now, are they off on holiday while god finishes up creating.

Genesis 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which [is] upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which [is] the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

Nice one thanks God! BUT
"In Paradise all kinds of trees with the most beautiful fruit grew; among them there were two special trees: one was called the tree of life, the other the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Tasting of the fruits of the tree of life had the power to preserve man from illness and death. Concerning the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, God commanded man: "of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shall not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" (Gen 2:16-17)"
So firstly we can eat from all trees and then we can't (make up your mind please!!) also Adam had never ate from the tree of life so therefore was going to die anyway (WAIT A MINUTE I thought death and the like didn't exist UNTIL Adam sinned so why have a tree of life). Anyway why was Eve and the wise serpent punished as she wasn't told not to eat and snakey was telling the truth that they would not die from eating the fruit.

So about this "teledoth" thing, who was writing what god was doing for the first 6 days??? was that who god was talking to? and EVO CRUNCHER where on earth(forgive the pun) did these 10 eyewitnesses come from. They are not mentioned in the bible!!

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher

I know this is true because I have faith.

so if you use that as evidence or as your proof or even as your answer to my questions then can I use the same answer you just gave me? " I know its true because I have faith."

You can use it, but I will not accept it, any more than you should accept what I said about us creating ourselves. Of course I don't really believe we create the universe in the future/past, but it is no less valid than to say god did it. How can we determine who is right? We can't, because these are concepts outside the domain of knowledge.

So then how should we decide what to believe? That's easy too. Belief is not attained by choice, but by compulsion. There simply isn't any reason to believe anything regarding the origin of the universe, as we don't currently know anything about it. Faith is a mechanism which attempts to fool oneself into thinking they have knowledge so that they can believe.

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
that is religious and you just admitted to me that you have faith in evolution. meaning that its your religion.

I thought it was obvious that I wasn't serious. If it wasn't, I apologize for the confusion.

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
the only evolution that has been observed is micro evolution. this is scientific because it has been observed, tested and demonstrated. macro evolution has yet to be observed or demonstrated. it is assumed to happen, but no one has ever witnessed it.

There is no scientific distinction between 'micro' and 'macro' evolution. This is arbitrary nomenclature invented by creationists to explain how it is possible that evolution is false when in fact we directly witness it.

'macro' evolution is nothing more than the accumulation of changes from 'micro' evolution. Your argument is analogous to claiming that since an individual raindrop can't cause a flood, lot's of them combined can't cause a flood.

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
The Genesis account is 10 eye-witness accounts edited by Moses.

Have you ever heard of the Epic of Gilgamesh?

Epic of Gilgamesh

You however do believe you came from clay magically animated into a man.

not magically, God breathed the breath of life into man and animals. nothing magical about it. magic has secrets. God does not keep secrets. he keeps things from us if we are not ready to hear or see it, or if we are evil and do not love him.

Your explanation of magic is no explanation at all. Why did god need to mold Adam from clay first, why not just poof him into existence like he did everything else?

well first off, God didnt use clay, he used the dust of the earth and be breathed the breath of life in through his nostrils. thats how you determine what has life and what doesnt. things that have breath have life in the biblical sense.

This just gets better and better,who are these 10 eyewitnesses and where did they come from ?

The hebrew word "teledoth" explain who wrote what part. the key-phrase "these are the generations of" is where the person signs off at the end of their part. the first teledoth was written by God and the second was adam. and the other 8 are in there as well. 8 of these eyewitnesses were born, 1 was created, and the other one, the first one, was God who was not created or born.

The first thing I point out is The above statement is FALSE. God cannot be all powerful (logic dictates that this would create paradoxes), it cannot be all knowing (negates free will and choice which we DO all have) and God IS limited in the fact that not everyone believes in it and ascribes those attributes to it.

God cannot be all powerful in your mind because that means that he governs the universe and he has rules that you must follow. you dont like that idea. Logically (to our brains comprehension) he cant have infinite power. that is comparing our brains to the infinite God. no wonder why you think he cant be all powerful.
God does know all things and this does not negate free will whatsoever. you still have freewill. you can make choices. God gave you free will, if he didnt you might as well be a robot. he gave you the choice to chose either good or evil, heaven of hell.
not everyone believes in him because of free will and the influence of satan. thats not a limiting factor to God. God doesnt need people to believe in him, he is still God. there was no one to believe in him before the creation and he did just fine.

Ok makes no sense how can the earth be created and then be "without form"?

notice that water does not have form, it forms to whatever is it in. the earth was made up of water at first, its not going to have any form at all.

Who was god talking to and how did he manage it? Excuse me if I'm wrong but you need vocal cords to speak and a medium for sound to travel. Also god seems to have eyes which begs where was god when this creating was going on??

"God said" also known as "thus saith the Lord" implies authority.
last time I checked, water was a pretty good medium for sound to travel through. God is everywhere at the same time, omnipresent.

The Earth hasn't always had seasons and also does not spin uniformly i.e the earths spin is slowing so when god was doing his creating the length of a day was less than today. Plus the moon IS known to have been part of the earth.

This statement is just silly and false as well. earth has always had seasons. and there is nothing to prove otherwise. The moon is not known to have been part of the earth, if you are refering to the similiar elements and such on both the earth and the moon. that doesnt mean a thing. I have dark brown hair, my wife also has dark brown hair. it doesnt mean that she was once a part of me or that we have the same parents.

The "us" part being the trinity NO NO NO NO NOOOO. Why start off as a three parter and then forget about them, as in Gen 1:29 "Behold I" wheres the "we" or "us" now, are they off on holiday while god finishes up creating.

because they are the same person. he doesnt need to refer to the other two at all times. he can refer to himself as one bacause like I said before, God is not limited by anything. what most people try to do with God is add all three together and get the product of 3. but instead of 1+1+1 its more like 1x1x1. if you multiply them you still get only 1. The trinity is more like 1^3 instead of adding all three together.

Nice one thanks God! BUT
"In Paradise all kinds of trees with the most beautiful fruit grew; among them there were two special trees: one was called the tree of life, the other the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Tasting of the fruits of the tree of life had the power to preserve man from illness and death. Concerning the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, God commanded man: "of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shall not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" (Gen 2:16-17)"
So firstly we can eat from all trees and then we can't (make up your mind please!!) also Adam had never ate from the tree of life so therefore was going to die anyway (WAIT A MINUTE I thought death and the like didn't exist UNTIL Adam sinned so why have a tree of life). Anyway why was Eve and the wise serpent punished as she wasn't told not to eat and snakey was telling the truth that they would not die from eating the fruit.

So about this "teledoth" thing, who was writing what god was doing for the first 6 days??? was that who god was talking to? and EVO CRUNCHER where on earth(forgive the pun) did these 10 eyewitnesses come from. They are not mentioned in the bible!!

God didnt change his mind. he was simply giving the option of eating of every tree, all he did was add a rule in there, and that was not to eat from one tree.
and yes you are correct when you say that nothing died until adam sinned. of course this is physical death. man brought physical death into this world, he brought it upon man and animals. mans sins caused thorns and thistle to grow on plants.
the only mention of the tree of life is mentioned when God has him eat from it. after they had sinned.
Eve did know not to eat from the tree, she even told satan that they were not supposed to.
no one sat there and watched God create everything. God wrote part of Genesis so did adam, the teledoth is better explained in the earlier part of this post.

There is no scientific distinction between 'micro' and 'macro' evolution. This is arbitrary nomenclature invented by creationists to explain how it is possible that evolution is false when in fact we directly witness it.

what exactly is macro evolution to you? the definition I have been given is " the change from one KIND of animal to another; for example: changing from a cat to a dog or a mouse to a rabbit or maybe an ape to a monkey.
if this definition if right, its religous or specuation based on imagination. its never been observed or demonstrated. the term micro and macro make it seem like a bunch of micro can result in macro. that is very tricky.
maccro evolution has never been witnessed. that is a lie.

Have you ever heard of the Epic of Gilgamesh?

actually I have heard of that and have done research on that epic. it happens to be very very similiar to noahs flood. and other such things in the bible.

EC

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher

You however do believe you came from clay magically animated into a man.

not magically, God breathed the breath of life into man and animals. nothing magical about it.

i.e., magic. Out of curiosity, where does the Bible say god breathed life into animals?

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
well first off, God didnt use clay, he used the dust of the earth and be breathed the breath of life in through his nostrils. thats how you determine what has life and what doesnt. things that have breath have life in the biblical sense.

'god breathed life into' has no explanatory power. All you've done is describe an action god supposedly took. This is no different than someone exlaining the power of astrology as 'well you see, mars is in capricorn...'. Such an 'explanation' explains nothing.

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
what exactly is macro evolution to you?

An arbitrary distinction invented by Creationists.

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
the definition I have been given is " the change from one KIND of animal to another; for example: changing from a cat to a dog or a mouse to a rabbit or maybe an ape to a monkey.

These 'kinds' barely differ at all from a genetic perspective. The classifications we give animals are filled with shades of gray. In biology, there is generally no clean separation of species. What you are doing is trying to errect a semantic wall where no actual wall exists in nature.

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
its never been observed or demonstrated. the term micro and macro make it seem like a bunch of micro can result in macro. that is very tricky.
maccro evolution has never been witnessed. that is a lie.

Since there is no such thing as 'macro' evolution from a scientific perspective, I would agree with you. You've invented a concept soley for the purpose of showing it has never been observed. Nature doesn't know any difference between what you call 'micro' and 'macro' evolution.

Have we observed a cat turn into a dog? No. Is that the level of observation required, or are we allowed to draw inferences based on observations like we do in all other fields of science? If not, explain why.

You already agree that we observe 'micro' evolution. Do you also know that speciation has been directly observed as the result of accumulated 'micro' evolution? What prevents even further accumulations of 'micro' evolution?

If evolution is a religion, then so are all inferences.

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher

Have you ever heard of the Epic of Gilgamesh?

actually I have heard of that and have done research on that epic. it happens to be very very similiar to noahs flood.

Then you must also know it predates the Bible by as much as 2000 years.

Then you must also know it predates the Bible by as much as 2000 years.

actually no, its around the same time. not exactly but around the same time period. all the dates I find all over google is the story of a king that lived around 2700 BC. thats about the time of the flood, or the days of noah. how old did he live to be anyway? and how did he die?

i.e., magic. Out of curiosity, where does the Bible say god breathed life into animals?

Genesis 2:7 he breathed through his nostrils, the breath of life. in Genesis 7:22 tells us what kinds of animals noah took on the ark, whos nostrils were the breath of life. the ones tha died were the sames kinds he took on the ark.

'god breathed life into' has no explanatory power. All you've done is describe an action god supposedly took. This is no different than someone exlaining the power of astrology as 'well you see, mars is in capricorn...'. Such an 'explanation' explains nothing.

thats only because you dont believe he can breathe the breath of life into anything. just like by his words the heaven and the earth are created. God governs the universe with infinite power. all he was to do it speak and things happen. the breathing through the nostrils tells us what has life and what doesnt.

An arbitrary distinction invented by Creationists.

no sir that is what you think of our definition. what is your definition?

These 'kinds' barely differ at all from a genetic perspective. The classifications we give animals are filled with shades of gray. In biology, there is generally no clean separation of species. What you are doing is trying to errect a semantic wall where no actual wall exists in nature.

information is always either lost, rearranged, or copied more times than its supposed to be when variations occur. the variations that occur within these 'kinds' are limited.
farmers have been trying to get bigger pigs. you think they will ever get a pig as big as texas? no, im sure there is a limit in there someplace. when you breed dogs, you can breed certain dogs to get a certain type of dog. but you do think that by breeding over and over again, you will be able to get something other than a dog? now you might be able to get a dog that cant breed with other certain dogs, but thats not evolution.

Micro evolution is a variation. dogs produce a variety of dogs. but its always a dog. thats an example of micro evolution. just because you assume that a bunch of micro evolution equals macro evolution, that doesnt make it true. macro evolution would be a dog coming from a non-dog or a dog producing a non-dog. this is pure imagination.

Since there is no such thing as 'macro' evolution from a scientific perspective, I would agree with you. You've invented a concept soley for the purpose of showing it has never been observed. Nature doesn't know any difference between what you call 'micro' and 'macro' evolution.

macro evolution is known by many. nature doesnt know the difference between micro and macro? tell as far as I know, the dog does not go after to cat to try and produce offspring. I understand that a dog might go off and hump something to relieve himself of such discomfort, but animals know the difference between what kind is theirs. they know not to go after a bear and try to [do] it.

Have we observed a cat turn into a dog? No. Is that the level of observation required, or are we allowed to draw inferences based on observations like we do in all other fields of science? If not, explain why.

what observations have we seen? nothing but variations that produce the same kind. thats all. macro evolution is based on imagination.

Evolution (with the exception of micro evolution) is a lie. it didnt happen and it doesnt happen, you believe that it can happen if given enough time. you cant seem to see where you go from science to religion or faith. "if given enough time..." you dont know that, you believe and have faith that it will happen, you dont know that.

EC

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher

This just gets better and better,who are these 10 eyewitnesses and where did they come from ?

The hebrew word "teledoth" explain who wrote what part. the key-phrase "these are the generations of" is where the person signs off at the end of their part. the first teledoth was written by God and the second was adam. and the other 8 are in there as well. 8 of these eyewitnesses were born, 1 was created, and the other one, the first one, was God who was not created or born.

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
well first off, God didnt use clay, he used the dust of the earth and be breathed the breath of life in through his nostrils. thats how you determine what has life and what doesnt. things that have breath have life in the biblical sense.

Let me get this straight,God physically wrote down everything in sequence,a diary of creation,then Adam wrote his diary followed by eight others,then someone handed Moses all these diaries and he compiled them into Genesis?

You know what I'm going to say to that don't you,M-Y-T-H.There is absolutely no evidence for anything you claim yet you assert that it's fact,again you cant even know Moses was real never mind the rest.Why is it so difficult for you to admit that nobody can possibly know these things,are you so insecure in your beliefs that you think that it will invalidate your faith to admit the obvious possibility that the bible is not factual.If the entirety of your belief is on the factual validity of one book I would suggest that it's built on sand and if not why refuse to accept a clearly rational possibility.
Take the story of the serpent tempting Eve,your claiming that this serpent actually spoke to Eve because it's in the bible,now if I tell you that in Ghana the Ashanti people have a story of Anansi the spider who's a trickster and can talk,to you that is myth but both are stories of talking animals who trick people yet you believe one because it comes from a certain location on earth.That's madness both are the same thing mere myths.Truth and knowledge does not only come from one small physical location and in a concentrated period of time,many christians are so wrapped up in the biblical mentality the refuse to see the wider world or acknowledge it's influence.
Look at the bible it's riddled with contradictions and an entirely unhealthy attitude to women and yet you take it as fact because someone told you so,blind faith indeed.

The second quote is also remarkable,you claim that God is a physical being with nostrils who breathes and who is also defined by earthly gender in that you use the male pronoun he.
If God is these things how can he be also omnipresent ? Let me take a guess the holy spirit.....is that right?
So we have father,son and holy spirit? mmmm something not quite right about this grouping,what can it be ? ah! no mother,the spirit has taken the place of the woman in this family grouping.Another example of the subjugation of the role of the female in christian dogma,a reflection of the society at the time when women were viewed as property.

God cannot be all powerful in your mind because that means that he governs the universe and he has rules that you must follow. you dont like that idea. Logically (to our brains comprehension) he cant have infinite power. that is comparing our brains to the infinite God. no wonder why you think he cant be all powerful.

SO what your saying is that because Im just a lowly human being I cant comprehend the all encompassing power of God. Therefore how can you justify that God IS omnipotent when its incomprehensible?

God does know all things and this does not negate free will whatsoever. you still have freewill. you can make choices. God gave you free will, if he didnt you might as well be a robot. he gave you the choice to chose either good or evil, heaven of hell. not everyone believes in him because of free will and the influence of satan. thats not a limiting factor to God. God doesnt need people to believe in him, he is still God. there was no one to believe in him before the creation and he did just fine.

Sorry just doesn't make sense, If god knows all then everything is predetermined. i.e God knew when Bin Laden was 6 mths old that he would orchestrate the attack on the twin towers IN FACT God made Bin Laden specifically to be a terrorist. Thats a nice God you've got there, very Benevolent I must say.

This statement is just silly and false as well. earth has always had seasons. and there is nothing to prove otherwise. The moon is not known to have been part of the earth, if you are refering to the similiar elements and such on both the earth and the moon. that doesnt mean a thing. I have dark brown hair, my wife also has dark brown hair. it doesnt mean that she was once a part of me or that we have the same parents.

The statement is not false because if the theory of the moons origin proves true then the Earth wouldn't always have had seasons as it is the mix between the Moon and Suns gravity that causes the Earths obliquity.
And as for you and your wifes hair colour, you both have the same ancestor (genetics)

God is not limited by anything. what most people try to do with God is add all three together and get the product of 3. but instead of 1+1+1 its more like 1x1x1. if you multiply them you still get only 1. The trinity is more like 1^3 instead of adding all three together.

The trinity was invented in Nicene around 325 CE as there is NO mention of it in the bible whatsoever

Eve did know not to eat from the tree, she even told satan that they were not supposed to. no one sat there and watched God create everything. God wrote part of Genesis so did adam.

HA HA Eve was not told that SHE couldn't eat the fruit only Adam and where did Satan come into it. Where in the Old Testament does it say that the serpent was under the influence of satan. Just because it speaks and has legs (mind you that would make it NOT a snake, strange!!!!) So I take it God and that wrote in Hebrew??

And just to let you know in the Epic of Gilgamesh , Gilgamesh meets a man called Utnapishtum who was alive before the flood and it was he that the gods told about the coming flood and to build an ark to survive it. Utnapishtum was also immortallised with his wife by the gods and it is he that Noah is based as the Epic was written before the biblical narrative


G

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
actually no, its around the same time. not exactly but around the same time period. all the dates I find all over google is the story of a king that lived around 2700 BC. thats about the time of the flood, or the days of noah. how old did he live to be anyway? and how did he die?

The earliest books of Bible were written in the 7th century BCE. Like I said, roughly 2000 years. The Epic of Gilgamesh predates the Bible by the same amount the NT predates this forum. If you were to claim the New Testament was simply an earlier record of this forum, you wouldn't even take yourself seriously.

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher

i.e., magic. Out of curiosity, where does the Bible say god breathed life into animals?

Genesis 2:7 he breathed through his nostrils, the breath of life. in Genesis 7:22 tells us what kinds of animals noah took on the ark, whos nostrils were the breath of life. the ones tha died were the sames kinds he took on the ark.

Neither of these passages say god breathed life into the animals. Are you inferring that?

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
thats only because you dont believe he can breathe the breath of life into anything. just like by his words the heaven and the earth are created.

i.e., magic.

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher

An arbitrary distinction invented by Creationists.

no sir that is what you think of our definition. what is your definition?

'macro' evolution is a word invented by creationists. I don't have a definition for it because it is not a valid concept. It implicitly assumes that there is an insurmountable wall of some kind that prevents changes from accumulating. No such wall exists. I don't know what point you're trying to make by demanding that I provide a definition to you for a phrase rooted in false assumptions that your camp invented.

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
information is always either lost, rearranged, or copied more times than its supposed to be when variations occur. the variations that occur within these 'kinds' are limited.

They are not nearly as limited as you may think. Entire chromosomes sometimes get replicated, and we observe this frequently. We also observe the merger of genetic material between species. Human DNA has evidence of such past mergers in it.

You at least recognize that variations sometimes include additional copies of genetic material. How can you refer to this as an information loss? Why is that not a direct example of increasing complexity?

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
farmers have been trying to get bigger pigs. you think they will ever get a pig as big as texas? no, im sure there is a limit in there someplace.

I seriously doubt they would want one as big as texas even if it could be done. But what does this have to do with anything?

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
when you breed dogs, you can breed certain dogs to get a certain type of dog. but you do think that by breeding over and over again, you will be able to get something other than a dog? now you might be able to get a dog that cant breed with other certain dogs, but thats not evolution.

Why is that not evolution? If you end up with a dog that can't breed with other dogs, you no longer have a dog, you have a new species. We have created numerous new species in lab environments through selection and isolation.

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
Micro evolution is a variation. dogs produce a variety of dogs. but its always a dog. thats an example of micro evolution. just because you assume that a bunch of micro evolution equals macro evolution, that doesnt make it true. macro evolution would be a dog coming from a non-dog or a dog producing a non-dog. this is pure imagination.

Although we haven't witnessed speciation in dogs (that I'm aware of), we have witnessed speciation in other genus resulting from such accumulations. If you wish to simply deny the documented evidence, that's up to you. By the way, if you have already researched evolution sufficiently to dismiss it, you already know this and should have a ready rebuttal.

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
macro evolution is known by many. nature doesnt know the difference between micro and macro? tell as far as I know, the dog does not go after to cat to try and produce offspring. I understand that a dog might go off and hump something to relieve himself of such discomfort, but animals know the difference between what kind is theirs. they know not to go after a bear and try to [do] it.

Do you know what a mule is? Animals will in fact attempt to breed with closely related species, and sometimes they succeed. Every once in a while, mules are fertile.

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
what observations have we seen? nothing but variations that produce the same kind. thats all. macro evolution is based on imagination.

We have observed accumulated mutations that form new species. Not dogs and cats specifically though. To witness it within a reasonable amount of time, we have to observe lifeforms that reproduce quickly. But there is no reason the exact same thing shouldn't be happening in life forms that reproduce slowly.

You recognize that mutations do in fact accur, but you have not explained what mechanism prevents mutations from accumulating. Unless such a mechnism is identied, it's foolish to say it can't happen, or even that it's unlikely. If such accumulation of mutations can happen, then they will happen from a probabilistic perspective given enough trials. Every offspring is another trial.

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
Evolution (with the exception of micro evolution) is a lie.

The Bible is a lie. Evil men wrote it to promote their own interests with no concern for how such lies would enslave the minds of others.

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
"if given enough time..." you dont know that, you believe and have faith that it will happen, you dont know that.

We use induction from what we observe. There is no known mechanism that prevents the accumulation of changes, and we have in fact witnessed such accumulations occuring both "slowly" such as with fruit fly experiments, and rapidly such as in cross breeding of closely related species. We have witnessed wholesale genetic mutations that are not universally detrimental. We observe snippets of genetic material that appear to be parasitic and have identified the mechanism by which such parasites can attach themselves to cellular DNA.

We witness wholesale exchanges of genetic material within bacteria and we witness viruses that reproduce by tagging along with the normal reproductive cycle of higher organisms.

You have provided no explanation as to why it is invalid to draw inferences based on these observations. You merely shout ever louder and louder that it's a lie because we don't witness cats turning into dogs.

You have not explained what prevents the accumulation of genetic changes that you readily admit happen. How is your argument substantially different from claiming that it is possible to add 1 to a 1000 and get 1001, but no matter how many times you add 1, you can never reach 1000000 because we never witness 1+1000=1000000?

you still didnt answer my question. how long did Gilgamesh live and when did he die?

EC