Readers’ Responses to Our Question (169)

Hj8gQr Cool, bro!

Hj8gQr Cool, bro!

Hj8gQr Cool, bro!

When the sun novas, we'll pretty much be toast.

That's how it will end and it will be as if we never existed.

Mike

When the sun novas, we'll pretty much be toast.

That's how it will end and it will be as if we never existed.

Mike

When the sun novas, we'll pretty much be toast.

That's how it will end and it will be as if we never existed.

Mike

Fate,

You still around? I still would like to talk to you. Hope all is well. Please respond and maybe we can begin where we left off.

David wrote:
---Proof that [Jesus' words were recorded second and third hand] isnt true:
http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-authors.html
Also look at the timeline and would it not be possible that these authors lived to actually see Jesus' testimony? ---

Hmmm, good reference which I think proves my point. The authors of the NT wrote it many years "AD" meaning after death, up to 90 years AD. Some were with Jesus, many others were not. The entire bible according to your site was written by 40 people over 1500 years. Some stories are verified by other authors, some are lone accounts of what happened. Of course, if you put a brand of "God's word" on the whole book, what's to argue? I will consider those stories told by multiple authors but I'll question the lone author. And again, the catholics cherry picked the bible's contents. Not all NT writings are represented.

---Also, relate the timeline of Daniel's and Isaiah's writing and relate them to prophetical outcomes. But since you think the those are bunk, research into end time prophecies. Such as the woman on the beast (the catholic church), the woman riding on a beast by the way is a church siding with the antichrist which explains this church to be located between 7 hills within rome, hence the Vatican, single monetary sytem (the euro), the resurrection of the roman empire (the U.N. and the E.U.), the sign of the beast (not positive but check out http://www.verichipcorp.com/ ---

Every century has had people claim the world was coming to an end based on biblical prophesy and what was going on that century, even before Christ appeared. I remember my mother saying that WW2 was prophesised and she thought, as a young girl, it meant the end of the world. Hitler was the antichrist she said. I remember those sayng the year 2000 would be the end. You should have been around in the 1960s with nuclear war an imminent threat. I was ducking and covering in school. The end of the world is nothing new. And look at your own words! The EU is the resurrection of the Roman Empire? I remember when the USA was called that by some who said the end was near. The UN? The UN is not a government but a committee which has no army or unitary force, which is why it is so hard for it to do anything, which is the way it was designed.

It seems to me that very old text, obviously out of context, and interpreting it to represent present day conditions ought to be easy. Lets see ... I'll pick a random prophesy from Nostradamus and twist it into what I like. I found quatrainne XI2:
---
"How much gold and silver will have to be spent
When the Count will desire to take the town,
Many thousands and thousands of soldiers,
Drowned, killed, without doing anything there,
In stronger land will he set foot,
Pygmy aid by the Copy-holders"
---
Ok, let see:
-spend money = spend national treasure
-Count takes town = president takes Baghdad.
-soldiers killed = soldiers killed
-without doing anything = a stalemate
-stronger land = USA
-Pygmy aid = Bush, a pygmy to Cheney
-Copy-holders = hmmm, had to look up the definition: mechanical device used in printing.

So this OBVIOUSLY is a reference to, oh my, our current war in Iraq (how coincidental!). It is saying that Bush launched a war for naught, it drew to a stalemate but many soldiers were killed. In the end Bush, the leader of the stong land (USA) was really a small aid to the real power, the print media, meaning Fox News. My God! Nostradamus predicted it! Hey, this is fun!

---So, prophecy could likely be working today. Then what do you say?---

I say prophesy is bunk or people would be reading propheses and going out and putting money strategically in the stock market and getting wealthy based on prophesy. Church leaders who claim to know prophesy would be very wealthy, which they are but not by making money that way.

But what actually happens is not prediction of coming events that come to pass but instead taking prophesy to point out events that are happening or have recently happened. Few actually stand in the street proclaiming midnight will be the end of the world though thousands have. Most just tell you its coming. And like a fortune teller make it as vague as possible. Pat Robertson came close when he predicted with prayer that he could turn a hurricane. It didn't turn but he had an out, not enough people prayed!

---Once again you used an OT testament concerning rape. (2 Samuel). And like I said before maybe you should ask a Jew since christians do not live by the law but by grace. That subject there is basic philosophy that you SHOULD understand.---

You have been telling me that the bible is the word of God. I have been saying that God seems to have changed over time but you say he has not. I then point out where God prescribes a neighbor raping a man's wife in front of him as God's punishment for the man and you say I'm taking it out of context. So is the bible God's word or is it, the OT anyway, just Jewish law written by jewish men in the context of the day who say its God's word but is not?

And I do understand the basic phylosophy. I just don't see it practiced by many who call themselves christian and I see many christians ignore that overall phylosophy of love and take snipets of the bible, twist the meaning, and use it as validation for hateful acts, such as "an eye for an eye". Many Christians today are for the death penalty. Talk about hipocracy...

---Well, gotta run. My wifes buggin me. Thanks again Fate. Have a great week.---

I plan to. Lots of eggs to dye and hide. Oh my, is coloring easter eggs and hiding them in the OT, the NT, or am I performing a pagan act?

---And I think I'll pass on the book. Thanks anyway, I'd rather not think about such things as I sit and lay back on the beach to enjoy God's creation. :) I thought you might like that.... :)---

While you're in Hawaii do some sight seeing. Note the lava flows. Note how the islands are continuing to grow. Note on a map the islands, how they get bigger as you go east. Maybe talk to a park ranger and learn about the "hot spot" under Hawaii and how the earth's crust has moved over millions of years over the hot spot. Also note the wildlife, how it is not the same as where you live but similar, but perfectly adapted for life in Hawaii. Once you see the world for what it is, you will see that nature is a very natural thing, with no need for a God. Only then you can begin to really appreciate the wonder of life on this planet and how precious it is, and we are.

Thanks for this very informative blog. I think it is time, however, we all start learning from our differences rather than fighting about them. Never before has society been so divided. This is a time we all need to come forward with mutual respect and goodwill towards all. I truly beieve in a much bigger God than the one we have all obviously heard of for so long.

Rather it be the Christian God, Muslim God, or Budha! (whatever!) We are all in this thing called- ~life~ together!

We should all hope for peace to be shared together. As well, for each to have their own peace respectively. No matter which concept of God one blieves their own truth! Why would one who tuly knows God within want any thing less for another human being. I beg to know the answer to this...

Futher by forcing our own superiorty of belief forward, over others equally as dedicated to a different belief, is truly, in my mind anyway, not indicitive of having deep peace within as touted otherwise in their faith. Love your differences! (some may say enemies) And allow each the right to have their own truth.

If you are secure with your own beliefs truly, you shouldn't have a need to prove it to others, nor force your rules on any self-governing body of people. Wear your respective religions in your heart where it belongs, and not thurst on others.

All extreme religions are dangerous. And I think we are seeing that now in our own country. The rise of Christain Nationalism has been nothing but decisive to our country, and I would think, to the very messege Christians want to put forth. Rather it be Pat Robinson or other
fundlementalist christian counterparts, or rather it be Osma and his counterparts as well, the taliban, makes no difference.
Both are overly rigid to the non believer of their faith, and to the like believer as well....

And BOTH are out of mainstream to their own perspective societies. Yet, I stil do struggle, nonetheless, to understand the Christian perspective these days. I do repect thier deep rooted faith, but I beg to know why they feel I am the one intolerant bcause I don't want to embrace a theocracy in my country, as with how it was with, the Taliban, in Afghanistan. On the contrary, it feels to me that is what Christian Nationalist seek. Oppression is relevant to all. Even when it is not as overt as the Taliban. Please help to understand the differences.

As A matter of fact, the similarities seem too eerily close. On another note, I personaly do not believe in the concept of Hell. But if ones needs to believe in that concept, as one much more articulate than I once said "I'ts your Hell, So you Burn it" Sad if that is your choice though.. because I truly think happiness and peace for all us, regardless, is the best alternative. I know For myself, though, that whatever heaven is... wherever it is in it's Glory... God indeed has it for me! And, no, I do not fear death....

On the other hand, I do fear, what we can do to each other here on earth!

Peace to you...

Fate,

I'm just out the door to get to the airport but I wanted so badly to see your response. Really briefly let me clarify a couple of things.

You said,

The bible was made by taking writings that were made after Christ died by people who were there but no longer alive. So Jesus' words were recorded second and third hand.

Proof that isnt true:

http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-authors.html

Also look at the timeline and would it not be possible that these authors lived to actually see Jesus' testimony? Also, relate the timeline of Daniel's and Isaiah's writing and relate them to prophetical outcomes. But since you think the those are bunk, research into end time prophecies. Such as the woman on the beast (the catholic church), the woman riding on a beast by the way is a church siding with the antichrist which explains this church to be located between 7 hills within rome, hence the Vatican, single monetary sytem (the euro), the resurrection of the roman empire (the U.N. and the E.U.), the sign of the beast (not positive but check out http://www.verichipcorp.com/

So, prophecy could likely be working today. Then what do you say?

Once again you used an OT testament concerning rape. (2 Samuel). And like I said before maybe you should ask a Jew since christians do not live by the law but by grace. That subject there is basic philosophy that you SHOULD understand.

Well, gotta run. My wifes buggin me. Thanks again Fate. Have a great week. And I think I'll pass on the book. Thanks anyway, I'd rather not think about such things as I sit and lay back on the beach to enjoy God's creation. :) I thought you might like that.... :)

David wrote:
---First off, rape. In no way does God "command" as you say to rape anyone.---

Check out: 2 Samuel 12:11-14
"Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.' Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord." Nathan answered David: "The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die."

So God punishes David by having David's neighbor rape his wives. God also kills David's child whom I assume was innocent of anything David did. Also check out: Deuteronomy 21:10-14. I have pointed out these passages in the bible in earlier postings, maybe you missed them. Rape was required by God of captives in many conflicts (after giving the rape victim time to mourn the murder of her parents of course).

---To clarify the subject of the Hebrews. Yes they are chosen by God to prove Himself through their bloodline. God vowed that they as a people would be a part of history from beginning to end. It was not until Jesus' time that Jews and Gentiles alike could recieve salvation from God. Once again that is basic Christian philosophy and proves you really do not have any knowledge in the subject.---

Yet you say God has not changed from the OT to the NT. But he did in that he now considers Jews just as equal with respect to getting into heaven as gentiles. What happened to gentiles during OT times? Were they denied heaven for a reason? Why did God change his mind about gentiles? If he changed his mind he is not immutable.

---No the Bible clearly states the determination of true nature in the first two verses of the Bible which I have shown you. Not much is specified and probably could not have been since scientific means were not around then.---

But these are the words of God. Does He not know science? I would be very impressed if he said light has no mass, the universe is expanding, or that there were other planets or even stars. None of this was known at the time by man so I'm not surprised God didn't know it either.

---How can all these denominations have so much in common but enough to split them apart. They all use the Bible in their own terms which is why organized religion has been perverted. But a lot of these denominations have similiar conclusions.---

I agree. I think it shows the power religion has and how some people want their own version of that power. The Catholic church was from the beginning the sole power of christianity. A good reading of Henry VIII might help explain how man, as you say, perverted thr religion. But I would go back to Christ who disagreed with the Rabbis of his day and basically split off Judiasm into another faction, christianity. As I see it, its just man being man.

---Oh and great Einstein knows about gravity? How was gravity made? And do you know what made the products that made gravity?---

All good questions which you will not find answers to in the bible. But answers to questions like that have been found through scientific research.

---And you still deny the fact that the Bible is an historically correct document.---

Yes.

---So I guess the Constitution of the United States must not be legal historical fact either because there is no one alive today that saw it signed.---

Good point. History and documentation are important. The constitution was witnessed, signed, duplicated and spread thoughout the colonies. The consensus at the time was that it was real as signers of the time verified. That is why it is signed and by so many people and multiple copies were made and each digned. They knew as we know today that for a document to have validity it cannot be created in secret and its origins kept secret. The bible was made by taking writings that were made after Christ died by people who were there but no longer alive. So Jesus' words were recorded second and third hand. Then these documents were accumulated and church leaders picked some and discarded others. They did not include them all because there were conflicts. The gnostic writings were discarded. A few were taken as 100% correct and included. I find it hard to imagine that the scripture reviewed at the time was either completely correct or completely wrong and that the people making these decisions were completely right. So I feel the NT is simply what the early christian leaders put together based on their understanding of christianity at that time. I feel the NT reflects the thinking of the early christians but is not a complete historical document and I would not be surprised it has errors. Which are errors and which are correct I cannot say. No one can. I will take the ones multiple authors agreed on and question the parts that have inconsistencies or have only one author.

---And how do we know that wasnt just last thursday? If you cannot recognize the Bible as historically accurate then there is no reason for this debate.---

It could have been last Thursday, it could have been 6000 years ago. God's capabilities are infinite. If you are going to take the bible to be as accurate as, say, the constitution, then you need to go back and read how the bible was put together to understand how much of it can be trusted.

---And if man is fallible in their writings in the Bible maybe man is fallible in their scientific research?---

I completely agree! I have worked in the lab. I know how you can run an experiment three times and get three different answers. Science trusts only in repeatability, mathematical analysis and the accumulation of evidence. I would put the bible in that last category. The authors of the bible seem to agree on the life of Jesus and I have no doubt he existed. But you also need to understand that miracles were being performed at the same time by many other people. Also remember that Mohammed is credited with miracles of his own that were documented. Do you doubt those miracles? Because they are documented, probably better, than the bible's:
http://www.jews-for-allah.org/Muhammad-and-Judaism/miracles-of-mohammed.htm

---So once again you make claims to your reasoning but put mine on higher standards.---

I don't see how.

---Its wonderful how God used you (someone I do not even know or even agree with) to show me his awesomeness.---

It was 80 degrees yesterday, I took a walk at lunch. Was he showing me how pleased he was for helping you? Its amazing how a belief in a God can make you imagine anything.

---To be honest this is the first time I have ever debated the issue of God and I think God used this to inspire me to seek His word even further.---

Good. I like to question everything. It got me beaten by nuns in catholic school but I've never regreted it. Truth is too important.

---Everything I challenge on both sides of the debate continue to press me in the belief of God and of Jesus. One cannot just read the Bible to understand its message but must study it over and over again to gain the true wisdom that comes from it, just like science does.---

Science has a much higher standard since belief is not a valid reason to accept something as real. Religion and science have no comparison. Only one involves reason, thinking and proof.

---All in all I think we all look for a meaning to life and the reasoning behind it whether it be scientifically or spiritually. For me, spirituality seems to answer the questions science could never prove.---

As I pointed out before, religion explained the sun until nuclear fusion was discovered. Spirituality needs to be understood. Like a tree falling in the forest, would there be spirituality if man became extinct?

---If all we are are a bunch of particles that will cease to exist, the meaning for this debate is purposeless.---

Not at all. If you ever come to the conclusion that you are the result of particles forming life and evolving into you over billions of years, the wonder of it all is much more immense than God waving a wand. Some people study hurricanes, others tornadoes and are impressed that they form out of nothing to grow and yield such destructive power. I am impressed with life having formed, evolved and organized into multicellular organisms like ourselves.

---Why would you care to enlighten me on your theories if we're all just a bunch of particles that will soon evaporate. Why not just let me live my lie and my fantasy since it makes me happy?---

Fair question. Just look at what those who are living the fantasy have done to our government and our laws which affects us all. What I consider your delusion does affect me and others just as you may feel Pat Robertson affects your religion. By pointing out the delusion I'm trying to get some sanity back into society.

---But for me its the teachings of Christ that give reason to this debate. Us being taught to love one another and to truly love someone we would want that person to experience to love Christ has for all of us.---

As I've said I use the bible's parobles as I use Aesops, to learn how to treat my fellow man in a good way. Man is not some out of control killer that needs religion to make him civil. Human society, like animal societies, live well without religion. But morality really means not breaking the golden rule, not treating someone in a way you would not want them to treat you. It always comes back to the golden rule. That is what I find separates us from the animals, that we can empathise for each other thanks to our unique frontal lobe, the site of human reasoning and unique to humans.

---And if science cannot come up with a meaning of life then why should you care. Science doesn't teach you to care. Human instinct? Not really if we are all just a bunch of particles waiting to not exist.---

I agree. Morality is not the rhelm of science. Yet people, religious and not, seem to be able to get along just fine in most cases.

---Its been a heck of a debate Fate. [...] I cannot debate with someone who claims to have knowledge of the Bible but shows otherwise. It would therefore be pointless. I tried to show you the true meanings in the Bible but you refuse to accept them even though you clearly wanted answers.---

Your answers require complete belief in the bible's correctness. That is something I and even many who are believers do not agree with.

Enjoy Hawaii and maybe pick up a copy of "The God Delusion" to read on the beach. I haven't read it and its controversial in its attacks on religion, but it might keep your search for the truth going. My life phylosophy is that "people are stupid", which includes myself so its ok when I make a mistake but also keeps me aware of my flaws so I'm careful. I'm also tolerent of other people being stupid, running red lights and such. Human stupidity is prevalent which I think is obvious but rarely admitted. To improve ourselves we need to acknowledge our flaws and face up to them, even if it means questioning what we have been taught as an absolute truth since childhood.

Fate,

Once again you continue to either miss the point or dismiss it before even thinking about it. First off, rape. In no way does God "command" as you say to rape anyone. I think tolerance is the issue. As a Christian, we do not follow the ways of the OT so I suggest asking someone who follows Judaism why it is tolerated. You claim to know the teachings of the Bible but it is very clear that you have no idea what you are talking about. To claim God changed from the OT to the NT is obsurd and to make such a claim constitutes for a misinterpretation of God.

You say man is fallible which he is but wrote the Bible which they did. But scripture has proven itself to be the divine Word of God through prophecy in which subject you still want to avoid. That's fine ignore that if you will. I guess I can take my pick and choose of the points you make too. Oh and please continue to forget how I asked how the particles to people theory could ever be proved in that something (actually someone, ID) HAD to have to created that.

To clarify the subject of the Hebrews. Yes they are chosen by God to prove Himself through their bloodline. God vowed that they as a people would be a part of history from beginning to end. It was not until Jesus' time that Jews and Gentiles alike could recieve salvation from God. Once again that is basic Christian philosophy and proves you really do not have any knowledge in the subject.

you said,

You trust the bible but the bible has done a very poor job determining the true nature of the universe. So why do you think they got it right about the true nature of God?

No the Bible clearly states the determination of true nature in the first two verses of the Bible which I have shown you. Not much is specified and probably could not have been since scientific means were not around then. Sorry Moses did not know about the theory of relativity or even gravity. Those verses can be left open to debate but they truly do leave open the fact that God has been before creation and also a supposed billions of years into the geological era. And I do disagree with a lot of things catholics do but some are agreeable with Christianity. How can all these denominations have so much in common but enough to split them apart. They all use the Bible in their own terms which is why organized religion has been perverted. But a lot of these denominations have similiar conclusions.

Oh and great Einstein knows about gravity? How was gravity made? And do you know what made the products that made gravity?

And you still deny the fact that the Bible is an historically correct document. So I guess the Constitution of the United States must not be legal historical fact either because there is no one alive today that saw it signed. And how do we know that wasnt just last thursday? If you cannot recognize the Bible as historically accurate then there is no reason for this debate. And if man is fallible in their writings in the Bible maybe man is fallible in their scientific research? You cannot continue to hold the Bible to higher accounts of criticism than any other legal historical document. And you cannot discredit man for writing it when its man that pushes the claim for science. I do believe science to be a correct method in determining specific findings so I must trust in man. As so with the Bible.

So once again you make claims to your reasoning but put mine on higher standards. I guess all I can do is hope that you can humble yourself even just a little to think about what I'm saying for minute and not just what your saying. All in all its been a good debate that needs to end sometime. Its wonderful how God used you (someone I do not even know or even agree with) to show me his awesomeness. To be honest this is the first time I have ever debated the issue of God and I think God used this to inspire me to seek His word even further. Everything I challenge on both sides of the debate continue to press me in the belief of God and of Jesus. One cannot just read the Bible to understand its message but must study it over and over again to gain the true wisdom that comes from it, just like science does. All in all I think we all look for a meaning to life and the reasoning behind it whether it be scientifically or spiritually. For me, spirituality seems to answer the questions science could never prove. If all we are are a bunch of particles that will cease to exist, the meaning for this debate is purposeless. Why would you care to enlighten me on your theories if we're all just a bunch of particles that will soon evaporate. Why not just let me live my lie and my fantasy since it makes me happy? But for me its the teachings of Christ that give reason to this debate. Us being taught to love one another and to truly love someone we would want that person to experience to love Christ has for all of us. There may be no scientific evidence for how Christ can change lives but He has to millions of people over a span of centuries. And if science cannot come up with a meaning of life then why should you care. Science doesn't teach you to care. Human instinct? Not really if we are all just a bunch of particles waiting to not exist.

Its been a heck of a debate Fate. Im going on vacation tomorrow so I wont be checking this site for at least a week. And from recent responses from you, I think the debate is over. I cannot debate with someone who claims to have knowledge of the Bible but shows otherwise. It would therefore be pointless. I tried to show you the true meanings in the Bible but you refuse to accept them even though you clearly wanted answers. Thanks for your input Fate and I learned a lot from you. Things I do not think I could have learned from anyone else. I'll keep you in my prayers and will always hope the best for you. Maybe one day we'll see each others point of views but maybe not. As long as we have a mutual respect I'm good with that. Take care. And HAWAII HERE I COME!! I need a tan.

David wrote:
---God has never changed since the beginning until now.---

No? If the Hebrews are his chosen people how will christians get into heaven? They are not Hebrew therefore not chosen. When did God change the rules and allow non-Hebrews into heaven?

Why do you think this contradicts the immutability of God? After all, both Old and New Testaments agree 100% percent on this, since it is the New that quotes the Old saying:

And, "Thou, Lord, didst found the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of thy hands; they will perish, but thou remainest; they will all grow old like a garment, like a mantle thou wilt roll them up, and they will be changed. But thou art the same, and thy years will never end."
(Heb 1:10-12 RSVA)

How can _anyone_ come up with a reasonable interpretation of this passage _without_ realizing it implies the immutability of God?

David wrote:
---God has never changed since the beginning until now.---

No? If the Hebrews are his chosen people how will christians get into heaven? They are not Hebrew therefore not chosen. When did God change the rules and allow non-Hebrews into heaven?

---Regarding your verses in Deuteronomy:
22:28-29. Rape by force is mentioned here. But you must understand it culturally to understand its true meaning.---

I understand that women had no rights and the bible (God's word) tried to place some rules on a culture where women had no rights, launching wars on other societies was normal, and defining rules (laws) for what to do if a woman was raped. But what you are doing in your defense of the bible is placing it in a cultural context. Does God's laws exist in a cultural context or are they absolute? If your daughter was raped should the judge the rapist is brought before fine him 50 dollars to be given to you and tell the rapist he must marry your daughter? Are we more moral than God because our society today has determined rape is unacceptable in any context?

---No I could not prove scientifically that I was not born last Thursday or even the actual date I was born. But ask the eye witnesses to the account and also my birth certificate and you would come to the conclusion of my date of birth.---

And if all of the witnesses and the documents were also created last Thursday? If the world was created in place with people, their memories, documents etc, all created last Thursday, you could not prove it correct or incorrect. So I am free to believe it is true and there is no way you could prove it wrong, scientifically or otherwise. But just because you cannot prove it wrong does not make it right and the burden of proving it right is on me and not on you to prove wrong. Yet you want me to prove the bible wrong. I have tried to show inconsistencies, God's acceptance of rape, and the incorrect statements in the bible of the earth's age and creation of animals at once and unchanging. The evidence of these being incorrect is overwhelming but it seems the burden is still on me somehow.

---Your right in saying that these men were catholics who decided the original canon. But it was not until the time of Martin Luther that the Bible we have today came into play.---

Maybe we can agree that the bible may not contain all the accurate writings of the time? And it might even be possible some of what got into the bible was not correct but seemed correct? In other words, Christ's words were written corectly or incorrectly by men, saved or destroyed over time, accumulated by men, determined by men for their worth and addition to the bible. Man is fallible yet the bible is taken as perfect. How can that be?

---1:1 In the beginning 1 God 2 created 3 the heavens and the earth. 4 1:2 Now 5 the earth 6 was without shape and empty, 7 and darkness 8 was over the surface of the watery deep, 9 but the Spirit of God 10 was moving 11 over the surface 12 of the water. 13 I wonder how long God was just chillin before He created the earth as we know it today. Possibly billions of years? This verse leads to the openness that it could very well be possible this earth is billions of years old.---

Careful, that's what the catholics say. They also accept that evolution is just another of God's plans. For me its just the religion giving up in the face of overwhelming evidence and accepting reality or looking stupid, as the creationists look stupid. This process has been going on since the first days of the church. Stars are now distant suns, planets are not stars, the universe is very large, no shell (firmamant) exists, the earth revolves around the sun. etc., etc., etc...

---I am really glad you made me challenge both sides, science and God. Because maybe its just possible that science is proving God right now.---

Unlikely. As I showed in the above paragraph, science is pretty much proving some of the bible is wrong, the OT anyway, in the earth's age, the evolution of life. And wrong morally (rape, war, etc) though that is not science's relm.

---And when was time invented? If the world really is 15 billion years old, how much time was before that? That would be inconcievable to the human mind as only a finite God could understand. Is it not more probable that God created time when He created the 7 day week? Science can only bring you to a certain point in logical thinking which therefore you have to ask questions as to how could such perfection be created and how long were we in limbo before these particles started to make us?---

Time is my favorite subject. Einstein found it is relative and it has been proved that time in the presense of gravity runs slower. The astronauts in the space station are actually aging a little faster, ending up a few milliseconds older than if they stayed on earth. Not much but it has been scientifically measured. You trust the bible but the bible has done a very poor job determining the true nature of the universe. So why do you think they got it right about the true nature of God?

Do you know what the firmament is? Its the light shining through a dome covering a flat earth from heaven. Stars were not thought to be other suns in the perfect bible. That dome was fixed so comets and shooting stars were never recorded by christian historians. The supernova of 1054 which is now the crab nebula would have made the star appear brighter than venus, yet no mention of it in christian Europe, but lots of observations in non-christian China. One can only wonder what truths are being suppressed today by the church in the name of keeping the faith. Maybe the creationists are the keepers of the faith today.

---First of all Pat Robertson is a knucklehead.---

No argument from me here...

---Secondly, you NEED to look at when the books of the Bible were written. How could Kind David (1000 years B.C.) know that Christ would come one day and be "hung on a tree."---

Because hanging people on trees is an ancient method of torturous death known to King David.

---Also knowing that "not one bone would be broken," when roman tradition clearly states that when one is crucified his legs must be broken to ensure of his death. Both of those who were crucified had their legs broken. And David refers to Jesus "the one they pierced," hence the fact that he was pierced in his side with a sword. How could David had known these things 1000 years before they happened including roman tradition when the roman empire wasnt even established yet and that that tradition would be broken only with Jesus unless it was an inspired Word of God?---

We know Christ did not write anything. We know his deciples believed firmly he was the messiah. They were also Jews who knew the prophesies. So, you have very religious people who believe Chirst was the son of God and know he had to therefore fulfill the prophesies. Then they wrote down what they did. I'm not saying they lied, or mislead or embelished their text, just that it is possible. Fallible man again.

---And please tell me how Christianity could sustain for 2000 years without undeniable proof that God does not exist? Prophecy is real, you just need to check your historical dates.---

Constantine spreading christianity through war, the early accumulation of wealth by the christian church thanks to Constantine, the missionary movement to spread christianity, initially by monks but later by lay people. The incorporation of the church into governments, the inquisition suppressing truth, the pope elevated to a supreme position above kings, ... I could go on. Maybe you should ask why Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Jainism, and Taoism are older than christianity but still around. And the "three wise men" were the likely Zoroastrians based on their astrological abilities and the types of gifts given. Funny, astrology today is not considered devine by christians even though it worked to find the baby Jesus. Why?

Fate,

You said,

Maybe you think God cares for even the smallest things, but I wonder why he bothered making the rest of it and why he keeps changing the rules (Garden of Eden, then no garden, the the Hebrew God of wrath, now the loving God of Christ). Maybe we are not evolving but God is?

God has never changed since the beginning until now. I gave you an example in Ezekial of God's patience before their judgement. And I gave you an example in Matthew about how Jesus' message was not to bring peace but the sword. God has never changed from the OT to the NT. He has and always will be a God of love and a God of judgement. Why do we call Him "Father in Heaven?" Because just like a father He loves us unconditionally but will punish us for going against what he says. If we are to never be punished for our sins then how are we to ever learn from our mistakes? You interpretation of God has been misleading you.

Regarding your verses in Deuteronomy:

21:10-14 does not mention the act of rape and therefore cannot be accounted for.

22:28-29. Rape by force is mentioned here. But you must understand it culturally to understand its true meaning. First off lets look at the word 'rape' as it was translated to English.

http://jot.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/28/3/279?ck=nck

No word for 'rape' was ever found in Biblical Hebrew. And culturally what is found (and still is today)is the act of arranged marriages. In ancient times women had no rights. They were given into marriage per their fathers approval without consent from the woman. Virginity was common until marriage unless categorized as a prostitute. For whomever the woman loses their virginity to would become their husband as declared in the passages. The fiftly shekels is payment to the father since his rights in giving away his daughter to a man were taken. Back then there were no sexual ethics, just sex. And sex constituted the union between a man and a woman "to become one flesh." But no payment would be made to the father if an arranged marriage was accepted by the father. But as far as the 'rape' that we use as a word today, to force someone without consent to a sexual act, could not apply to ancient Biblical times without the force of payment and marriage to the woman. The difference between rape these days and rape in those days is the accountability. Their laws consitute the man to marry the woman compared to these days as rape could only be a violent act which upon to leave the woman with no dignity. But, according to the NT we no longer live by the laws anymore for salvation, but live by grace with which salvation comes to those who believe.

First let me say that I will look up this dino hemoglobin article and get back to you. Now, as to the question of how to prove something that cannot be repeated. This happens every day. History for example. Was your house built by God or carpenters assuming you did not watch it being built or someone did not record it on film. How do you know you were born and not just created last Thursday? You can't prove you were not.

Exactly!! By no scientific means could I prove these things. Only by legal historical fact. For example: Being born last Thursday. No I could not prove scientifically that I was not born last Thursday or even the actual date I was born. But ask the eye witnesses to the account and also my birth certificate and you would come to the conclusion of my date of birth.

Whoe. Christ left no writings so all of the NT is second hand information. The Council of Nicea threw out a lot of writings to get to the four authors who basically agreed with each other, though not 100%. And those council members were catholics, the ones you say you do not trust. How can you accept the catholic bible but not catholocism? How can trust those who culled through the writings of others in Christ's day and put together the few we call the bible? You are trusting the judgement of people building a religion at the time. That means building power. Assuming it was all done in good faith ignores the sinful nature of all men

Your right in saying that these men were catholics who decided the original canon. But it was not until the time of Martin Luther that the Bible we have today came into play. The council of Nicea was mainly a debate over the Trinity belief system and whether God the Father was before Jesus the Son or were they one in the same. They concluded that the Trinity was the correct form due to OT passages proving this to be correct. The Apogrypha and Psedopygripha were added by roman catholic bishops but then later regarded as false doctrine due to historical inaccuracies and inconsistencies with OT scripture. Furthermore, your right in saying Christ left no writings of His own. But it was eyewitness accounts, not just from Christians but from roman authorities as well (Pontius Pilate) that verified the testimony of Jesus.

I find something quite interesting in the first two verses of the Bible:

1:1 In the beginning 1 God 2 created 3 the heavens and the earth. 4

1:2 Now 5 the earth 6 was without shape and empty, 7 and darkness 8 was over the surface of the watery deep, 9 but the Spirit of God 10 was moving 11 over the surface 12 of the water. 13

I wonder how long God was just chillin before He created the earth as we know it today. Possibly billions of years? This verse leads to the openness that it could very well be possible this earth is billions of years old. And that maybe its mankind that has seen this world in such a short time period according to chronology of the Bible. I am really glad you made me challenge both sides, science and God. Because maybe its just possible that science is proving God right now. And when was time invented? If the world really is 15 billion years old, how much time was before that? That would be inconcievable to the human mind as only a finite God could understand. Is it not more probable that God created time when He created the 7 day week? Science can only bring you to a certain point in logical thinking which therefore you have to ask questions as to how could such perfection be created and how long were we in limbo before these particles started to make us?

You said,

The prophesies that were written about AFTER they happened? You're sounding like Pat Robertson (sorry, not intending to offend).

First of all Pat Robertson is a knucklehead. He thinks the world is gonna end this year when it clearly states in the Bible that no man will know the time but will only heed the warnings. He thinks he knows the time which is contradictory to true Christianity. Secondly, you NEED to look at when the books of the Bible were written. How could Kind David (1000 years B.C.) know that Christ would come one day and be "hung on a tree." Also knowing that "not one bone would be broken," when roman tradition clearly states that when one is crucified his legs must be broken to ensure of his death. Both of those who were crucified had their legs broken. And David refers to Jesus "the one they pierced," hence the fact that he was pierced in his side with a sword. How could David had known these things 1000 years before they happened including roman tradition when the roman empire wasnt even established yet and that that tradition would be broken only with Jesus unless it was an inspired Word of God? And please tell me how Christianity could sustain for 2000 years without undeniable proof that God does not exist? Prophecy is real, you just need to check your historical dates.

David wrote:
---...research Dr. Mary Schweitzer. She recently found soft tissue in a T-rex bone which contained hemoglobin.---

Please read the following website which points out the exagerations of the find:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC371.html

Now that you say you understand the creationist lies you should use the www.talkorigins.org site to get to the truth on creationist claims, which is what this site does. One thing you should have initially done when you heard the claim was question why, up until Schweitzer, all dino bones were found fossilized with no hemoglobin or DNA. If dinos were around a few thousand years ago a lot of tissue would be found in dino bones and this would not be news. Scientists have enough DNA from mammoths to consider cloning one for example. They were killed by the flood as were the dinos according to the creationists. You don't need years of scientific training to see a con job. You just need to not take everything that supports the bible at face value and ask questions. You should also ask yourself why people need to lie to reinforce the belief.

David wrote:

---But the idea of creatinism is still a valid scientific point in that evolution really has no definitive answer. How can something be proven without being able to repeat it? All other means of science use this method to prove their findings except evolutionism. How can one recreate the earth and all living things except God?---

First let me say that I will look up this dino hemoglobin article and get back to you. Now, as to the question of how to prove something that cannot be repeated. This happens every day. History for example. Was your house built by God or carpenters assuming you did not watch it being built or someone did not record it on film. How do you know you were born and not just created last Thursday? You can't prove you were not.

Evolution initially began by fossil studies and studying living creatures that seemed relates (dogs & cats for example). Since the dates of the fossils were important methods of dating fossils or the sediments they were found in became a science of its own. Its used not only for fossil dating but archeological dating, the same archeology you initially said proved God existed. Its also used in geology to determine oil and gas deposits. But back to evolution, as fossil finds accumulated hypotheses were formed, such as one species evolving into another over time. If the hypothesis was correct there should be a fossil of an intermediate form during a time in between the fossils in question. Many of these were found for many species. The gaps creationists used to claim was a problem in evolution in 1920 began to close. Some species have complete fossil records today. Many do not but have gaps which continue to close.

One question evolutionists have debated over was recently solved. If mammals evolved from reptiles, where did the ear bones we use to hear with come from. It looked like reptiles had these tiny bones but they were part of the jaw. No intermediate animal was discovered that had something in between. Evolution does not allow such an abrupt change since evolution is gradual. The hunt for an intermediary animal, half reptile half mammal is was thought. Just recently a reptile was discovered that had the bones in an intermediate configuration. Evolutionists were suprised it was found in a reptile and not some reptile/mammal intermediary or an early mammal. So their initial hypothesis was wrong, that it would not be found in a reptile, but their prediction that an intemediary had to exist was right. The evidence is currently being review by other scientists.

Up until the 1980s the evolutionary evidence was mainly fossil based and the "tree of life" showing how species branched off from extinct species was made. Then DNA was discovered and DNA sequencing of many animals began and continues today. When you look at the DNA differences it follows the "tree of life", well, almost. There are some surprises though not big enough to toss it all. Some species were found to be related more closely or le ss close to different fossils than we thought. Still, the agreement between the DNA and fossil evidence is very high. You do not need to repeat something to show how it happened anymore than a forensic investigator needs to repeat a homocide to determine what likely happened. And in the case of evolution, the earth contains millions of years of evidence still be gathered.

---And once again what created all those particles that became people? And where did they come from? Admitting to not being able to answer those questions has left serious doubt in the minds of many scientists.---

Doubt about what? Few scientists consider God when they do their work. Few if any scientists will find a question they cannot answer and proclaim the bible the obvious answer because the question cannot be answered today. Remember the church (and scientists of the day) thought the sun revolved around the earth? When Copernicus proved them wrong he was threatened with imprisonment for heresay. Maintaining religious doctrine at all costs did not begin with creationists.

---But evolutionists goal is to prove there is not God and we can sustain life without Him.---

No it is not. They are scientists looking at evidence, forming hypotheses and determining not only what happen as animals evolved but by what methods. God's existance is on few minds when they do their work anymore than He is on your mind when you do your work, which I assume is as mind numbing as mine. Evolution is not a religion. You need to get over that presentation by creationists. If it were no scientist would accept it anymore than they accept creationism.

---The problem with that is that without God we begin to feel like we can be God.---

We do? Explain. And what about believers who feel God is on their side, like Bush who feels he has God on his side and can flaunt the Constitution. The problem is that total belief in God can lead people to assume God approved of anything they do, like the ancient Hebrews.

---So, in conclusion to this statement I must admit that I was at fault for pointing out that creationist are valid scientists. You are right in that they have a pre-bias commitment to their false findings. But, evolutionists have a few questions that need to be answered for their theories to be correct too. Do not think that science is infallible? Because it isn't.---

We agree. Scientists are the last to trust a scientific finding until it is investigated, studied and rigorously peer reviewed. Many people buy snake oil hoping somehow the salesman was right, or buy magnets to heal sore knees. Most people believe anything. Scientists trust very little without evidence.

---You asked whether I go to a doctor or church when I get sick. Of course a doctor! God gave us science to help us.---

But it seems only if it is consistent with the religious texts. Science that shows the bible is flawed is somehow a belief in itself. You cannot call evolution a belief but cancer researchers true scientists. Both work using the same scientific methods.

---But, let me give you an example of science gone wrong, personally. My wife came across a condition known as Guillen Barre Syndrome. An auto immune system disorder that affects the nervous system. She was told it would be 6 months to a year to walk again and that it would require her to be in the hospital until she was able to walk. 8 weeks later she was discharged with a full recovery. They brought in specialists from around the bay area (thats where we live) and they all could not figure out how that could be possible. But through prayer, and faith my wife beat science. This experience acknowledges further Gods existence...at least to me.---

I googled the disease picked the first website: http://www.answers.com/topic/guillain-barr-syndrome
It says trhe following about the prognosis (how it will progress) will go:
"Most of those afflicted with GBS recover completely, although the recovery can in some cases be slow (months to years). Complete recovery usually occurs when the symptoms fade within three weeks of appearing. The typical scenario is for a patient to experience the most weakness from 10–14 days after the appearance of symptoms, with complete recovery occurring within weeks or a few months. In contrast, a poor prognosis can be associated with a rapid appearance of symptoms, use of assisted ventilation for a month or more, severe nerve damage, and with advancing age."

Sound like she had a normal recovery. Aren't you glad the doctors did not base the disease on deamons and try exorcism, or consider her a witch? Both have happened in christianity's past.

---You cannot count on chance as a means of diagnoses and scientific proof. The backbone of evolution is "by chance."---

No. Evolution is not the result of pure chance. It is the result of the death of the unfit, or as some call it, the survival of the fittest. No chance in there except the changes in the environment. But an animal's response to that change is predictable to some extent.

---Keep in mind that not everything can be scientifically proven.---

Yes it can. Just not everything can be scientifically proven with the science we have today.

---Can you prove you went to work last week scientifically? No but you can show a timecard and have witnesses to prove you were there. Legal historical facts. That is how the Bible is proven.---

Whoe. Christ left no writings so all of the NT is second hand information. The Council of Nicea threw out a lot of writings to get to the four authors who basically agreed with each other, though not 100%. And those council members were catholics, the ones you say you do not trust. How can you accept the catholic bible but not catholocism? How can trust those who culled through the writings of others in Christ's day and put together the few we call the bible? You are trusting the judgement of people building a religion at the time. That means building power. Assuming it was all done in good faith ignores the sinful nature of all men.

---Now God has given us freewill to believe or not to believe in His teachings. You choose not to believe even though His Word has been historically proven.---

I accept much in the bible. Love, underestanding, not casting first stones, etc... It is the concept of God himself I do not believe in. And again, his words (recorded by people don't forget) have not been historically proven. Where do you keep getting that. The words were written by Christs friends, long after he died. And other writers works were ignored. How can you just take some of the history, toss other records, and call it accurate and thus proof?

---But as an intelligent human being you must admit in the historical accuricies of the Bible.---

No.

---And once again I will refer to prophecy and how that is historically accurate with minute details involved.---

The prophesies that were written about AFTER they happened? You're sounding like Pat Robertson (sorry, not intending to offend).

---By the way, quit with accusing God of rape! Please quote some scripture so I could have some verification of that. I have already discussed reasoning behind the so called "genocide" performed by God.---

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 :
"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."
Deuteronomy 21:10-14 :
"When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion."

There are many more examples. Do you think 50 pieces of silver is just for the crime of rape? Can a women be kidnapped, say in Baghdad by an American soldier, after killing her parents and made to marry the soldier against her will? God thinks so. If you do not, why? God said its ok in a time of war.

---God proves Himself historically and by means of the Jewish peoples. To show His awesome and great power He vowed that Jews would always be a part of this world and the only remaining race that was from the beginning to the end.---

How convenient that the God of the Jews decided the Jews were his favorite people...

---In conclusion, I must admit you have a greater knowledge in science than I. Most of the scientific points you made I could not begin to understand. It takes years for scientists to learn these things and I sure do not have years to study them all. Once again I am truly sorry for bringing in the creationists theories and admit that I was led in the wrong direction.---

There is hope...

---Even God said "even the elect will be decieved." And so I was. But there still is inconclusive evidence involved and many questions to be answered by evolutionists. Science is fallible but God is not. As science continues to develop new measures, I am positive God will be proven again. See, how he offers new hope and patience. If the Bible is not enough evidence for you He will give you a way of belief by means of science eventually. If you then choose not to believe then that's between you and Him. Have a nice day Fate. God bless you......I hope you dont find offense to that. :)

Not at all. If science ever does one day prove God exists then that will be fine. It sure would explain a lot, but I would then wonder why He would create the universe just to put us on this tiny blue planet. Do you have any idea how small this planet is when compared with the universe? There are parts of the universe we can never see, can never get to no matter how fast a space ship we have. You are smaller than an atom in a galaxy when compared to the universe. Maybe you think God cares for even the smallest things, but I wonder why he bothered making the rest of it and why he keeps changing the rules (Garden of Eden, then no garden, the the Hebrew God of wrath, now the loving God of Christ). Maybe we are not evolving but God is?

Ms Mary Treherne,

I am glad you are seeking some spiritual growth. I looked on that site you put as a reference. One thing I can say I agree with is that religion itself has been twisted and turned over the last two centuries and that man has created it into something God did not intend. But to focus on your spirituality would be of great importance. The Bible teaches us to trust in God and not man. Religion is man-made therefore has its faults, hence all of the denominations. That is why God offers up a personal relationship with Him so as to not fall into the trap of man. Keep in mind that this new teaching contains passages from the Apocrypha and Pseudopigrapha which are documents that have been historically proven inaccurate and inconsisten with the original teachings of the Bible. It was the Roman Catholic Church that allowed such teachings until the Lutheran Reformation. Also to keep in mind that this new teaching basis their theories on Bible accounts so do not be misled by their misinterpretations. So many people over time have been misled due to false interpretations which God spoke of would happen. And finally, "challenge everything" as directed by God in the book of James. Good luck on your spiritual quest but be careful as God warned us. Colossians 2:8 Be careful not to allow anyone to captivate you through an empty, deceitful philosophy that is according to human traditions and the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.

If bringing down false religion has anything to do with the end of the 'world' then that 'process' may have already started. A new proof of God for faith, contained within a new ethical teaching for marriage is on the web and if this demonstrates itself to be authentic, then the whole of 'christian' history is looking into the abyss! My husband and I have just started to test the teaching. The stakes appear just too high to ignore. The teaching is a free download at plenty of sites. Here is one of them. www.energon.uklinux.net

Fate,

Since I did tell you that "I am no scientist," my facts have been based on little research. I definately am no historian neither but I am quite more knowledgeable in proving the Bible in an historical sense.

First though I would like to point out some things I found out last night during my research of the subject. I tried to find the website of a published article in what I think was called the Journal of American Sciences??? But not too sure. But if you would like, research Dr. Mary Schweitzer. She recently found soft tissue in a T-rex bone which contained hemoglobin. She is using a new form of paleantology called molecular paleantology that no one bothered to use before due to the fact that evolution was already considered valid. Now with new research indicating that dinosaurs may well have lived in quite a significant later time, evolutionists are starting to worry all their hard work will be out the door. I will admit it is fairly new evidence that is open to scrutiny.

Now about creationist. I have found out that most creationist DO purport lies. I will definately admit my mistakes but as I said I am fairly new to the research in science development. I do believe God has shown me the right path in realizing that these people have taken scientific evidence and perverted it. Same as the roman catholic church perverting the Word of God. But the idea of creatinism is still a valid scientific point in that evolution really has no definitive answer. How can something be proven without being able to repeat it? All other means of science use this method to prove their findings except evolutionism. How can one recreate the earth and all living things except God? And once again what created all those particles that became people? And where did they come from? Admitting to not being able to answer those questions has left serious doubt in the minds of many scientists. But evolutionists goal is to prove there is not God and we can sustain life without Him. The problem with that is that without God we begin to feel like we can be God. So, in conclusion to this statement I must admit that I was at fault for pointing out that creationist are valid scientists. You are right in that they have a pre-bias commitment to their false findings. But, evolutionists have a few questions that need to be answered for their theories to be correct too. Do not think that science is infallible? Because it isn't. You asked whether I go to a doctor or church when I get sick. Of course a doctor! God gave us science to help us. But, let me give you an example of science gone wrong, personally. My wife came across a condition known as Guillen Barre Syndrome. An auto immune system disorder that affects the nervous system. She was told it would be 6 months to a year to walk again and that it would require her to be in the hospital until she was able to walk. 8 weeks later she was discharged with a full recovery. They brought in specialists from around the bay area (thats where we live) and they all could not figure out how that could be possible. But through prayer, and faith my wife beat science. This experience acknowledges further Gods existence...at least to me. You cannot count on chance as a means of diagnoses and scientific proof. The backbone of evolution is "by chance." Keep in mind that not everything can be scientifically proven. Can you prove you went to work last week scientifically? No but you can show a timecard and have witnesses to prove you were there. Legal historical facts. That is how the Bible is proven. Now God has given us freewill to believe or not to believe in His teachings. You choose not to believe even though His Word has been historically proven. But as an intelligent human being you must admit in the historical accuricies of the Bible. And once again I will refer to prophecy and how that is historically accurate with minute details involved.

By the way, quit with accusing God of rape! Please quote some scripture so I could have some verification of that. I have already discussed reasoning behind the so called "genocide" performed by God. Let me point out to you that God's intentions were to have a creation living peacefully and in harmony with God. But it was man that created sin and sin brings judgement. You may not want to believe in the "God of wrath" but never the less that is whatit is and if you really studied the Bible you can see God's long term plan and understand why those things must have taken place. God proves Himself historically and by means of the Jewish peoples. To show His awesome and great power He vowed that Jews would always be a part of this world and the only remaining race that was from the beginning to the end.

In conclusion, I must admit you have a greater knowledge in science than I. Most of the scientific points you made I could not begin to understand. It takes years for scientists to learn these things and I sure do not have years to study them all. Once again I am truly sorry for bringing in the creationists theories and admit that I was led in the wrong direction. Even God said "even the elect will be decieved." And so I was. But there still is inconclusive evidence involved and many questions to be answered by evolutionists. Science is fallible but God is not. As science continues to develop new measures, I am positive God will be proven again. See, how he offers new hope and patience. If the Bible is not enough evidence for you He will give you a way of belief by means of science eventually. If you then choose not to believe then that's between you and Him. Have a nice day Fate. God bless you......I hope you dont find offense to that. :)

victoria wrote:
---our own mortality is a very frightening topic and it takes great courage to face that question---

Speak for yourself victoria.

---all the intelletualization in the world wont push it away as we all face it at some point.---

Faced it. I'm a cancer survivor. Death is natural. Consider nothng alive in 1850 is alive today. Nothing, not animal, plant or person. Its not that hard to accept death will happen, and probably before we expect it. Jesus had one thing right though, ashes to ashes, dust to dust, not dust to heaven or dust to hell.

David wrote:
---Since it is YOUR belief that creationist scientists are not a valid means of science there is no point in the debate anymore.---

It is not a belief. It is based on what they write, how creationists lie, bend the laws of physics and introduce tiny inconsistencies to "prove" an area of science, say radioactive dating, as totally invalid. When they ignore the mountain of valid evidence in favor of a tiny inconsistency, that is tatamount to lying when it is presented as overwhelming evidence. They are liars David. If you cannot see a lie and then question the motives of the liar I can not help you. To accept a lie means you will be living life based on lies. Not a good way for anyone to live.

---There are way too many gaps and inconclusions with evolutionism as there are with creationists science too.---

Not on the evolutionary side. Who ever told you that lied. Isn't that a sin?

---Both parties have admittedly came to an inconclusive end to the subject.---

People who study evolution would not say that. Where do you get this idea that evolution scientists have admitted their research has come to an inconclusive end? Where David? Evolutionary studies right now are mainly involving the study of human DNA sequencing which is adding to the already mountain of evidence for evolution and it supports it.

---Why else do you think it is called "The Great Debate."---

It was the "Great Debate" back in the 1920s during the Scopes trial. Its 2007 David, lots of new and supportive research has been done in those 80 years. DNA was not even known then nor during Darwin's time. No scientist today calls evolution a debate. Its a fact. The methods of how evolution operates is continually studied, but like gravity, which I assume you consider a fact, the method for how it happens is a research topic. No one today knows how gravity works David. Do you doubt gravity exists because of that? What do the creationists say about gravity? Do they research it? I would imagine not since it is not necessary to spread doubt about scientific research inconsistent with the bible.

---If creationists were considered non-valid in the science community there wouldnt be a "Great Debate." And obviously with a debate labeled such as that, neither side will come to an agreement.---

You don't seem to understand how science works. Its not debating teams trying to give the best argument. Its science, running repeatable experiments, moving ideas to hypotheses to theories to dogma. Creationists go right from the bible to dogma. They do not do science. They are ignored in the scientific community as are snake oil salesmen and those with perpetual motion machines.

---The question for all evolutionists is how can you deny ID?---

Because the scientific evidence does not support it.

---Great.... big bang theory....but what (or should I say who) made the particles and neutrons and other cool science stuff to create such an elaborate theory?

Science does not know... Science does not invent Gods when it has a question, as christians did to explain how the sun stayed bright for so long. Before nuclear fusion was discovered the christian church used the sun as proof of God's existence since science could not explain the sun. Now we can. So now its the creation of the universe. Pointing to questions as proof of God is a pretty poor method of proof. But I do find it interesting that creationists accept the scientific findings of a big bang, yet say that the light we see today canot come from anywhere more than 6000 light years away, the age the bible says the universe is. So creationists accept the big bang but cannot accept the evidence for the big bang. Doesn't it make you wonder how creationists can agree on a scientific finding when they disagree with its evidence? Maybe the finding is more important than the evidence? Maybe they lie? They are human after all. Sinners every one of them.

---That's what evolution is...just a theory, never to be proven ever, even by means of science.---

Evolution is a fact. How evolution occurs is a theory, just as gravity is a fact but how its works is a theory, just as quantum mechanics is a fact but how it works is a theory. The observable and corroborated evidence is overwhelming.

---Again I ask you, why even ask me about the God of the Bible if you will not take note in the extent of His mercy. God's actions were justified in all that He has done in history even if your mind cannot comprehend it being a justifiable act. And rape?? I sure do not recall rape as part of God's plan. And yes God destroyed civilizations, men women and children.---

Read about God's "mercy" from the only source you seem willing to accept:
Judges 21:10-24
Numbers 31:7-18
Deuteronomy 20:10-14
Deuteronomy 21:10-14
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
Deuteronomy 22:23-24
2 Samuel 12:11-14
Judges 5:30
Exodus 21:7-11
Zechariah 14:1-2

And while you're reading about the slaughter of women and children at God command, don't forget the fetuses in expecting mothers, something today christians call murder.

---And upon His return He will do the same.---

Oh joy. The God of love returning to kill, rape, and enslave men women and children.

---To justify His acts in the OT, most likely the destruction of civilizations were to destroy bloodlines for a particular civilization. In part due to the sustanation of the Jewish people. Can you name any other race in the history of the world that is still around besides Jews?---

David, I implore you to read your own words. You have just justified genocide. This is the type of evil I see creeping out of religion. How religion can be used to justify the unjustifiable. bin Laden reads his Quran the same way.

---Jews are God's chosen people and are the most scattered race of people in the world. Jews are on every continent and pretty much every country.---

So are the Irish, Indians, Chinese, west Africans and Philipinos.

---Have you ever seen a mexican in poland? Not very probable. But as it was written in the Bible in the OT, the Jews will be the one remaining race from the beginning of the world until its end. Even through the holocaust Jews still thrive and always will. So because of certain civilizations disobeying God and the fact that Jews have to be the last remaining race, God is once again proving Himself real.---

Genocide proves God is real? I think I'm about to get sick...

---The science aspect of things; we can debate that for years and we can write long respone after long response with no end in sight so I'm gonna be the one to say let's leave it alone.---

You recognize that you're mind is closed?

---Trust me I am open minded to the subject.---

I see little evidence of that. You only provide "evidence" from one single source, a source Hermit notes says that the bible comes first, then the science to support it where it can find it. That's not science. Would you go to a doctor trained in creation science?

---Even if you could prove without a doubt that God is not real I still would have faith, but then that would be blind faith, with which I do not have right now.---

Its as blind as blind can be. There is no evidence supporting God's existence nor proof he does not exist. Theologians recognize that. That's why they call it faith. Faith is a belief something exists without evidence. You seem to think there is factual evidence. I suggest you go to someone who studies the bible, an academic, and ask them where the "facts" are. You might be surprised.

---One more thing concerining prophecy. Nostadamus predicted many things that did not come true which you should know.---

Yet...

---But ALL of God's prophecies have come true (except of course end times prophecies) What seperates God from some psychic off the street is that God's "predictions" so you call them, have never faultered. What are the chances of hundreds of prophecies not faultering? I think I would rather keep my faith in that than an evolutionist theory that has no significant evidence.---

Sorry to hear that David. You are following people who do not understand science, use subterfuge and lies to make you believe science is wrong when that same science made the fantastic medical leaps you will gladly use in the future. Next time you have a disease try praying yourself a cure, or go to the creationists and tell them you are not going to the hospital because those doctors use science. Have a great life David imagining yourself in heaven. Just please don't break any laws in the name of God nor do any harm to anyone as you may one day think your God commands of you, as you point out God commanded the OT Hebrews to do, as bin Laden thinks God command of him today.

our own mortality is a very frightening topic and it takes great courage to face that question-

all the intelletualization in the world wont push it away as we all face it at some point.

Fate,

Hi Fate, hope your doing good. Nice response. I am so happy to have found such an intelligent person to debate these issues. Since it is YOUR belief that creationist scientists are not a valid means of science there is no point in the debate anymore. There are way too many gaps and inconclusions with evolutionism as there are with creationists science too. Both parties have admitedly came to an inconclusive end to the subject. Why else do you think it is called "The Great Debate." If creationists were considered non-valid in the science community there wouldnt be a "Great Debate." And obviously with a debate labeled such as that, neither side will come to an agreement. The question for all evolutionists is how can you deny ID? Great.... big bang theory....but what (or should I say who) made the particles and neutrons and other cool science stuff to create such an elaborate theory? That's what evolution is...just a theory, never to be proven ever, even by means of science.

Again I ask you, why even ask me about the God of the Bible if you will not take note in the extent of His mercy. God's actions were justified in all that He has done in history even if your mind cannot comprehend it being a justifiable act. And rape?? I sure do not recall rape as part of God's plan. And yes God destroyed civilizations, men women and children. And upon His return He will do the same. To justify His acts in the OT, most likely the destruction of civilizations were to destroy bloodlines for a particular civilization. In part due to the sustanation of the Jewish people. Can you name any other race in the history of the world that is still around besides Jews? Jews are God's chosen people and are the most scattered race of people in the world. Jews are on every continent and pretty much every country. Have you ever seen a mexican in poland? Not very probable. But as it was written in the Bible in the OT, the Jews will be the one remaining race from the beginning of the world until its end. Even through the holocaust Jews still thrive and always will. So because of certain civilizations disobeying God and the fact that Jews have to be the last remaining race, God is once again proving Himself real. The science aspect of things; we can debate that for years and we can write long respone after long response with no end in sight so I'm gonna be the one to say let's leave it alone. Trust me I am open minded to the subject. Even if you could prove without a doubt that God is not real I still would have faith, but then that would be blind faith, with which I do not have right now. One more thing concerining prophecy. Nostadamus predicted many things that did not come true which you should know. But ALL of God's prophecies have come true (except of course end times prophecies) What seperates God from some psychic off the street is that God's "predictions" so you call them, have never faultered. What are the chances of hundreds of prophecies not faultering? I think I would rather keep my faith in that than an evolutionist theory that has no significant evidence.

Apologies for the length...

David wrote:
---New rule: no more personal attacks. If we are to have an intelligent debate we must respect one another on a personal level. Sounds good?---

As long as you consider the bible possibly imperfect. Otherwise nothing will change your mind, the definition of a closed mind. Is your mind open?

---If you must accept evolutionism you must accept creationism.---

No I don't. The first is scientifically researched and peer reviewed. The second is made up based on a pre existing bias. The two cannot be compared. The first publishes to peer reviewed journals for other scientists to review, the second publishes in its own magazine. Its like comparing the journal Nature with People magazine.

---Both means use science as a way to determine the outcome.---

Name one peer reviewed journal creationist bunk ever was submitted to. Do you ever see creationist bunk in Nature, Science, and the hundreds of other journals out there real scientists must present their research to in order for their research to be called science, for other researchers to review for correctness, absense of bias and proper methods to rule out mistakes?

---To use the statement "creationism is bunk" would constitute for a lack of open mindedness in the scientific debate since both parties use science to determine their findings.---

No. My open mindness allows me to evaluate the "science" creationists write and I have read it and determined it is bunk. Creationists make statements or even give what you feel is a true scientific result without it being peer reviewed or being repeated experimentally. When someone tries to sell you medicine that has not been scientifically tested you would call it snake oil. Well, creationism is nothing more than snake oil. If creationism had any real factual backing they could get it into a peer reviewed journal. You might think that since it doesn't agree with the scientific dogma it would be rejected, yet there are thousands of examples of scientific results that broke with the scientific dogma that made it into peer reviewed juornals. Peer reviewers do not check that the data and results agree with dogma, they check that it was done using valid scientific methods. Creationists fail to get anything published because they do not use valid scientific methods.

---Heres where I found my evidence. Copy and paste in your web browser.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i1/howold.asp
---

Thanks for the reference. First let me take you to the bottom of the article you referenced to note that all but two references for the information they posted came from some publication called "Creation". Any high schooler would have been challenged by a teacher for obtaining so much information from one source. Take a look at the references of a real scientific publication and see the difference:
http://www.research.ibm.com/antivirus/SciPapers/Kephart/ALIFE3/alife3.html
Paste this into your browser and go down to the references and compare them with references that papers at you website give. If the only reference you need is the bible or your own magazine, that is fine, just do not call it science.

Let me focus on just one claim in your link:
"Argonne National Laboratories have shown that heating wood (lignin, its major component), water and acidic clay at 150°C (rather cool geologically) for 4 to 36 weeks, in a sealed quartz tube with no added pressure, forms high-grade black coal."

Their point is that making coal does not take millions of years. I agree. But so what? They do not go on to say that these conditions existed in all the coal formations on earth do they? No, they just leave this little bit of information there and let you fill in the result they hope you take away. Do you think the earth's billions of cubic miles of coal deposits on all continents contained quartz tubes that heated wood fell into with water and acidic clay? Do they propose this as an explanation for the world's coal deposits? Do they propose this to the scientific world as an explanation for how coal formed on earth. The answer to all of those question is no, because they are not interested in making this claim to scientists who know it is wrong. They make it to those who have no scientific background, who have no idea how science determines truth. People will happily accept the result they imply because it agrees with their predetermined ideas. That's what snake oil salesmen did selling snake oil to people who had ailments science could not treat. And many people bought snake oil and many people buy creationism, but that does not make either scientific.

---I definitely am no scientist but from the research that I have obtained, both sides come to an inconclusive means of proving the age of the earth due to the scientific means of determination not being 100% accurate.---

100% accuracy never exists. Take a tape measure and measure you height. Lets say you are exactly 5' 9.18756" tall. You will probably say you are 5' 9" tall, but that is not 100% accurate. But you are certainly close. So is scientific dating of the earth. You see, if it were just one measurement using one type of measurement I'd agree with you, but its so much more. Measurements of sea floor spreading, measurement of multitudes of radioactive element dating including carbon, argon, helium , iodine-xenon, anthanum-barium, lead, lutetium-hafnium, neon, potassium-argon, rhenium-osmium, ubidium-strontium, samarium-neodymium, uranium-lead, uranium-lead-helium, uranium-thorium, and uranium-uranium. What you need to understand is that science is not one scientist making a discovery and every other scientist accepts it. Far from it, few accept it, especially if it is something new. But either way, the experiment needs to be repeated, the methods studied for error. You may not have heard about cold fusion. It was an "experiment" that some real scientists made back in the 1980s. They said they had made fusion happen at room temperature. Scientists know that when atoms fuse they give off neutrons, which will kill you if you're not shielded, which the experimenters did not mention. Many scientists asked why these scientists were still alive or neutrons were not given off, an impossibility determine from other experiments of fusion. Others tried to repeat the experiment and could not. The guys who proclaimed they had done this said everyone was doing it wrong but no one could repeat it. Most people accept that the scientists were not lying but had high hopes and were heavily biased that they created fusion, and that bias creeps into the data. All scientists know this can happen to any scientist. Its over 20 years later and still no cold fusion. Science is very demanding. You might get a fraud or mistake past scientists now and then, but its very hard and is usually caught. Science requires validation. That's why creationists do not publish in scientific journalists. Just in their own magazines believers read and have their biases reinforced. Science works to remove bias, creationism requires bias. Its a night and day difference.

---You have asked me why my God, the God of the Bible, does certain things and has a particular personality. I have given you Bible quotes (which you do not accept) to show you why my God has done these things. You wanted to know and I gave you my answer. What other answer could I give you? You want to believe that God sent Hebrews to kill whole cities but then when I give you evidence of His mercy and patience, I'm using Bible quotes which are irrelevant? How can you believe the parts of the Bible you want but when I show you a good side to God you will not accept them? So if you want to know why the God of the Bible does certain things IN THE BIBLE, you need to accept certain scriptures that support that claim.---

Look, I have read the bible, many times. I understand God's good side. What I'm trying to point out to you is that He has a side you would consider ugly if a human did the things He is said to have done in the bible, or asked man to do for him. I'm only asking that you read it all and accept the fact that God has a very ugly side, a side that supports slavery, murder, killing of children, genocide and rape. I think you said earlier that if you accept parts of the bible you must accept them all. I agree. I think we both agree people who accept some parts should accept all parts if they accept the bible is the word of God. I am asking you whether you support God's bad side, his support of slavery, genocide, child murder and rape?

---Now I hope that we could debate issues one at a time. I'm usually at work so my responses cant be too long. To me the scientific issue has passed. I know we could not come to a conclusive answer on the age of the world which is why I refer to the chronology of the Bible as a means of aging, since evolutionists cannot without a doubt prove themselves. So please let's move on.---

You are wrong, so wrong. Creationists start with the age the bible says and work backward. Scientists start with the question and work forward. If you had a cancer and your doctor KNEW that prayer would cure it because God can cure anything, and then worked backward from that to develop a treatment, would you use it, or would you use a treatment that science developed by first starting with the question of how to cure this cancer and using the scientific method, test, develop treatments and measure their effectiveness? Again, do you go to the doctor or a minister for medical treatment? That is a question you have never answered.

---Just wondering if you have researched about King Cyrus and the prophecy I gave you. If you wnat more proof of God research the city of Sidon, Tyre, Gaza and Ashkelon, Sodom and Gomorrah. Prophecies concerning these age old cities were written 100's if not 1000's of years before their occurance. This is the best way of me proving to you that God is real. Not one prophecy in the Bible was not accurate and accurate to the minute details that they gave. So, hear from ya later Fate. I guess the debate is still on. Take care.---

Should I pray to Naustadamus? His prophacies have come true as well, many say. Some of Mohammeds too. What do you say to prophesies that come true in other religions? Are you ready to jump ship and follow the other religion? You see, if science determined it were wrong, for example, that Newton's laws of motion were not accurate, they would scrutinize the new evidence and develop new theories if the evidence was valid. That's what happened when Einstein showed Newton's equations of motion were indeed wrong, well not so wrong as not very accurate. Newton assumed time was constant. It is not as Einstein "proved". He "proved" it using the scientific method. He wrote down his observations and mathematical formulas and put them out for all to review in a journal. Others reviewed his work. Some disagreed but they repeated his experiments and showed he was right. Newton's laws became a thing of the past but are still used today for very local measurements, but not things like traveling to the moon. If Newtons laws were used to go to the moon the Apollo astronauts would have died in space.
Is any of this is beginning to convince you something is amiss when creationists call their articles science? If they mislead you with the earth's age, where else are they misleading you, and more importantly, why.

Someone else who published here on On Faith told me that false faith, faith in God based on lies, was better than no faith. This person also pointed to creationist articles. I was amazed that misleading people to get them to believe in God was a goal of anyone who called themselves a christian. So I know there are christians out there trying to save your soul at any cost. That is the bunk you are reading. God gave you a good brain with an ability to analyze. You've said you have no training, that's fine, just ask good questions. My generation said to never to trust anyone over 30, not because they were all liars, but because some of them were. Creationists have proven that some of them are liars. Don't trust them. Trust no one. Think for yourself and question what you hear. I guarantee a creationist will just stare at you if you asked them what other scientists peer reviewed their work.

by the way, David, your Mt. St. Helen's argument is refuted by actual geologists here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mtsthelens.html

and here:

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/mt_st_helens_dacite_kh.htm