The people have spoken...

[Heretic]

Have I seen something like all this discussion long time ago...:scratch:
But please, don't begin to fight again (as You like to do) ;)

[Anguille2]

have you read the story of creation? seriously... have you read through Genesis?

never heard of.. fall of man into sin.. or that whole thing about how sin entereed the world... ???

gastro-intestinal systems have nothing to do with origin. Adam was not created to be an angelic being. He was created from the clay and given a spirit. Our bodily systems function in perfect unison with each other, as long as we take care of them.



Sorry...i was a bit ironic there. I know the Bible at least as well as you do as i read it on a very regular basis. Besides, i've never seen any clay go to the bathroom, doesn't make much sense either. What i meant: if we're so much superior to animals, why do we have so much in common. The main problem with evolution is if it's true, does God really exist? I've gone through these thoughts. If i am coming from an animal, am i intelligent by chance or did God give it to me? It's so much reassuring to believe in the creation and God then believe in God AND evolution. You're lucky in a way cos believing in creation makes your faith easier to live. Due to apparent contradictions between evolution and God (Bible), i often question my Faith but in the end i see that it does make sense. The universe is so fantastic, nature is so well done and logical. There's so much beauty. God has to be behind all that.

[Alchemist]

I feel somwhere very deep in myself(there, where you feel love and such things) somehow kin or related(sorry if bad expresion, my vocabulary gave me 6 words to chose from) with animals and I know we are of the same origin and they have the same spirit as we, but most of them are not as smart as most of people(some animals are smarter than some humans I guess).
And also, of course I was educated in society, where it is believed in, most of things I have heard red in books prooved it. Also I don't believe in God, of course.


-It is 100percent truth that not only human has a spirit. Can we compare spirit and life?
"1.30 (from First story about creating)<...>To all [animals], which have a breath of life<...>" How could I understand "the breath of life": as only Life,living till the death, or a Spirit,which (I think) "switches on" a body? In my opinion, animals and human-beings are "switched on to live" by spirits.
Can mind be measure by technical researches, ability to create? Such standart is devised by human. We made all standarts and we think it is right. Really? I think animals have much more senses and some people have too (like clairvoyants or bioenergetics). But animals don't make researches in technics etc. Human have a part of mind, which helps to make things, to construct, to do something with their arms. And why don't believe that animals were endowed with "higher" senses?
"What my dog is doing now? Spread impulses to space and look for something there?"-that is what do you think about my post? A simply answer: "Who knows? :) Ask your dog."

I wanted to say that animals are in the same level with humans,but we don't want to concede. Animals have souls and feelings,not only "animal instincts".


Actually the Bible does explain what happened to the dinosaurs. The problems arise with which interpretation you believe in. Personnaly, I lean more towards them being destroyed during the great flood. The other possibility is the gap theory. You have to ask yourself how such a large object could be fossilized. Evolution states that it happened over great lengths of time. This does not hold when you find footprints, scales, and even undigested food in the animals. This would mean it happened suddenly and quick, not slow and lengthy.

Maybe You are right about the flood. For example why some prehistoric WATER animal species survived (like Lathimeria )? Because they lived in water and a flood haven't done harm. But still it isn't very really because where another water species gone? Lost in evolution?
I still don't understand how footprints on the shore could hold for millions of years? No element effect... I think I know how bones "survived" in peat lodes,but footprints...-

[Stefan]

Genesis 1 verse 30 reads differently depending on the translation. The NIV has the breath of life part added

and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food"; and it was so.


Gen 2

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.


There is no mention of fish or cattle or whatnot becoming a living soul.

[Sir Turylon]

the breathe of life is refering to those animals that intake oxygen... IE, anything non insectoid.

I love how you quote stuff from the Bible Lurker... According to your view, it is false... so since your atheistic religion teaches that the Scriptures are not true, stop spreading something that your religion defines as a lie.

You laugh off one theory as ridicoulous, yet you embrace a second theory that is (at best) no stronger.

No, actually I laugh at people who believe in evolution with the same zeal Christians believe in Creation theory... then those same people who believe in the religion of evolution deny it is any form of religion.

Provide me of evidence evolution has happened (macro, not micro). If you want proof of God, walk outside and try to explain how a tree stopped evolving. If evolution is constantly happening over millions of years, there would not be such a vast amount of organic life... Lots of predators, very few prey... (this is what natural selection is all about.)

Animals do not have souls. I find it funny evolutionists can even believe in something having a soul. Are you admitting that there is some place everything goes to after death? If so, doesn't that go against evolution... since evolution says there is no spiritual realm, only what you can see, feel, taste, and smell. :scratch:

back to watch... Okay Lurker... explain how a computer is formed and you cannot use human design... only natural instinces. Also, explain how a Human evolved. If evolution is so unfallible, give us a detailed flowchart of every single step of the evolutionary process of turning nothing into something as complex as our DNA.

Evolution is a fun theory to believe in, if you refuse to accept God... Otherwise, it gives you a headache because it makes no sense... One of the greatest things I find funny is how evolutionists say that teh rocks absorbed oxygen, when oxygen did not exist at the time. :go: have fun trying to reason how oxygen formed to create something, since if something is exposed to pure oxygen it is destroyed. (Oxidation is, btw, a scientific fact)

Have I seen something like all this discussion long time ago...
But please, don't begin to fight again (as You like to do)
haha, Heretic pops in... So Heretic, what does the old Egyptian religion say about origins?

[lurking horror]

I love how you quote stuff from the Bible Lurker... According to your view, it is false... so since your atheistic religion teaches that the Scriptures are not true, stop spreading something that your religion defines as a lie.

One: I am not religious.

1.
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

My beliefs do not fall under any of these definitions.

Two: As you point out, I do not believe in the your bible. But the comment I made was not directed at my own attitudes, but the attitude of someone who apparently DOES believe. If I find someones behaivior to be hypocritical in regards with their (apparent) beliefs, why should I not point that out?

Three: I do not have to believe in your god in order to accept that there are words of wisdom to be found in the bible. I happen to believe that the phrase: "Judge not, lest ye be judged", to be very applicable to our tangible, physical lives. And it seems quite worth paying attention to without the threat of eternal damnation.

In other words, no. I will use a turn of phrase wherever and whenever it is applicable. I am not required to believe in your god to do this.

No, actually I laugh at people who believe in evolution with the same zeal Christians believe in Creation theory... then those same people who believe in the religion of evolution deny it is any form of religion.

If you hold the same disregard for zealots on either end of the argument then you and I have little to argue about on this matter.

Provide me of evidence evolution has happened (macro, not micro).

Why? I'm not trying to convince you that evolution happened. You however, have been trying to explain to me why the existance of God is undeniable. I admit that the theories I believe in are theories. I admit that we do not understand everything and must be willing to adapt our beliefs based off any new information. You however, seem to be holding up your beliefs as fact. Which puts the burden of proof upon you.

If you want proof of God, walk outside and try to explain how a tree stopped evolving.

Why? Why would I wish to prove to you that a tree STOPPED evolving. With evolution, there is (typically) no end. Nothing stops. How exactly does this prove your god exists?

If evolution is constantly happening over millions of years, there would not be such a vast amount of organic life... Lots of predators, very few prey... (this is what natural selection is all about.)

What? That makes no sense. Could you elaborate, please.

Animals do not have souls. I find it funny evolutionists can even believe in something having a soul. Are you admitting that there is some place everything goes to after death? If so, doesn't that go against evolution... since evolution says there is no spiritual realm, only what you can see, feel, taste, and smell.

I never said that I believe animals have souls.

back to watch... Okay Lurker... explain how a computer is formed and you cannot use human design... only natural instinces. Also, explain how a Human evolved. If evolution is so unfallible, give us a detailed flowchart of every single step of the evolutionary process of turning nothing into something as complex as our DNA.

Where did I say that evolutionary theory was "unfallible"? Quote me please.

As I clearly have never said anything of the sort, you cannot. I do not believe that we understand everything about evolution. I have made this clear repeatedly on this thread. Hence, my designation of "theory" rather than "fact". So, as I have explained to you repeatedly that we do not understand every aspect of evolution, how exactly am I supposed to instantly provide you with "a detailed flowchart of every single step of the evolutionary process of turning nothing into something as complex as our DNA"?

Furthermore, you are missing the point. I readily admit that we do not fully comprehend the way life evolves. But lacking knowledge does not mean that the knowledge cannot or will not be found. We do not look at a computer, unable to comprehend how to construct it, and decide that our ignorance in the computers origins is proof in a magical being.

[Sir Turylon]

actually, you are religious, atheism is a form of religion.. you believe in it.. therefore you have some sort of religion influcing what you do and think.. IE, religious.

Sorry, most comments were not directed strictly at yourself.

Question: Do you think evolution is a science or a religion? (it requires you to accept the same lack of evidence with faith as a religion does)

We can keep going back and forth... you prove that God does not exist... I prove God does exist... Problem is... I can never persuade you that he does exist if you continue believe in evolution... Just as you can never prove that He doesn't exist because I will continue to believe in creation.

Here's the problem. While one side adamantly acknowledges that their theory is based upon the existence of God, and thus has a religious portion; evolutionists demand that we accept their theories with the same form of faith. How can you believe in something you cannot study or see? Hint: it takes faith. Evolution is simply the atheistic creation theory. Remove God, and connect everything to a naturalistic origin.

We do not look at a computer, unable to comprehend how to construct it, and decide that our ignorance in the computers origins is proof in a magical being.
nice job doging the question.

But lacking knowledge does not mean that the knowledge cannot or will not be found. I agree with this 100%. One problem for evolution... the knowledge that has been found over the past decades contradicts their theory and supports the opposition. What you read in those books is false. I'd recommend Dr Hovind's seminar #3-5. I'd also recommend that you patiently listen to them. He does a great job in presenting the falisies being taught as facts in the public school system here. Like you said, it is a theory... yet the schools are teaching it as the only possible theory. When there is an attempt to bring creation into schools (which it is allowed to, as long as the class is not mandatory), the ACLU (American Communist Lawyers Union..no seriously... that's why they were founded) threatens to file a lawsuit against the school. Why? Are they afraid that kids will choose creation over evolution? are they afraid of losing their grip on the education system? Isn't it amazing how the ACLU screams for tolerance towards fundemantalism being taught, but is so intolerant of Creation being brought into schools...

re-read #3 definition
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
The belief in a God is a religion. correct? The disbelief in a god is a religion as well.
God = true
God = false
both are the same form of belief, so do not try to say atheism is not a religion.

#4 fits evolution very well
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

backtracking to something Anguille said.
What i meant: if we're so much superior to animals, why do we have so much in common.
Actually, we are not as common with animals as you might think. Every species is unique in their own systems. As stefan pointed out, man was created from the earth and then given a soul... so naturally our bodies are composed of other elements found in nature... Does this prove a common ancestor? no... I does prove a common designer. (common elements used by designer to make different things...)


Side Note: nobody is being judgemental. I do not judge anyone for what they do. I do, however, discuss why things are either right or wrong. I only present the case, I let the Judge had out the rulings. (so glad I got the only lawyer who has never been beaten as my advocate in the only judgement that counts, right stefan? :go: )

[lurking horror]

actually, you are religious, atheism is a form of religion.. you believe in it.. therefore you have some sort of religion influcing what you do and think.. IE, religious.

Incorrect. Look at the components of the word: Theism is defined by the belief in god. The qualifier, "A", in this scenario, designates a specific lack of belief in thesism. This is the absence of religion, no matter how you try to look at it. This is what the English language dictates.

Now, if you wish to argue that atheisim is defined as a religion by the government, for purposes of enforcment, then you have a point. But even then, it is still erroneous to define the indvidual atheists as religious, it is a complete misnomer.


Sorry, most comments were not directed strictly at yourself.

Fair enough.

Question: Do you think evolution is a science or a religion? (it requires you to accept the same lack of evidence with faith as a religion does)

I think that evolution is a scientific theory. And simply accepting a matter as faith does not qualify a given subject as a religion.

We can keep going back and forth... you prove that God does not exist... I prove God does exist... Problem is... I can never persuade you that he does exist if you continue believe in evolution... Just as you can never prove that He doesn't exist because I will continue to believe in creation.

But you mis-understand. I am not attempting to prove to you that god does not exist. You asked why I believe in evolution and I answered. Since then I have been explaining why I do not believe in god, not why you shouldn't.

nice job doging the question.

It's not a dodge at all. I find it to be the primary answer to your intial question regarding a watch. Ignorance of one's origins is not evidence of god. Not understanding how a computer is built does not equate to evidence a god. Not understanding how life began does not equate to evidence of god. Not understanding the mechanics of the universe does not equate to evidence of god.

Does it rule out the possibility of god? Of course not. I think I made my position on that abundantly clear earlier. But you cannot hold ignorance as synomous with evidence. Seriously.

re-read #3 definition
Quote:
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

The belief in a God is a religion. correct? The disbelief in a god is a religion as well.
God = true
God = false
both are the same form of belief, so do not try to say atheism is not a religion.

Again, atheisim, by definition, is not a religion. It is an absence of religion. The two are not synonomous. Belief and disbelief are not synomous and should not be used interchangably. The English language does not work in the manner that you are attempting to stretch it in.

#4 fits evolution very well

I think I already made my position on zealots quite clear. Therefore #4 does not fit at all. The bulk of the believers in evolution are no more zealots than are the bulk of Christians.

[Heretic]

I've found an Ancient Egyptians' myth about World and mankind creation. But there aren't right or concrete things (like in myths where human was created from clay etc.) in many myths I searched.
" In the beginning there was only water, but that water was a powerful being called Nun. Out of Nun came Re. Re was very powerful, if he said the name of a thing then that thing would come into existence. Re named gods, goddesses, plants and animals. The very last thing that Re named was man. Then Re took on a human form in order to rule as the first pharaoh. In this form, however, Re could age and as he grew older mankind became disrespectful and disobedient. The gods decided to punish man and sent Sekhmet, Re's daughter, to destroy them. In the end, however, Re was merciful towards man and stopped Sekhmet's slaughter. Re made Osiris the next pharaoh but he was murdered by his brother. Osiris was then appointed ruler of the underworld and his son was named as the next pharaoh."
"Named" should be understanded like "created",I think.

And about animals. Egyptians believed that gods have own animal kinds in care, like Sobek's sacred animal was crocodile, Bastet's - cats and so on. Nomes had own gods and worshiped their god's animal, feeded it and took care. For example crocodiles were "popular" in Thebes districts. Animals were also mummified.

I believe that animals have a soul and human is not the higher kind. Animals also are very clever, just need to notice it.

[Alchemist]

the breathe of life is refering to those animals that intake oxygen... IE, anything non insectoid.


-That means that all things which use oxygen have "the breath of life"?
There can be a demonstrational "animal breathing and oxygen appropriate" machine which has a diaphragm, lungs and all parts which real organism has. It intakes oxygen when diaphragm stretches. Use oxygen in chemical reactions etc. In this way machine has a breath of life? :rolleyes: -

[Alchemist]

-But who can tell what IS a soul? Feelings? Intellection? Unconscious..?-

[Sir Turylon]

-That means that all things which use oxygen have "the breath of life"?
There can be a demonstrational "animal breathing and oxygen appropriate" machine which has a diaphragm, lungs and all parts which real organism has. It intakes oxygen when diaphragm stretches. Use oxygen in chemical reactions etc. In this way machine has a breath of life? :rolleyes: -

:nono: no no... breath of life is not the same as the act of breathing.

[Sir Turylon]

It's not a dodge at all. I find it to be the primary answer to your intial question regarding a watch. Ignorance of one's origins is not evidence of god. Not understanding how a computer is built does not equate to evidence a god. Not understanding how life began does not equate to evidence of god. Not understanding the mechanics of the universe does not equate to evidence of god.
But you cannot hold ignorance as synomous with evidence. Seriously.

Again, atheisim, by definition, is not a religion. It is an absence of religion. The two are not synonomous. Belief and disbelief are not synomous and should not be used interchangably.



You are attempting to equate the question to ignorance of how things are made. Have I sated anything about ignorance as proof? no. You have yet to answer the question.
"Explain how a computer has come to be using only natural processes." Can you answer it? probably not, because you would need to use a creator in the reasoning, correct?

I'll put it into a different form. "Explain how a tree was formed from a rock." Evolution teaches this, and it should be simple knowledge any evolution believing person should know.

Isn't it funny that we are discussing evolution and creation and the topic has turned to religion?

FYI, you can try to use euphamisms and grammatical rhetoric to deny atheism is not a religious belief. I can understand how atheists try to seperate themselves from any form of religion. You can try to run from the label of religion, but atheism cannot hide from it. I am not religious either. If you wish to establish religion as a institutional basis of beliefs. I do not follow a set form of religion, much as you do. So, you can say I am not religious but theistic. The problem comes when you use the definition of religion being meant as a conscious following of a set of beliefs. Do you deny that you follow a set of beliefs? (hint: not believing in God is a belief, doing good is a belief, helping poor is a belief)

Ignorance of a subject is not synonymous with faith in a subject. Ignorance of God is not the same as not believing in Him. When you are ignorant of something, you admit it does exist. Then you go on further and state things about it that you shows you really do not know anything about the matter. Being ignorant of God would be tantamount to believing He exists and then saying you understand things your puny little mind can never really grasp. IE, like saying you can fathom existence without time, or understanding immortality. Heck, we humans have trouble trying to figure out what happened 2,000 years ago. Why are some people saying they understand what happened a supposed 3 billion years ago?

Let's try to turn this back to scientific discussion. Since the theistic side is just circular thinking, much like the dating of fossils and rock stratas on each other.

Science is what? The study of matter. Correct? So... let's study some matter.
I'll provide some evidence that supports creation, and you can provide some evidence that supports evolution. (macro, not micro because we both agree micro evolution, or micro mutational change does exist and is fact)
Agreed?


@Heretic
I remember that the Egyptians believe in some sort of creation. thx for the info. :hug:

[lurking horror]

You are attempting to equate the question to ignorance of how things are made. Have I sated anything about ignorance as proof? no. You have yet to answer the question.
"Explain how a computer has come to be using only natural processes." Can you answer it? probably not, because you would need to use a creator in the reasoning, correct?

In case you missed it, I already dealt with this same type of question earlier. We know, unequivocally that a watch is made by a watchmaker. A computer is made by a person who makes a computer. Is there a natural process that does not involve humans in this regard? Of course not. The question is as ridicoulous as it is irrelevant. A computer is not found in nature.

I'll put it into a different form. "Explain how a tree was formed from a rock." Evolution teaches this, and it should be simple knowledge any evolution believing person should know.

How exactly am I supposed to explain something that is not fully understood? How did life spring forth intially? I do not have that information, nor have I ever pretended otherwise.

But the lack of information is not synomous with evidence of a god's existence. Which is clearly the point I have been making.

In other words, you do not have that definitive answer either.

Isn't it funny that we are discussing evolution and creation and the topic has turned to religion?

Why is that funny? You can find the exact same ebb and flow of conversation on just about any message board where serious discussions and debates take place.

FYI, you can try to use euphamisms and grammatical rhetoric to deny atheism is not a religious belief.

If your intent is to throw out the actual meanings, definitions and origins of words in favor of ones that are inaccurate simply to force the said words to fit your beliefs, then there is little point in having a discussion with you. You are mangling the meaning of words beyond their definition. This is a complete and utter fallacy. The language means what the language means. Your desire to interpret the definitions inaccurately does not change what the actual definitions are.

Furthermore, where specifically have I employed the usage of a euphemism in order to make my point in this matter? I am discussing the actual defintions of words. The literal meanings. How does this qualify as using a euphemism?

If you mean I am using rhetoric in this sense:

The art or study of using language effectively and persuasively.

Then I thank you for the compliment.

I can understand how atheists try to seperate themselves from any form of religion. You can try to run from the label of religion, but atheism cannot hide from it.

There is no need to hide. Defining atheisim as a religion is a misnomer. It is not what the word means. If you are insistent in altering the known definition of a word then fine. By your logic I am not an aethist. I am a non-religious being.

But the fact of the matter is that atheisism is a word used to designate a person who is not religious.

I am not religious either.

Do you believe in a supernatural being?

If you wish to establish religion as a institutional basis of beliefs.

I never said that religion was defined in that manner alone.

I do not follow a set form of religion, much as you do. So, you can say I am not religious but theistic. The problem comes when you use the definition of religion being meant as a conscious following of a set of beliefs.

I clearly never limited the definition of religion in the manner you suggest. I posted the complete definition a ways back. Feel free to go and look at it again. According to the definition, if you follow the teachings of a spiritual leader, or believe in any type of supernatural being as the creator of the universe, you are religious.

This definition clearly includes you.

Do you deny that you follow a set of beliefs? (hint: not believing in God is a belief, doing good is a belief, helping poor is a belief)

No. I do not follow a set form of religious beliefs. (hint: belief and disbelief are not synonymous. This is a fact, not "grammatical rhetoric".)

And as I said earlier, a form of beliefs alone does not equate to a religion. My beliefs do not involve any supernatural beings and I do not follow the teachings of any spiritual leaders. I do not believe in anything zealously nor do I follow any particular belief with conscientious devotion.

I fit none of the actual definitions of religion. You seem to fit several.

Ignorance of a subject is not synonymous with faith in a subject. Ignorance of God is not the same as not believing in Him.

Certainly. But not believing in him is the same as not believing in him. You really need to accept that.

Then you go on further and state things about it that you shows you really do not know anything about the matter. Being ignorant of God would be tantamount to believing He exists

Perhaps it would be, if god existed. Which I do not belive he does. This is not synomous with ignoranace of god.

Fuurthermore, are you assigning this response to my statement that ignorance is not synomous with evidence? If you are the your answer is completly incorrect. I never stated anything regarding an ignorance of god in this matter. Ignorance in the mechanics of the universe, in the origins of mankind, in the manufacturing process of a computer, in the appearence and origins of a watch, in the shape of the planet, in the inner workings of the mind, of anything that we are ignorant of, is NOT SYNOMOUS WITH EVIDENCE OF GODS EXISTANCE.

and then saying you understand things your puny little mind can never really grasp. IE, like saying you can fathom existence without time, or understanding immortality.

Who here claimed that they could fathom existence without the perception of time, or understand immortality? I very clearly explained my opinion that lacking the knowledge of these items is not tantamount to proof in god. How is this synonomous with being able "fathom existence without time"?

Heck, we humans have trouble trying to figure out what happened 2,000 years ago. Why are some people saying they understand what happened a supposed 3 billion years ago?

You're right. Let's not even try then. Why waste our times trying to discover anything?

Doesn't even the bible say something along the lines of 'heaven helps those who help themselves'? Should we wait then for god to give us the answers, or should we look for the answers ourselves?

Let's try to turn this back to scientific discussion. Since the theistic side is just circular thinking, much like the dating of fossils and rock stratas on each other.

The theistic side is the religious side. Are you claiming that the theistic side is just circular thinking?

Science is what? The study of matter. Correct? So... let's study some matter.
I'll provide some evidence that supports creation, and you can provide some evidence that supports evolution. (macro, not micro because we both agree micro evolution, or micro mutational change does exist and is fact)
Agreed?

No. I'm not interested in trying to prove evolution to you. That would be an obvious waste of time. In fact, I am not trying to prove my beliefs to you at all. I have never held my beliefs up as undeniable fact. I have made this clear repeatedly throughout this thread. But I will not sit back casually while you (or any other Christian) asserts their theories as undeniable fact. Believe as you like, but do not sit there and assert your beliefs as facts when they clearly are not. Theories? Yes. Opinions? Yes. Facts? No.

Or conversly, present your evidence to the contrary. Show me undeniable fact that your theories are correct.

In short, prove your god exists. Or admit that your god may not exist. I readily admit (and have done so repeatedly) that my theories may not be accurate. Can you do the same?

[Sir Turylon]

No, I cannot admit that my own beliefs might be incorrect, and for one reason. As I have stated before, there was a time where I questioned my own faith. I tested my beliefs, values, and theories against those that the secular non-theistic world offers, and the tet failed miserably. Instead of answers, there is only more questions. Evolution is not a means to an end, but rather an end to any means. Once you accept evolution by faith, you automatically reject any further evidenence opposing it. This is not the same for people, such as yourself, who have not accepted evolution as the answer to all things. Creation is not the same however. It only gives a meaning to how we got here. Creation does not tell us why we are here. This is where the "religious" part comes into play, in reality. Religion says why we are here, creation only says how we got here. Evolution does not have the same seperation from how and why.

Creation:
How did we get here: God created us.
Why are we here: To serve God.

Evolution:
How did we get here: We evolved from non-living material into complex beings over millions of years.
Why are we here: It really does not matter, we are nothing more special than a rock.

But the lack of information is not synomous with evidence of a god's existence.
Lack of evidence does not prove He exists. of course not. Once you rule out a theory of how we got here, there is no way you could possibly accept any evidence proving that He does.

You look at a tree and think: "amazing complex living thing... I have no idea how it was made, but I know a god did not make it."
I look at the same tree and think: "amazing complex living thing... God is truely a powerful creator."

I think we can both agree that the universe is a marvelously complex creation. Theism aside, the very complexity that it shows demands that there was a guiding force in its creation or evolution. Chaotic actions never bring order unless order is introduced. That, is a solid fact. Order cannot just spring up from chaos. It must be introduced.

Have you listened to the Hovind series yet?

Fuurthermore, are you assigning this response to my statement that ignorance is not synomous with evidence?
of course not. Ignorance is synonymous with you believing you know more than you do know about something. Evidence is merely a variable which regulates how ignorant you truely are in the subject. The more you know, the less ignorant you are about something.

Doesn't even the bible say something along the lines of 'heaven helps those who help themselves'? Should we wait then for god to give us the answers, or should we look for the answers ourselves?

No, it does not. That is a secular phrase. Are you waiting for God to give you the answers. and in the meantime you deny Him? That is like reading a book for the answer to a question, while at the same time denying the book exists. You will not find the answer.
The Scriptures do teach that we are to look to His Word for the answers, and believe me, His Word does answer. There is an answer for any question you might think about... even why chicken tastes like chicken.

You do not believe that He exists. Do you also deny that He could exist?

But I will not sit back casually while you (or any other Christian) asserts their theories as undeniable fact.
Would you say the same thing to somebody who presents evolution as undeniable fact?
If so, PM me and I will give you a list of evolutionists who do just such a thing in our schools. Evolution is taught as fact there, this is a undeniable fact.

Quick questions. Have you always not believed in God? Do your parents share the same theistic beliefs? How did you come to such a belief? You can answer in a PM if you'd like.

reiteration: back to scientific facts.

Here are a few supporting creation. (they are from scientists, not theologens)
rotating cosmos (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/509.asp)
accelerated radioactive decay (http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-353.htm) <-bit hard to follow if you're not familiar with chemistry, isotopes, and geology.
Problem with genetic similarities (http://www.icr.org/headlines/humanchimpanzeedna.html) of special interest is how genomes that are 99.4% the same cannot explain the slew of differences.

I'll post some more later on. :cheers:

[lurking horror]

No, I cannot admit that my own beliefs might be incorrect,

Then there is little to discuss.

Evolution does not have the same seperation from how and why.

I do not believe that there must be a "why".

Why are we here: It really does not matter, we are nothing more special than a rock.

If that's how you see things, that's your perogitive. I do not require belief in a god to believe that the people I care about, and myself, are more signifigant than a rock.

You're looking for a grand scheme sort of answer. Sorry, not interested. Life, here and now, is something I consider vastly more relevant.

You look at a tree and think: "amazing complex living thing... I have no idea how it was made, but I know a god did not make it."

Clarification: I look at tree, and I do not fully understand it's origins. But I do not hold my lack of information as a testament to gods existance.

I think we can both agree that the universe is a marvelously complex creation. Theism aside, the very complexity that it shows demands that there was a guiding force in its creation or evolution. Chaotic actions never bring order unless order is introduced. That, is a solid fact. Order cannot just spring up from chaos. It must be introduced.

Do you define our existance as ordered, then?

Have you listened to the Hovind series yet?

No, sorry. I will as soon as time permits.

No, it does not. That is a secular phrase.

Fair enough. This is why I formed my resonse on this issue as a question.

Are you waiting for God to give you the answers.

Obviously not. The obvious gist of my point is that we cannot wait for answers from a supreme being. We must seek them for ourselves.

and in the meantime you deny Him?

How can I deny what I do not beleive exists?

You do not believe that He exists. Do you also deny that He could exist?

I've made it clear repeatedly that I believe the possibility of a higher power (in general) exists. I do not believe one does, but I am not inflexible in my beliefs.

But if one does, why must it be the one you believe in?

Would you say the same thing to somebody who presents evolution as undeniable fact?

If it were on a forum in which I was already invoved. absolutely. I'm not going out of my way looking for specific arguments here. But I have already shown you one forum I have frequented over the years and on that forum I have already challenged absolutist belief on either side repeatedly.

And as I've said repeatedly, evolution is not a complete science. We are constantly searching for answers to clarify our beliefs. Anyone who claims that the theories of evolution are absolute is gravely mistaken.

If so, PM me and I will give you a list of evolutionists who do just such a thing in our schools. Evolution is taught as fact there, this is a undeniable fact.

Take that up with the educational system.

Quick questions. Have you always not believed in God? Do your parents share the same theistic beliefs? How did you come to such a belief? You can answer in a PM if you'd like.

If you mean to ask if I was raised in a non-religious enviorment, then the answer is yes in regards to parents, no in regards to other relatives. It is a complex answer to give in it's fullness. Suffice to say, I beleive I was presented with a fairly rounded set of views during my childhood.

But ultimatly, I was left to my own devices to conclude what my beliefs were. And I am satisfied with the answers I have found.

[Alchemist]

:nono: no no... breath of life is not the same as the act of breathing.

-Well, I understood that You think so. Explain more what do You think-

[Sir Turylon]

explain further... okay.

creation of animals:

Genesis 1:20-25 "The God said, "Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let the birds fly above the earth across the firmament of the heavens. So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that is was good. And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth. So the evening and the morning were the fitfh day. The God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living create according to its kind; cattle and creepiong thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind"; and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth acording to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creep on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good."

Creation of man:

Genesis 26-28 "Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over teh birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. The God blessed them and and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

Genesis 2:7 "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."

2:7 is significant because this is not a reference to physical life, but spiritual life.

so.. animals that breathe are living, where oxygen sustains their life. Man breathes oxygen to keep our mortal bodies alive, but where our true life giving substanance comes from is God not oxygen.

udnerstand?

Animals = oxygen sustains life
Humans = God given life sustained by Him.

this all goes together with our spirits being immortal, while our bodies are mortal. Animals are not spirtual beings.

[Alchemist]

-I see You lead all discussions in this forum ;)
But in fact I don't want to hear about animals and do they have spirits by Bible (because I know what they say about it and I argue). I think that people somethimes explain Bible not very right (as books: I can say about how I understand it in one way, but You can understand it in another way).
But what about this :
"1.30 (from First story about creating)<...>To all [animals], which have a breath of life<...>" (I've found it in Internet Bible, it was written in my country language but translation is right)?

Btw,Turylon,are You Christian?
Do You follow yourself creeds by Bible? In this discussion I want to talk about YOUR faith about animals' spirits, not how that Bible explains:) -

[Stefan]

-I see You lead all discussions in this forum ;)
But in fact I don't want to hear about animals and do they have spirits by Bible (because I know what they say about it and I argue). I think that people somethimes explain Bible not very right (as books: I can say about how I understand it in one way, but You can understand it in another way).
But what about this :
"1.30 (from First story about creating)<...>To all [animals], which have a breath of life<...>" (I've found it in Internet Bible, it was written in my country language but translation is right)?

Btw,Turylon,are You Christian?
Do You follow yourself creeds by Bible? In this discussion I want to talk about YOUR faith about animals' spirits, not how that Bible explains:) -


Other english bible translations read that verse differently, in addition man and women are the only ones mentioned to have a soul. (gen 2:7) though even this can vary between translations.Its also mentioned that we are made in Gods image.

Personally I dont care if animals have a soul or not. If God has a different plan for the animals then so be it.