[_ Old Earth _] where did god come from

[SyntaxVorlon]

Quath, you forgot the Muslim set of books, the Jewish set of books, the Cabalist set of books, the Hindu set of books, the Taoist set of books, the Buddhist set of books, etc.

 

[Trav-man]

God always has and always will exist.
He is an infinite being and we cannot understand that because we are finite beings!

 

[Quath]

God always has and always will exist.
He is an infinite being and we cannot understand that because we are finite beings!

We can understand logic. Is God logical or illogical? If He is logical then we can make assertions and see if they are valid. So we can at least rule out the illogical stuff.

If God is illogical, then nothing is for certain.

Quath

 

[Guest]

God always has and always will exist.
He is an infinite being and we cannot understand that because we are finite beings!

We can understand logic. Is God logical or illogical? If He is logical then we can make assertions and see if they are valid. So we can at least rule out the illogical stuff.

If God is illogical, then nothing is for certain.

Quath

:Fade-color How could you ever understand the mind of God? How could
any of us? God gives us what we need to know. There are some things
that are too wonderful for us to know,and some things that our human
brains cannot handle if we could know.
The alternative to not believing in God makes no sense,it's just a
desperate attempt to push God out of your life as far as you can.

 

[Guest]

Quath, you forgot the Muslim set of books, the Jewish set of books, the Cabalist set of books, the Hindu set of books, the Taoist set of books, the Buddhist set of books, etc.

:B-fly: silly man,don't you know that if you truly want to find God,you
will? Something in this world has to be right,and it sure isn't evolution!!!

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-132.htm

 

[Guest]

:o what living creation would still be living by the time it took for it to
evolve into another creation or creature?
evolution takes way too long for it to have ever happened in the first place
and what would be alive when it did since nothing lives that long?
How can a dead creature evolve?
We know Language came from God for people to have it and know it,and
for God to have been able to give them instructions using it.
Mark 1 :6 "But from the beginning of creation God made them male and
female.

Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non life,matter
resulted from nothing,and humans resulted from animals,each of
these is an impossibility of Science and the natural world.

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/top.htm

 

[Quath]

Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non life,matter resulted from nothing,and humans resulted from animals,each of these is an impossibility of Science and the natural world.

By the same logic, God would have to be impossible.

Look at it this way, evolution and old earth theories was started up by Christians that saw the data and interpreted it as best as they could.

Christianity supports the idea of evolution. Here is a quick way to verify this. Take the ark. If there were no evolution, you could fill it three times over with just beetles. So beetles must go through evolution to get the 350,000+ species of beetles we see today. So according to Christian evolution, say you started with 1 species of beetles 6,000 years ago. So in 6,000 years you get a factor of 350,000 more species. If the Earth were old, imagine how many beetles you could get in 12,000 years... 100,000 years.... 1,000,000,000 years. Some species would be quite different and would be considered another type of animal.

Quath

 

[Ignatz]

blueeyeliner wrote:

what living creation would still be living by the time it took for it to
evolve into another creation or creature?

Hi Blue! :D

Evolution DOES NOT say that living creations, once born, change into other things. It just plain doesn't, though I understand that this is a very common misconception.

Evolution simply states that through random genetic mutations, that the offspring of a particular organism will be slightly different from its parents.

For example, it may have better or worse eyesight, greater or lesser sensitivity to sunlight, lactose, bee-stings, or whatever. If these differences help this organism survive, (like better eyesight) then it is more likely that this organism will live longer and therefore be around to mate more often and produce more offspring (which will also carry the genes for better eyesight) than, say, the organism that has poor eyesight and can't see the difference between a log floating in the water and a crocodile. (That organism is more likely to get eaten before it has a chance to mate and pass on its genes for poor eyesight to its offspring. This is "Natural Selection").

If this goes on long enough, the organisms with good eyesight far outnumber those with bad eyesight (This is Microevolution).

then, if that (Microevolution) goes on long enough, MACROevolution occurs, and the resultant offspring can no longer breed with the parent species; Their genes have "evolved" so much that they are different species.

I hope this helps!
God Bless,

Ignatz

 

[Guest]

[By the same logic, God would have to be impossible.

Christianity supports the idea of evolution. Here is a quick way to verify this. Take the ark. If there were no evolution, you could fill it three times over with just beetles. So beetles must go through evolution to get the 350,000+ species of beetles we see today. So according to Christian evolution, say you started with 1 species of beetles 6,000 years ago. So in 6,000 years you get a factor of 350,000 more species. If the Earth were old, imagine how many beetles you could get in 12,000 years... 100,000 years.... 1,000,000,000 years. Some species would be quite different and would be considered another type of animal.

:Fade-color Quath,I know this might be hard for you. When I was a
child I had simular questions.
God took two of every kind of clean animal.
the things that creep on the earth were no doubt very small.
Either way,Noah only had to take some of them.
here are a few good sites that may help you better understand.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c013.html
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... nimals.asp

 

[Guest]

blueeyeliner wrote:

what living creation would still be living by the time it took for it to
evolve into another creation or creature?

Hi Blue! :D

Evolution DOES NOT say that living creations, once born, change into other things. It just plain doesn't, though I understand that this is a very common misconception.

Evolution simply states that through random genetic mutations, that the offspring of a particular organism will be slightly different from its parents.

:Fade-color Hi'. Mutations do not help life at all. Mutations make life weaker and this could help explain why some animals no longer exist.

 

[Sylvester Haze]

Rather than DISPROVE the Bible we have today, these finds of the DSS PROVE how accurate the scribes were.

Careful here. The Dead Sea Scrolls have been the subject of a lot of sensationalistic claims from all sides of the debate. It's inappropriate to say they "prove" or "disprove" scribal accuracy; while they demonstrate the Old Testament wasn't just made up in the Middle Ages, and often preserve identical readings as our modern copies, there are also major differences. This is most pronounced in Jeremiah, but other books show non-trivial scribal modification over the years, too, as described at that link.

 

[Ignatz]

blueeyeliner wrote:

Mutations do not help life at all. Mutations make life weaker and this could help explain why some animals no longer exist.

Most mutations are harmless and neither help nor hurt life. however, a mutation that gives an organism a greater ability to detect poisons or better eyesight, for example,will strengthen that organisms' ability to survive.

Animals go extinct because of hunting, natural disaster, destruction of habitat, and because that species didn't mutate/evolve/adapt to a changing environment fast enough

Ignatz

 

[Quath]

God took two of every kind of clean animal.
the things that creep on the earth were no doubt very small.
Either way,Noah only had to take some of them.

Right. So if Noah just took 2 of each beetle species, he would have to build 3 arks just to house them and no other animals would fit.

Quath

 

[Guest]

God took two of every kind of clean animal.
the things that creep on the earth were no doubt very small.
Either way,Noah only had to take some of them.

Right. So if Noah just took 2 of each beetle species, he would have to build 3 arks just to house them and no other animals would fit.

Quath

:Fade-color I don't think we know if he just took 2 beetles. I believe he
could have taken two of the 7 or more kinds of beetle. With just 8
people in the ark,there was more than enough room for the animals.
also,satan did do his very best to twist nature,not just in man,but in all
creation. Didn't the serpent use to have feet?
He won't ever again however because he let satan use him.
here is an interesting site full of insight:
http://www.biblebelievers.com/powell2.html

 

[Quath]

I don't think we know if he just took 2 beetles. I believe he
could have taken two of the 7 or more kinds of beetle. With just 8
people in the ark,there was more than enough room for the animals.

Where do you get just 7 kinds of beetles when there are currently 350,000 species around today. You realize that there are about 30 to 50 million species alive today of animals. So that would have to be a huge ark or else animals evolved after they got off the ark. Not only would they have to evolve, they would have to evolve faster than evolution theory shows.

Quath

 

[Asimov]

:o what living creation would still be living by the time it took for it to
evolve into another creation or creature?

Huh???

evolution takes way too long for it to have ever happened in the first place
and what would be alive when it did since nothing lives that long?
How can a dead creature evolve?

Populations evolve, not individuals

Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non life,matter
resulted from nothing

Wrong, evolutionary theory assumes life already exists

and humans resulted from animals,each of
these is an impossibility of Science and the natural world.

Individuals evolving is an impossibility of science, but that's not what evolution states. Life coming from non-life has been observed, and tested. I don't understand how you think humans resulting from animals is an impossibility, as we ARE animals.

 

[Asimov]

Hi'. Mutations do not help life at all. Mutations make life weaker and this could help explain why some animals no longer exist.

As previously stated, most mutations are neutral (neither harmful nor beneficial). But mutations do not always make life weaker:

As this article went to press, the New England Journal of Medicine was about to release the first documented description of a human being with a genetic mutation that wipes out myostatin production. Such cases have been discussed in scientific circles but never published because the subjects and their families usually do not wish to risk being identified. At least one of those families is rumored to include a European weight-lifting champion, which, if true, would not be surprising, given the tremendous advantage in muscle building and strength that a natural myostatin-suppressing mutation would confer.

But would it constitute an unfair advantage in an athlete, and would it justify other competitors using myostatin-inhibiting drugs or gene therapy simply to level the playing field? These questions are bound to be raised in continuing debate over the possibility of athletes using new muscle therapies to enhance their performance.

Natural "mutants" among athletes have been documented, among them an Olympic gold medalist. Finnish cross-country skier EERO MÄNTYRANTA won two gold medals in the 1964 Winter Olympics. But it was not until decades later that Finnish scientists identified a genetic mutation in Mäntyranta's entire family that causes an excessive response to erythropoietin, leading to extraordinarily high numbers of oxygen-carrying red blood cells. Several of his family members, it turns out, were also champion endurance athletes.

In addition to mutations with dramatic effects, investigators have also begun to discover natural gene variants that more subtly favor certain kinds of athletic activity. For example, last year Australian researchers examined a gene called ACTN3 in a group of male and female elite sprinters. Nearly 20 percent of people lack a functional version of this gene that gives rise to a protein specific to fast muscle fibers, although a less effective protein normally compensates for its absence. The scientists found an unusually high frequency of the working ACTN3 gene in the sprinters, however. In particular, more of the female sprinters had two copies of the gene than would be expected in a randomly selected group.

Many research groups are trying to identify other gene variants that give athletes an edge by maximizing oxygen uptake, heart efficiency, power output, endurance or other traits. More than 90 genes or chromosomal locations have been associated with athletic performance so far, and this research is already provoking its own ethical controversies. Critics fear that based on their genetic makeup, children will be recruited into certain sports or, if they lack the right gene mix, denied a chance to advance to the elite level of sports training. Even selective breeding for superathletes has been predicted.

A more certain result of scanning athletes' genomes will be the discovery that some of them, like Mäntyranta's, contain true genetic mutations that amount to genetic enhancement. Such revelations will add still more complexity to ethical arguments over the prospect of gene doping in sports.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm

 

[Guest]

I don't think we know if he just took 2 beetles. I believe he
could have taken two of the 7 or more kinds of beetle. With just 8
people in the ark,there was more than enough room for the animals.

Where do you get just 7 kinds of beetles when there are currently 350,000 species around today. You realize that there are about 30 to 50 million species alive today of animals. So that would have to be a huge ark or else animals evolved after they got off the ark. Not only would they have to evolve, they would have to evolve faster than evolution theory shows.

Quath

:roll: Did you hear me say just seven? I said at least 7 or more!
Kinky Stuff. I wasn't there,and i know with your data you surely
were not there,so how can you judge? Do you really believe you
can call God into question?
where is the natural habitat of beetles?

 

[Quath]

Did you hear me say just seven? I said at least 7 or more!
Kinky Stuff. I wasn't there,and i know with your data you surely
were not there,so how can you judge? Do you really believe you
can call God into question?
where is the natural habitat of beetles?

Ok. So with 350,000 beetles, do you think they were all on the Ark or did they evolve from a few species of beetles?

Beetles live all over the world from desert to rain forests.

Quath

 

[Guest]

Did you hear me say just seven? I said at least 7 or more!
Kinky Stuff. I wasn't there,and i know with your data you surely
were not there,so how can you judge? Do you really believe you
can call God into question?
where is the natural habitat of beetles?

Ok. So with 350,000 beetles, do you think they were all on the Ark or did they evolve from a few species of beetles?

Beetles live all over the world from desert to rain forests.

Quath

:B-fly: Beetles are survivors,and of course I believe the bible.
I don't know how many beetles were on the ark,but I really don't
need to know. How did we get Pomeranian puppies? were they on
the ark,or did inter-breeding with other dogs take place?
Note: dogs only make other dogs with other dogs. Horses,and all
animals do the same. Don't humans reproduce with other humans
no matter what the race as long as they are heterosexual?
Zebra's are striped horses,but when they breed with another kind of
horse,their offspring are sterile. inter-breeding happens.
inter-breeding is not evolving,though the word evole may mean many
things to you,the meaning is different to me,because I don't view a
tadpole turning into a frog as evolving. The bible tells us about frogs
that existed in ancient times and I have no doubt they are very simular
to the ones we have today.