to Blackeyedpeas

[Gracey]

Quote from: anduril on: September 17, 2004, 07:33:07 PM

Well, like I said, I don't wish to believe in a 'God' that lays out a plan like the one you described and quoted. If that makes you fell comfortable then thats great...I wouldn't want to live MY life like that.

I believe it's more about the eternal life we shall live, than the life we live here on earth. For myself, I would much rather not live it in a lake of fire (just a little too hot for my taste).

Gracey

[Shammu]

I believe it's more about the eternal life we shall live, than the life we live here on earth. For myself, I would much rather not live it in a lake of fire (just a little too hot for my taste).

Gracey

Amen, Gracey

[Xith]

  To stay on subject, since science is rolling into this subject:

1) The assumptions made about the Neanderthal man, are pretty much false (dental records, comeon people).  First off, dental records on a human that lived hundreds of years would be invalid.  Because the teeth would either have to show immense decay (which Neanderthals do not, hinting at middle age death), or they would have had to regenerate multiple times throughout life.  If regeneration is the case, then dental records would only show the Neanderthal to be as old as the new set of regenerated teeth.
   2)  in reference to the shape of the skull in relation to age (hehe, I know what books you guys have been reading).  Since bone density and basal skull length are used to measure life. Then yes your right, Neanderthal is very old.  However, if you use the same method to measure the skull of say, a orangutan, then you would show that the animal is well over 700 years old (is this true?!!).  The evidence posed about the Neanderthals skeleton is false, because using the same technique produces different ages on different measurements.  Meaning that the growth patterns of the Neanderthal are different than modern mans.  So the assumption that they are, really, really old, is wrong.  (just as a side note, if it were true then researchers would be clamoring to find the genetic differences that allowed this longevity).
   3) As to the notion that arthritis called the "deformity", well I can just say, research into rickets, or arthiritis.  They cannot produce that severe, and uniform deformity, it is a genetic difference, not a disease.

About Cro-Magnon man:

    This is our descendants.  Very similar in size and shape to us, and not too many differences.  The biggest difference is cranial capacity and frontal lobe developement.  They had it, but not to the extent that we have it.

  But, alas, none of this information can confirm or deny the existence of God.  Even if creatures appeared 200 million years ago, it still can't disprove God.  As an omnipotent being God would easily be capable, and clever enough, to organize a universe that runs off of an extremely complex set of rules.  I also agree, that yes, God is outside of time and space.  So spending 7 days on a planet could be the equivalent to millions of years (which is summed up rather quickly).

[Shammu]

 To stay on subject, since science is rolling into this subject:

About Cro-Magnon man:

    This is our descendants.  Very similar in size and shape to us, and not too many differences.  The biggest difference is cranial capacity and frontal lobe developement.  They had it, but not to the extent that we have it.

  But, alas, none of this information can confirm or deny the existence of God.  Even if creatures appeared 200 million years ago, it still can't disprove God.  As an omnipotent being God would easily be capable, and clever enough, to organize a universe that runs off of an extremely complex set of rules.  I also agree, that yes, God is outside of time and space.  So spending 7 days on a planet could be the equivalent to millions of years (which is summed up rather quickly).

I've heard this story before. That we come to monkeys. I can see a monkey sitting on a stack of books by Darwin, holding a skull saying, "So you really think I became you? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, what a riot.

[Xith]

  I still don't see what is so preposterous about the idea that we evolve.  Everything evolves constantly, plants, animals, bacteria.  You can watch a virus evolve into different forms within years.  You can see adaptations in animals similar in species from around the world.  Look at your hands and feet, the webbing inbetween the fingers and toes is all but useless, from an age we may have needed to swim more perhaps. In fact having a true big toe (meaning your middle toe is not longer), is an changed trait, because we no longer need the long toes to climb. What about those born with overdeveloped tails, no use in them, and no real harm, they are just a remanent of genetic past, not completely erased yet. There are, I think, about 24 (not exactly sure on this number, somewhere between 20-26) useless organelles and bits within the human body, that over time have been disappearing, why?  I'm not trying to disprove God here, I mean like I said. God is omnipotent, and in that omnipotency I am sure he realized that we would become curious.  So why not create a system that makes sense instead of just having it appear?

[Gracey]

So why not create a system that makes sense instead of just having it appear?

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and everything in them.

He created man, he didn't evolve him. He created woman from man's rib, not from an amoeba.

Created he them, in his own image, no less. God doesn't need evolution. Unbelieving man needs an answer; a man of faith has his answer.

God is the ultimate miracle worker....