Noah and the Ark

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by Aquila

And Adam would be a highly developed ape and there would be no need for God, natural processes would have been man's origin.

I disagree. I'll admit that the whole evolution/creation thing (Theistic Evolution) has been a bitterly tough pill for me to swallow but I don't believe God, AT ALL, is eliminated from the equation. For me, all this does is explain God and make Him more touchable.

If we eliminate God from the process, we would need to explain where all the "stuff" came from in the first place and for me, that can't possibly be done without God.

••And can I just add...this thread is the kind of thing that makes this a great forum.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Aquila

And Adam would be a highly developed ape and there would be no need for God, natural processes would have been man's origin.

You seem to take a rather dim view of "natural processes." Let's see you create one. There's a lot of wonder and awe right under your upturned nose.

Personally, I'm a bit afraid to start knocking the work of the Creator.

Originally Posted by Aquila

What's wrong? No one know how to fit the findings of foribidden archeology into their "scientific" theories?

Do you mean the Hare Krishna book "Forbidden Archeology" by Michael A. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson that is often quoted by Young Earth Creationists?

Read the "Dedication" page. It's dedicated to that "lord high whatever his Indian name is" guy who is actually a German and runs the cult. Then, scan through the references. They use "The Weekly World News" as a source. They actually footnoted the "The Weekly World News"!!!

What's wrong? Can't answer the the problems your own speculations have raised? Do you really want to start taunting after that?

Go back and grapple with the marine fossils found within the mine shafts that go for miles under the Rocky Mountains.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by notofworks

I disagree. I'll admit that the whole evolution/creation thing (Theistic Evolution) has been a bitterly tough pill for me to swallow but I don't believe God, AT ALL, is eliminated from the equation. For me, all this does is explain God and make Him more touchable.

If we eliminate God from the process, we would need to explain where all the "stuff" came from in the first place and for me, that can't possibly be done without God.

••And can I just add...this thread is the kind of thing that makes this a great forum.

Most evolutionary experts, the most educated in their field admit that according to their theory God is absolultely unnecessary. Most are atheists and agnostics who believe just as naturally occuring conditions and circumstances cause life to evolve, so to naturally occuring conditions and circumstances originated the universe via the Big Bang.

Essentially you're taking their theory and injecting a little God into it.

So do you believe God guided man's evolution from early primates or that God created Adam in His own image?

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Most evolutionary experts, the most educated in their field admit that according to their theory God is absolultely unnecessary. Most are atheists and agnostics who believe just as naturally occuring conditions and circumstances cause life to evolve, so to naturally occuring conditions and circumstances originated the universe via the Big Bang.

Essentially you're taking their theory and injecting a little God into it.

So do you believe God guided man's evolution from early primates or that God created Adam in His own image?

I would think that we're taking their theory, which is completely scientifically sound, and injecting a LOT of God into it.

And I don't really see how it matters if "evolutionary experts" are dismissive of God. The fact remains, the "stuff" that evolved into the "stuff" had to come from somewhere, and someONE had to set it all in motion. The mathematical possibilities of all of it happening without God are completely absurd. So I don't see a "little" of God in it.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by pelathais

You seem to take a rather dim view of "natural processes." Let's see you create one. There's a lot of wonder and awe right under your upturned nose.

Personally, I'm a bit afraid to start knocking the work of the Creator.

I'm very aware of the wonder of nature. I'm a fisherman and birdwatcher when it comes to hobbies. My point is that your position lends itself to the notion that man originated as a primate, not from a single man named Adam who was created in God's image.

If evolution is true... God is unnecessary.

Do you mean the Hare Krishna book "Forbidden Archeology" by Michael A. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson that is often quoted by Young Earth Creationists?

Read the "Dedication" page. It's dedicated to that "lord high whatever his Indian name is" guy who is actually a German and runs the cult. Then, scan through the references. They use "The Weekly World News" as a source. They actually footnoted the "The Weekly World News"!!!

What's wrong? Can't answer the the problems your own speculations have raised? Do you really want to start taunting after that?

Go back and grapple with the marine fossils found within the mine shafts that go for miles under the Rocky Mountains.

I was just illustrating that there have been discoveries thrown out of the scientific community because they didn't match the accepted evolutionary model. There have been archeologists and anthropologists who have lost their careers because they stood by these discoveries. For example the woman who was escavating an ancient city in Central America. They found tools, arrow heads, pottery, etc. Much of it dated nearly 200,000 years old using radio carbon dating. They also used an isotope method I can't remember. The date for the city was so far off the charts the scientific community laughed her out of fellowship and closed the book from ever examining data from the site again unless it fit a more "reasonable" date range.

It's facinating stuff really. Things like large metalic spheres, obviously human made, found in precambrian rock. The scientific community doesn't want to look into them... and if someone does they are labled a quack or a cook.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by notofworks

I would think that we're taking their theory, which is completely scientifically sound, and inject a LOT of God into it.

And I don't really see how it matters if "evolutionary experts" are dismissive of God. The fact remains, the "stuff" that evolved into the "stuff" had to come from somewhere, and someONE had to set it all in motion. The mathematical possibilities of all of it happening without God are completely absurd. So I don't see a "little" of God in it.

Given enough time the probabilities of the universe forming and life evolving without God are actually quite high according to leading evolutionists. Our own Big Bang may be only one in an immeasurable billions, upon multiplied billions of Big Bangs. Mathematically speaking, if it's possible for certain conditions to be suitable for life to form from natural processes... given the number of universes that may have existed and their development the odds are quite high.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by notofworks

I would think that we're taking their theory, which is completely scientifically sound, and inject a LOT of God into it.

And I don't really see how it matters if "evolutionary experts" are dismissive of God. The fact remains, the "stuff" that evolved into the "stuff" had to come from somewhere, and someONE had to set it all in motion. The mathematical possibilities of all of it happening without God are completely absurd. So I don't see a "little" of God in it.

While atheism does represent the philosophical beliefs of a significant number of those in the scientific community, it's hard to say that they represent the majority.

Certainly the statement, "the best educated" [are atheists] is rife with problems. Just what does that mean when you're standing in a hall filled with 200 Ph.D.'s? Who is the "most educated?" Even with the egos you'd expect to find in such a room, it would probably be very hard to find anyone willing to even attempt such a sorting.

The whole modern scene of the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment in general came on the heels of the horrible convulsions of the Religious Wars, The Thirty Years War and numerous religious crusades that devastated Europe. It's pretty easy to see how many people were looking for something that would alleviate all of the ills that religion had brought upon them.

But you really need to read the writings of the time as well. The movers and thinkers behind this scientific progress were almost always very careful and generally pious men. Isaac Newton wrote far more about the Book of Daniel and Revelation then he did about gravity.

It was the evidence that changed things. The canals that were being dug all over Europe to advance the new age of industry revealed incredible secrets right in front of the eyes of anyone who wandered out of their own home. This was the impetus behind much of it.

http://www.amazon.com/Map-That-Chang...9027801&sr=8-1

[noeticknight]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Following this line of logic we end up in a place that is far more detrimental to someone believing in Jesus Christ. If they cannot believe the miracles of the OT and we water them down to being parables... the logical conclusion is that when they arrive at Jesus they'll take his miracles as parables or exaggerated linguistic devices. For example liberal theologians already believe that the feeding of the multitudes is a parable about sharing, not miraculous provision for over 5,000 people using five loaves and two fishes. And if the miracles of Christ are parabolic or linguistic devices... what of the resurrection? Maybe that is a parable or linguistic device also. Maybe Jesus didn't rise from the dead on the third day after being crucified... maybe it's speaking of Christ's "spirit" or "teachings" in his followers. Christianity becomes a philosophy of anointed myth from start to finish.

I think this is an excellent point.

Although my understanding on this subject is severely limited and inadequate, its still seems perfectly reasonable to me to assume that there is a common authority of Jesus' words and teachings interwoven all the way back to the OT writings. To believe in the Gospels is to have faith that defies our human logic and understanding. It is only natural to rely on that same faith regarding OT writings; after all, those prophecies foretold of Jesus and his coming, the cornerstone of all of Christianity.

Great points have been raised on this thread. I've always enjoyed these types of discussions. I even attempted to start a thread about it on here at one point I think...

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Given enough time the probabilities of the universe forming and life evolving without God are actually quite high according to leading evolutionists. Our own Big Bang may be only one in an immeasurable billions, upon multiplied billions of Big Bangs. Mathematically speaking, if it's possible for certain conditions to be suitable for life to form from natural processes... given the number of universes that may have existed and their development the odds are quite high.

...and where did those universes come from? Spontaneous Generation is so incredibly unlikely, that the earth, even at the 4 billion year old age, would need much longer to produce spontaneous generation as many times as it would have taken to produce male and female forms at the same time (in order to reproduce) in as many different species as we have.

There certainly is some "theory" in the "Theory of Evolution" but it's based on absolute fact, and I believe those "facts" work perfectly with what God has formed.

But ultimately, I won't pretend to be an expert in this. This thread has been like a college class!

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by pelathais

While atheism does represent the philosophical beliefs of a significant number of those in the scientific community, it's hard to say that they represent the majority.

Certainly the statement, "the best educated" [are atheists] is rife with problems. Just what does that mean when you're standing in a hall filled with 200 Ph.D.'s? Who is the "most educated?" Even with the egos you'd expect to find in such a room, it would probably be very hard to find anyone willing to even attempt such a sorting.

The whole modern scene of the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment in general came on the heels of the horrible convulsions of the Religious Wars, The Thirty Years War and numerous religious crusades that devastated Europe. It's pretty easy to see how many people were looking for something that would alleviate all of the ills that religion had brought upon them.

But you really need to read the writings of the time as well. The movers and thinkers behind this scientific progress were almost always very careful and generally pious men. Isaac Newton wrote far more about the Book of Daniel and Revelation then he did about gravity.

It was the evidence that changed things. The canals that were being dug all over Europe to advance the new age of industry revealed incredible secrets right in front of the eyes of anyone who wandered out of their own home. This was the impetus behind much of it.

http://www.amazon.com/Map-That-Chang...9027801&sr=8-1

Thanks pel, I'll order that right now. And I know I've gushed too much already, but thank you for being such an incredible resource of knowledge. This has been exciting!