steaknchips

But the religious types can choose which bits of scripture to believe to suit their current argument. If you believe in a magic sky fairy, it is acceptable to believe that the bible is the literal word of their god and also ignore the bit where it states that the world was created in six days. Normal people suffer from cognitive dissonance when they try to hold conflicting opinions and realise that both cannot be true. Rational people choose the argument supported by evidence. The world created in 6 days is not ignored. The word for day in Hebrew is yom..Now yom can mean any of the following;- light, a 24-hour period, time, a specific point of time, year. The word yom is translated into day, season, time, ever, evermore, always, ago, age, years, in the bible..Because the Hebrew language dosnt contain as many words as the English language, so the word yom has been intrepreted to its closest meaning by the passage in the scripture. A day, year, period of light, period of darkness etc during time of creation may not be a period of 24 hours as we see it today. He created light and called it day(this wasnt the Sun as it wasnt created yet), He created Darkness and called it night. In revelation 23 it tells us that one day we will not need the Sun or moon as the glory of God will illuminate. Also in 2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Heres my 1st link then...This guy has a Ph.D in geology..He has studied and investigated rock forms, life etc...Yet he finds more substance in the bible story of Noah's Ark than the evolution side. http://creationwiki.org/Andrew_Snelling Or one from Harvard, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Wise

Read more: http://www.articlesbase.com/science-articles/tiktaalik-scientists-insult-to-the-publics-intelligence-734131.html#ixzz1cpmDtZC1 Under Creative Commons License: Attribution No Derivatives

Brum, The same reasons I dont believe in evolution..The bible is the only thing that makes sense.

Good answer...It explains your theory in great detail. lol Darwin expected, or rather hoped, that with technology a new means of finding fossils would arise that would fix this problem. Guess what? A century and a half later, evolutionists have only a small handful of very controversial, supposed missing links.

I think its the other way around. I think non believers just chose the easier option as "I didnt see it" "I could never imagine it" "so I dont believe it"...Which I suppose is fine if they can offer another alternative to how we came to be about....But they cant. Most 'non-believers' I know have come that conclusion after being exposed to various religions and deciding that evidence of evolution and other scientific theories do a better job of explaining the world and how we got here than religion. Also if you honesty think that there are legitimate explanations as to how we came about then i suggest you start reading non religious websites or books. Yes there are explanations but they contain flaws. You think you can just read about a miracle in the bible, then just dismiss it because to you, it seems unlikely to happen, its something you cant get your head around..It has no explanation other than a using God as an excuse..Yet you get the same miracles appearing when you go down the evolution road too, it is not without its flaws...When you look at a watch, you assume there was a watchmaker. A watch is too complex to "happen" by chance. Yet such living systems are almost infinitely more complex than a watch.. Look at the information available in DNA..A pinhead of DNA has a billion times more information capacity than a 4-gigabit hard drive.. No mutation that increases in genetic information have ever been found. To get from an amoeba to man would require a "massive" net increase in information. We only have evidence of preprogrammed variation and multiple copies of existing information.. Physics tells us that all systems can have a tendency to disorder but only at a an expense of greater disorder lost elsewhere...Raw energy cannot generate the complex systems in living things or the information which builds them. Undirected energy would just speed up destruction.Yet, evolution is a building-up process, suggesting that things tend to become more complex and advanced over time. This is directly opposed to the law in physics. Darwin said that one day we would find fossils that show the missing links in the transitional changes you would see as things evolve. As of yet we havnt found any..They all the same life form, non have been found going from one life form to another....Pictures of ape-to-human "missing links" are extremely subjective and based on evolutionists' already-formed assumptions. Often they are simply contrived. The series of pictures or models that show progressive development from a little monkey to modern man are an insult to scientific research. These are often based on fragmentary remains that can be "reconstructed" a hundred different ways. The fact is, many supposed "ape-men" are very clearly apes. Evolutionists now admit that other so-called "ape-men" would be able to have children by modern humans, which makes them the same species as humans. The main species said to bridge this gap, Homo habilis, is thought by many to be a mixture of ape and human fossils. In other words, the "missing link" (in reality there would have to be millions of them) is still missing. The body hair and the blank expressions of sub-humans in these models doesn't come from the bones, but the assumptions of the artist. Virtually nothing can be determined about hair and the look in someone's eyes based on a few old bones. Louis Pasteur proved that life only comes from life—Yet non believers believe that we came from raw material. Even evolutionists admit that the chances of evolutionary progress are extremely low. Yet, they believe that given enough time, the apparently impossible becomes possible. If I flip a coin, I have a 50/50 chance of getting heads. To get five "heads" in a row is unlikely but possible. If I flipped the coin long enough, I would eventually get five in a row. If I flipped it for years nonstop, I might get 50 or even 100 in a row. But this is only because getting heads is an inherent possibility. What are the chances of me flipping a coin, and then seeing it sprout arms and legs, and go sit in a corner and read a magazine? No chance. Given billions of years, the chances would never increase. Great periods of time make the possible likely but never make the impossible possible. No matter how long it's given, non-life will not become alive.

I dont know what you mean Brum in your question.. Hinduism, Islam, etc Do I believe in certain teachings and way of life used in Hinduism? Yes Do I believe Mohammed existed? Yes.

I think its the other way around. I think non believers just chose the easier option as "I didnt see it" "I could never imagine it" "so I dont believe it"...Which I suppose is fine if they can offer another alternative to how we came to be about....But they cant. Even looking at when the bible was written, certain events, timelines, people and places have been investigated and found to have substance..The Ark dimensions have even been looked at by engineers and they have said its a posibily...Yet when it was written, how did they know those measurements would stand the test of time?(along with the other occurances, timelines, places, people and events?) Pretty clever stuff for a bunch of people travelling around on a few donkey's.. :?

What are you talking about? The only "side" to research is the history of the universe, earth and its inhabitants (in other words life in all forms). Absolutely NO evidence suggests that every human being is a direct ancestor of a boat builder and his children living in the middle east a few thousand years ago. Absolutely no data indicates that all life on earth save the lucky passangers of a giant boat was ever wiped out by a massive flood. No data indicates that such a giant boat was ever built. Guessing that it could theoretically be the case does not count as evidence. The bible (and I have actually read most of it!) does not count as evidence. There is no evidence to support the stories of miracles in the bible! There is no evidence to support the existance of a god! There is, its just you somehow fail to yourself to believe it. Ive posted a piece I found earlier in this topic found here http://carm.org/manuscript-evidence that shows evidence. Yet you have yet to show me evidence of the stories in the Bible being false..Evidence of a miricle is in the very writtings in the Bible..Do you believe the bible, just not miracles? Or do you plainly disregard all the substance in the bible altogether? If so why?

This just shows how little research you have done. Every thought you have is the result of a physical action , i.e. chemical reactions in your physical brain . Your mind and your body are not two different entities . One is in charge of the other and it certainly isn't the mind. Neuroscience.....I suggest you "research" it . It also puts to bed the silly notion that humans are in control of ourselves and that we have free will. Everything you do and think about is dictated by your physical brain . There is no metaphysical "you" who controls your brain . f all things are reducible to matter and all things must work under the boundaries of natural laws, then we are nothing more than the product of neural-chemical reactions that occur in the physical brain. This would negate the idea of real freedom and necessitate that our beliefs, thoughts, "free will," etc., are nothing more than the product of physical laws. Materialists counter by saying that the human free will and consciousness are emerging properties of supercomplex structures such as the brain. But, this is only a theory that must necessarily be assumed if one holds to materialism. Furthermore, materialism itself is a concept. But how do concepts have any actual existence in a material world? The concept itself is not made up of physical parts or components. Therefore, since materialism says all things that exist do so in the physical realm, the fact that concepts exist refutes that idea. If the human mind is produced from arrangements of complexity of matter, then is it not logical to conclude that greater complexities of matter could also produce something you would call God that would exceed physical limitations? It would certainly seem so.

Chindie there are answers to all your questions on the web link I posted...They are not new questions and have all been asked and answered before.. :winkold:

No Gareth...Why would God have a plan? You talking an eternal being creator of matter, space and time. If he has a plan, he created it.

Since the Bible has nothing to say about dogs and cats going to heaven, a philosophical approach will be necessary to answer this question. While it is clear in Scripture that humans are a unity of material and immaterial parts (2 Cor. 5:8), no such thing is said about animals. We must work from what we know of humans and animals through experience. The major factor that separates humans and animals is their ability to reason. Both have the same senses and both have awareness of their surroundings, but only humans think rationally, using logic. Humans can analyze data; animals can only perceive. Animals can be conditioned; humans can be taught ideas. Why is this important? It illustrates the difference between the merely physical phenomenon of perception and the immateriality of reasoning. No scientist has been able to discover any link between the physical matter of the brain and immaterial thought. In fact, it would be impossible to do so since science can only study physical phenomena. Immaterial substances are outside of the scope of science. Animals can be explained purely in material terms, whereas humans cannot since they possess minds, not merely brains that receive. If, then, humans are found to have immaterial minds, then a part of them exists apart from the body and may be capable of surviving death. On the other hand, if an animal dies there is nothing left of it to survive. Once life has left the matter of the animal’s body, it ceases to be a living thing altogether, and becomes merely a carcass. So, it would seem that, barring any other evidence suggesting that there is an immaterial aspect to animals, they do not go to heaven (that is, the heaven which exists now). Having established all of this, there is good reason to believe that there will be animals in the new earth (Is. 65:17,25), which will be the eternal home of those who are saved (Rev. 21:1, 22:5). This will be a very physical place lived in by physical people with resurrected bodies, enjoying the material pleasures of the new earth (Rev. 20:4, 1 Cor. 15:20-22, Is. 65:21-22). If no form (mind or soul) remains which may be reunited to matter (a body), then animals which formerly died won’t be resurrected either. If my reasoning thus far is correct, then only new animals will be made by God. Ultimately, everything that you love about your dog or cat is found in an infinitely more perfect form in God Himself, and He will be all you need and all you ever desired. If you are without any loved one (including animals) in the new heavens and earth, you will not feel any lack, because God Himself will fill every desire of your heart perfectly as the source of all good things you seek. http://carm.org/animals-heaven

Chindie, I wouldnt just write it off like many do before doing research on both sides of the fence 1st.

Brumerican, all your questions can be answered. ques.....How did the human species evolve into the various races we see today in 6-10,000 years ? answ......The different races came from the descendants of Noah. It does not take long for genetic traits to become dominant based upon geographical location. Take, for example, people who would live in Africa where the sun is very direct and there's not as much cloud cover. People with darker skin would survive better because they would not be sunburned and develop skin cancer the way lighter skinned people would. On the other hand, people in the northern regions, where the sunlight is less direct, would need more vitamin D which is produced by the sunlight hitting the skin. Vitamin D prevents rickets, which is the softening of bones which can lead to fractures and breaks. But people with darker skin in more northern, colder climates would not be able to produce as much vitamin D, and so they would not do as well as people with lighter skin. The descendents of Noah had all the genetic material necessary to produce the various so-called races as they moved out across the land and went to different locations. Given enough time, those genetic traits that manifested and aided in survivability became dominant, and those genetic traits that manifested but did not help survivability were eventually wiped out. Please note that CARM does not affirm the theory of evolution which states that people evolved from lower life forms. But God, in his great wisdom, provided enough genetic information in our genes to aid us in adapting to various needs ques....how can the Abrahamic God be a standard for morality, when he willingly murdered innocent babies via drowning ? answ....In Genesis 6, God’s judgment upon the world at large is found in these words: “The Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them”" (Gen. 6:7). While the universal flood certainly seems extreme on the surface, there are a number of factors that should be kept in mind. First, the Bible makes it clear that violence and evil had grown to be extremely pervasive so that it literally touched everything and everyone that existed at that time. Genesis 6:5 states: “Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” The author of the Pentateuch indicates that some of the sin was sexual in nature (cf. Gen. 6:1-2), and that the evil permeated and filled the earth. This erases the argument that God drowned ‘innocent’ people in the flood that He brought. Next, during the construction of the ark, which lasted at least 100 years, Noah is described as a ‘preacher of righteousness’ (cf. 2 Pet. 2:5) to the people around him. This means the people had 100 or so years to listen to the message of Noah and repent of the sin that was bringing the flood waters upon them. So in the end, we find God using His messenger to proclaim the truth of repentance and judgment before a fully corrupt culture that refused to be moved even after 100 years of being exposed to it. And we find God’s mercy being displayed on the one family who followed and obeyed what God had commanded. Other answers can be found on this site; http://carm.org/

There are in fact people that have studied Theology and evolution in great detail, yet still come out saying the bible makes more sense. Far more intelligent people than you, me and people using this forum will believe in the bible...It has been studied by great length my friend.And is yet to written off :winkold:

I know crazy isnt it..You would have thought after the evolution of the human brain we would have managed to muster up some kind of pure solid evidence by now. That these so called myths that are wrote in a so called story book are in fact just that...Myths. Yet even in the modern day with this superior modern evolved human brain all we seem to keep coming up with, is that the time lines along with certain occurances written in the Bible do seem to errr add up. Strange stuff...

Because you said so? How small and narrow minded..I suppose because you didnt see it, you dont believe it.. Maybe it could be more down to, you dont understand it?

For what reason or reasons should God have not created the devil even if he was going to fall? Just because God knows what will happen doesn't mean that the person (or angel) isn't free to make choices. Satan freely chose to rebel against God. God knew this would happen. Nevertheless, let me offer some possible reasons why God would create Satan even though He knew he would fall and rebel. 1.It was necessary to have the fall so that God could then have a reason to die for our sins thereby demonstrating that God can and does provide the greatest act of love which is to lay down one's life for his friend (John 15:13). 2.The fall of Satan provides yet another method for God to be glorified in that God can use sin to prove that sin is "bad" and that God's Word about righteousness is true. 3.If God is to have creatures with free will, then the risk of rebellion is part of that freedom. Satan had that freedom and used it to rebel. 4.If God had not created Satan and instead another angel fell, then we'd be asking why God made that angel knowing he would fall. 5.God has reasons about which we know nothing. The reason that God permits sickness and bad things, is because sin is in the world. Sickness is a result of the fall which was a sinful rebellion against God. Sin entered the world through Adam (Rom. 5:12) and since we are all in Adam (1 Cor. 15:22) we are all subject to sickness and sin.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2011/08/noahs-ark-answers-in-genesis.html

So did Noah buy 700,000 sets of mini SCUBA equipment to help all the different varieties of beetle alone, survive ? Did you see the caterpillar survive through years of arctic winters on Frozen Planet the other night?

And Villa too would be rewarded with success..Its not hard to get into the top 6 because beyond that, our game is very average. Newcastle are proving this season, that under a different approach in the trans market they can easily climb amongst the top teams. l http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2011/oct/08/newcastle-united-french-scouting-policy If you look at pretty all the teams below top 6, they are all doing the same thing. Stoke, Sunderland, Bolton, etc Only Newcastle recently have made a few additions from doing some research and hard scouting overseas. Its not far off the kind of set up to what Arsene did when he 1st arrived. And even at this early stage its already bringing and showing results. McLeish is no different to Moyes, Bruce, Pulis, McCarthy etc etc..You may as well have one of those as manger because they all think on the same level. Their vision and scope is all similar and they will always be just average. The only way to achieve success on a limited budget(in terms of City/Chelsea etc) is to stick a spanner into the works and bring a different approach.Variety is the spice of life...We can be doing this same old, same old for the next 15 years, until one day someone on our board decides to say "this approach dosnt work"...And only then can we start to get out of the Mr. Average club.

Here I think we will always disagree. whislt I accept that he could find enough talent at a young enough age to nuture into a strong team he will never be afforded the luxury of enough time to do so. Arsenal are in real danger of losing their CL placve this year, they lose that status and the income it generates and the wheels will very quickly fall off the wagon. That's why he signed players like Arteta this summer not some awesome 12 year for a packet of chocolate buttons. Deschamps might find a few good players if he ever came to the Villa but imo he would not be able to enough, quickly enough to keep those players here in order to build a team around. As soon as they begin to look decent in a team finishing 6th the likes of City and Utd will snap them up, as we have seen over the past few seasons. Wenger could do this before because he was able to adapt a team with a solid base quickly, when there was an opportunity to be exploited. What opportunity is there for Villa? Every manager pretty much brings personnel with them when they join a new club, whether than be playing or coaching side, it nearly always happens. McLeish knew Hutton from Rangers/Scotland so bought him to our club...Hutton is McLeish's little baby and set of knowledge if you like.He bought Grant from Blues, his little right hand (clueless) lttle friend if you like....Its all pants on what we could have. Deschamps would bring the "missing parts" into our team/squad to join up the dots...Alot like Wenger brought the "missing parts" to help Arsenal become a great force in English football. What is missing from Villa's game Deschamps will find.. Hutton wasnt a missing part from Villa's game..Makoun was, Cabaye was, Bent was, Pires was...Hutton are 2 a penny in UK footballmand we didnt need such a player.

The production line in France for quality players is the best on globe. Deschamps would have the edge on knowing and ability to sign such players...Just like the position Wenger was in when he 1st landed on our shores.. McLeish v Deschamps = Deschamps can bring alot more to the table. 4m for Hutton? Or 4m for a top 4 quality player? Which would you prefer? When the great Houllier spent 4 million on a player did he turn out to be top 4 quality? What makes you think Deschamps could do it? Houllier only had 1 Jan window..He had no Summer of which to mould a set of players..But even in his 1 Jan Window his signings shown more quality than all MON's and McLeish's put together. Pires for instance was a world class technical player, he wasnt bought in to play 100% of games week in week out, he was bought in to help coach players like Bannan and co' It was so the training ground had better pedigree amongst our young emerging players to learn from. K'Mac, Grant and McLeish can only offer so much to young players, Pires was the the spice and the missing part from the young player's games. It wasnt hard to see the reasoning behind the appointments..Great clubs have great personnel in the background. Makoun is a top 4 quality player and again if you look at our play, he was something that was missing from our game.= Moving the ball quickly without giving it away. He also signed Bent, another top 4 quality player..Reports have Cabaye coming out to press saying he was going to join us had Houllier stayed....Guess what, another top 4 quality player..Can you imagine the slick passing from Makoun and the skills of Cabaye in the same team?(both costing less that a combined 10m) And this is with Bent up top and all our kids being taught and growing up on the training ground alongside Pires and co'? You just do get it do you?

This is what ive been saying, although the good, young, up to date foreign managers in the Prem being 10 a penny is way off the mark, as all the foreign managers in the Prem are the ones at the top end of the table. Even Martinez has spent all his modern day life in the UK, so he would hardly be on top of the game in continental Europe. Where competition in training young players is taken extremely serious and very competitive. Arsene took advantage of his knowledge in the day, he wouldnt have that up date knowledge now, having spending all his time on the Arsenal training ground. Yes he has scouts but he isnt seeing/watching/analizing it 1st hand like he used to, he cant and isnt watching the ins and outs of everyday football life on the continent like he once did. Give him 3-4 seasons managing Lille or Lyon and then he would come back into the Premiership and again take it by storm...Because those 3-4 seasons at Lille etc would open eyes to another great bunch of emerging players that he could mould into a team, these things he cant see with as great detail whilst in the Premiership.