Part 12 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity

Quote Originally Posted by WanRen View Post
Instead of gossiping among yourself why not for once post some consistency. Let us start again where in Genesis 6:5 "And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" said that God killed innocent babies and children? Please be honest for once and point it out.

Why don't you believe in cannibalism??

No where in the Bible said that and no where in Genesis 6:5 said that innocent babies and children were killed by God only wicked man. So this goes back to the original question where in Genesis 6:5 said innocent babies and children were killed by God? Only you and your buddies are assuming that there were innocent babies and children killed by God and because there were no babies and children in Genesis 6:5 we can go back to science because science has confirm that ancient civilizations practice cannibalism that is why Genesis 6:5 is very clear 5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
I don't understand why you and your buddies keep ignoring this important pharse?? the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually

Mitt is busy educating the rest of your buddies why don't you like me as your teacher?

 

So does this mean you agree that Genesis 6:5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. mention no children or babies only wicked man wicked man that was continually? I am assuming you do agree even though you seem to have difficulty saying it I don't like to be accuse later of putting words in your mouth so do you agree or not?

If you don't agree then you don't need an answer from me as to why there were no children. If you agree then I can give you a logical and scientific answer.

I am sure you are but you still need to exert a bit more.

 

Actually it would indeed be surprising to see a bunch of complex carbon chains forming and eventually becoming life. It's a fact, life-less material cannot create living beings.

Well sorry but it is illogical because it violates the law of biogenesis. The law of biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, is the observation that living things come only from other living things. That is, life does not arise from non-living material.

Conclusion: It is illogical for non-life to create life.

 

My dear old mother RIP used to pray for that very thing - parking space - when we went into a car park. The answer was always yes - but only if you waited 'your turn'.

 

I leave that for the other posters to judge.

 

How many times will you avoid answering?

There isn't enough water (frozen or otherwise) on earth AND the atmosphere to cover even the low hills, so WHERE DID THE WATER COME FROM FOR YOUR 5 MILE DEEP FLOOD? and WHERE DID IT GO?

And while you're "thinking", tell us how it was that there was a simultaneous world wide kid eating frenzy, and why.

Dont bother asking me again if I 'agree' with some excerpt from you magic book. And what does "do you agree?" even mean in this context? It's like my quoting "the FSM sayeth those who overcooketh pasta will dwell in the place of sorrows, for they smite my corporeal majesty", then asking 'do you agree?'

 

You might try ABIOGENESIS. 'the natural process by which life arose from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds'.

 

Crank....I gave up playing his little DUCK AND COVER GAME.

You are posting to a person who will deny ANYTHING that conflicts with his Ultra-Religious Extremist Ideology....even if you can present proven facts.

There is this CHRISTIAN SITE.....dedicated to educating Christian's about such facts as Evolution, Cosmology, Biblical Impossibilities.

It is called the BioLogos Foundation and here is a LINK...http://biologos.org/about

This is from that link.

About The BioLogos Foundation

Our Mission
BioLogos presents evolution as God’s means of creation, so that the Church may celebrate and the world may see the harmony between science and biblical faith.
We embrace the historical Christian faith, upholding the authority and inspiration of the Bible.
We affirm evolutionary creation, recognizing God as Creator of all life over billions of years.
We seek truth, ever learning as we study the natural world and the Bible.
We strive for humility and gracious dialogue with those who hold other views.
We aim for excellence in all areas, from science to education to business practices.
What We Believe
We believe the Bible is the inspired and authoritative word of God. By the Holy Spirit it is the “living and active” means through which God speaks to the church today, bearing witness to God’s Son, Jesus, as the divine Logos, or Word of God.
We believe that God also reveals himself in and through the natural world he created, which displays his glory, eternal power, and divine nature. Properly interpreted, Scripture and nature are complementary and faithful witnesses to their common Author.
We believe that all people have sinned against God and are in need of salvation.
We believe in the historical incarnation of Jesus Christ as fully God and fully man. We believe in the historical death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, by which we are saved and reconciled to God.
We believe that God is directly involved in the lives of people today through acts of redemption, personal transformation, and answers to prayer.
We believe that God typically sustains the world using faithful, consistent processes that humans describe as "natural laws." Yet we also affirm that God works outside of natural law in supernatural events, including the miracles described in Scripture. In both natural and supernatural ways, God continues to be directly involved in creation and in human history.
We believe that the methods of science are an important and reliable means to investigate and describe the world God has made. In this, we stand with a long tradition of Christians for whom Christian faith and science are mutually hospitable. Therefore, we reject ideologies such as Materialism and Scientism that claim science is the sole source of knowledge and truth, that science has debunked God and religion, or that the physical world constitutes the whole of reality.
We believe that God created the universe, the earth, and all life over billions of years. God continues to sustain the existence and functioning of the natural world, and the cosmos continues to declare the glory of God. Therefore, we reject ideologies such as Deism that claim the universe is self-sustaining, that God is no longer active in the natural world, or that God is not active in human history.
We believe that the diversity and interrelation of all life on earth are best explained by the God-ordained process of evolution with common descent. Thus, evolution is not in opposition to God, but a means by which God providentially achieves his purposes. Therefore, we reject ideologies that claim that evolution is a purposeless process or that evolution replaces God.
We believe that God created humans in biological continuity with all life on earth, but also as spiritual beings. God established a unique relationship with humanity by endowing us with his image and calling us to an elevated position within the created order.
We believe that conversations among Christians about controversial issues of science and faith can and must be conducted with humility, grace, honesty, and compassion as a visible sign of the Spirit’s presence in Christ’s body, the Church.

They basically are a Religious Zealots NIGHTMARE!! LOL!!!

OMG...a Christian ORG. that teaches Evolution and Science!! LOL!!!

AboveAlpha

 

MORE....

Questions Categorized as "Scientific Evidence"

Thumbnail for this question
How are the ages of the Earth and universe calculated?
Many independent measurements have established that the Earth and the universe are billions of years old. Geologists have found annual layers in glaciers that can be counted back 740,000 years. Using the known rate of change in radio-active elements (radiometric dating), some Earth rocks have been shown to be billions of years old, while the oldest solar system rocks are dated at 4.6 billion years. Astronomers use the distance to galaxies and the speed of light to calculate that the light has been traveling for billions of years. The expansion of the universe gives an age for the universe as a whole: 13.7 billion years old.

(Updated April 16, 2012)
(Read More)
Thumbnail for this question
What is evolution?
Evolution is the biological model for the history of life on Earth. While some consider evolution to be equivalent to atheism, BioLogos sees evolution as a description of how God created all life. Evolution refers to descent with modification. Small modifications occur at the genetic level (in DNA) with each generation, and these genetic changes can affect how the creature interacts with its environment. Over time, accumulation of these genetic changes can alter the characteristics of the whole population, and a new species appears. Major changes in life forms take place by the same mechanism but over even longer periods of time. All life today can be traced back to a common ancestor some 3.85 billion years ago.
(Read More)
Thumbnail for this question
What does the fossil record show?
Fossils provide a unique view into the history of life by showing the forms and features of life in the past. Fossils tell us how species have changed across long periods of the Earth’s history. For instance, in 1998, scientists found a fossil showing an animal at the transition from sea creature to land creature. This tetrapod had a hand-like fin, confirming a prediction of evolutionary biology. Though the fossil record does not include every plant and animal that ever lived, it provides substantial evidence for the common descent of life via evolution. The fossil record is a remarkable gift for the study of nature.
(Read More)
Thumbnail for this question
What is the genetic evidence for evolution?
Darwin developed his theory of evolution by looking at scientific evidence available in the mid-1800s. Since then, the whole field of genetics has developed, adding a powerful independent line of evidence in support of evolution. Genes show how the physical traits of living things are handed down and modified from one generation to the next. By comparing the DNA of many organisms, scientists can map the relationships between species. This map is in remarkable agreement with Darwin’s predictions. The structure of chromosomes and particular genetic sequences point to the conclusion not just of common design, but common descent as well.
(Read More)
Thumbnail for this question
What evidence do we have for evolution besides fossils and genes?
Scientists have found multiple lines of evidence for evolution, not just one or two. These types of evidence are independent of each other, coming from sources as different as ancient fossils and modern genetics labs. Evidence also comes from comparing the anatomy of creatures living today. All creatures with four limbs (whether mammals, birds, or reptiles) have the same bone structure in each limb, pointing to their descent from a common ancestor. More evidence comes from biogeography. Isolated islands are missing common species found on the mainland, but are filled with many unique species that can be related by a common ancestor. Finally, evidence comes from embryonic development. As an embryo of a mammal grows, its heart develops through stages similar to fish, amphibians, and reptiles. God’s creation declares the history of life in many different ways. All these ways are pointing to a consistent picture of God creating through evolution.

LINK...http://biologos.org/questions/category/scientific-evidence

AboveAlpha

 

About Adam and Eve.

Genetic evidence shows that humans descended from a group of several thousand individuals who lived about 150,000 years ago. This conflicts with the traditional view that all humans descended from a single pair who lived about 10,000 years ago. While Genesis 2-3 speaks of the pair Adam and Eve, Genesis 4 refers to a larger population of humans interacting with Cain. One option is to view Adam and Eve as a historical pair living among many 10,000 years ago, chosen to represent the rest of humanity before God. Another option is to view Genesis 2-4 as an allegory in which Adam and Eve symbolize the large group of ancestors who lived 150,000 years ago. Yet another option is to view Genesis 2-4 as an “everyman” story, a parable of each person’s individual rejection of God. BioLogos does not take a particular view and encourages scholarly work on these questions.

LINK...http://biologos.org/questions/evolution-and-the-fall

AboveAlpha

 

About Human's being Apes and in particular Great Apes.

n the last post in this series, we examined the earliest-known primates. This lineage would continue to expand and diversify, ultimately giving rise to a wide range of forms. Included in this diversity is what we now recognize as New World monkeys, Old World monkeys, lesser apes, and our own group, the great apes (hominids). Crown-group hominids include orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos, and humans; their last common ancestral population; and all extinct species descended from that common ancestral population. Present-day great apes are greatly reduced in species diversity compared to the past – in other words, they are relict populations, surviving in isolated, fragmented habitats. Humans are the sole exception to this pattern in terms of population size, but we too are the sole surviving lineage among our closest relatives, as we shall see.
Full genome sequences are now available for most living great ape species, including humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. These sequences have allowed us to determine that the lineages of these four species branched from each other in the following pattern: humans are most closely related to chimpanzees, then to gorillas, and then to orangutans:

LINK...http://biologos.org/blog/evolution-basics-from-primate-to-human-part-1

REMEMBER THIS IS A CHRISTIAN WEBSITE DETAILING SCIENTIFIC AND EVOLUTIONARY REALITIES!!!

AboveAlpha

 

About Genesis and Evolution.

Given the stark difference between evolution and six-day creation, many people assume that Darwin’s theory shook the foundations of the Christian faith. In truth, the literal six-day interpretation of Genesis 1-2 was not the only perspective held by Christians prior to modern science. St. Augustine (354-430), John Calvin (1509-1564), John Wesley (1703-171), and others supported the idea of Accommodation. In the Accommodation view, Genesis 1-2 was written in a simple allegorical fashion to make it easy for people of that time to understand. In fact, Augustine suggested that the 6 days of Genesis 1 describe a single day of creation. St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) argued that God did not create things in their final state, but created them to have potential to develop as he intended. The views of these and other Christian leaders are consistent with God creating life by means of evolution.

LINK....http://biologos.org/questions/early-interpretations-of-genesis

AboveAlpha

 

About Noah and the Flood being impossible Globally.

Scientific Problems with a Universal Flood
There are a number of practical problems that conflict with the idea of a global flood.
First, a universal flood would have changed the topography of the land. For example, in the event of a worldwide flood, the Hidekkel, or Tigris, and Euphrates rivers of Genesis 2:14 would have disappeared under layers of flood-laid sedimentary rock.12 Instead, the Euphrates is mentioned again in Genesis 15:18, and the Hidekkel is alluded to in Daniel 10:4. This suggests that the rivers’ integrity was maintained.13
Second, it would require an inordinate amount of water to flood the entire Earth. One popular explanation for this problem is that prior to the flood, the world was watered by mist from a global canopy of water vapor which then condensed, causing the first rains to flood the Earth (Genesis 2:5-6). However, this explanation is incongruent with archaeological evidence that concludes ancient Mesopotamia — the land of the Tigris and Euphrates — was “an extremely arid environment that necessitated the use of irrigation for successful agriculture.”14 Furthermore, the pressure necessary for the condensation of such a large quantity of water would have been fatal for all living creatures. In fact, a closer look at the Septuagint version of the Old Testament shows that the word for fountain was used in place of the word for mist. Some modern translations have used similar words like stream and spring.15 In either case, the water is said to have risen from the Earth, which makes it more likely that these terms were referring to irrigation canals.16 A similar terminology is used in reference to the flood (Genesis 7:11), where “fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened.” But when we look closely at the original Hebrew text and consider the use of the words fountains and deep in other passages, it is more likely that the fountains of the deep were also irrigation canals.17
Another supposition is that all animals and humans are derived from the survivors on Noah’s Ark. There are several problems with this idea. First of all, there is no way that the 2 million known species of animals could have fit onto the ark — not to mention the estimated 10 to 100 million species yet to be discovered. The dimensions of the Ark were 300 cubits by 50 cubits by 30 cubits (Genesis 6:15). At 18 inches per cubit, the Ark would have been 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet tall. This was indeed a large ship by the standards of the time, but not nearly large enough to carry such a vast and varied cargo. Getting all of the animals to fit on the ark, along with the necessary food would not have been feasible. Some have argued that not all species were included, but only representatives of each type. Not only would this still represent an improbably great number of creatures, it would also require that the evolution of related species be drastically accelerated after the flood, in order to account for current diversity of species.
Finally, the migration of animals across mountains and oceans is quite difficult to explain. To make matters worse, there are no traces of animal ancestors along the proposed courses of migration. These are just a few of the many scientific problems with interpreting Genesis 6-9 as a truly universal flood. Efforts to find physical evidence of a global flood have failed. Even some of the most capable Christian researchers, including John Woodward, George Frederick Wright, William Buckland and Joseph Prestwich, all failed in their searches. Young states, “It is clear now that the evidence they were searching for simply does not exist.”18

Genesis 6-9 tells the fascinating story of Noah, the Ark, and the Flood. Some Christians interpret the text to mean that the biblical flood must have covered the entire globe. They also work to explain the evidence in rocks and fossils in terms of this world-wide flood. Other Christians do not feel the text requires that the flood be global, but could have covered the small region of earth known to Noah. The scientific and historical evidence does not support a global flood, but is consistent with a catastrophic regional flood. Beyond its place in history, the Genesis flood teaches us about human depravity, faith, obedience, divine judgment, grace and mercy.

LINK....http://biologos.org/questions/genesis-flood

AboveAlpha

 

I particularly LIKE this part....even if I am an Agnostic....it shows me some Christians are not so stupid to shut themselves out of realities and science and it gives me hope that people can some day respect others beliefs.

Considering evolution helps us understand God's creation
See “Can science and scripture be reconciled?”
As Christians, we believe that “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1), and that the Bible teaches that God reveals himself to us in the natural world he created (“The heavens declare the glory of God”, Psalm 19:1). In the study of God’s creation, scientists have discovered tremendous wonders that reach far beyond what the Bible describes—things like quarks, neurons, and galaxies. Scientists have also discovered abundant evidence of the long history of the universe and of life (including people), which you can read elsewhere on this site. It is crucial that Christians consider this evidence because it comes from God’s own handiwork in the natural world. Since we believe that nature declares God’s glory, we cannot stop listening to the created order when it declares something that seems new to us.
See the category of questions on God’s action in the natural world
At BioLogos, we view evolutionary creation as a description of how and when God brought about all the creatures on earth. We do not see God as distant from this process, for God did not just set up the universe at the beginning and let it go. Instead, he upholds the universe moment by moment, sustaining all things by the power of his word. The regular patterns in nature that we call natural laws have their foundation in the regular, faithful governance of God (see Jeremiah 33:19-26). Thus we believe that God created every species and did it in such a way that we can describe the creation process scientifically. The scientific model of evolution does not replace God as creator any more than the law of gravity replaces God as ruler of the planets

LINK....http://biologos.org/questions/why-should-Christians-consider-evolutionary-creation

AboveAlpha

 

No as I stated I am an Agnostic and I am NOT RELIGIOUS nor do I think that a GOD if existing would exist in any manner described by the major world religions.

But this BioLogos Foundation holds the views of the vast majority of Christians in the World that understand that just because something is written in the Bible does not necessarily mean it should be taken as a LITERAL FACT....quite the contrary as they KNOW....that certain PHYSICAL REALITIES show everyone that there are many stories in the Bible that can only be looked at as a MORAL LESSON.

It is very heartening to see a Christian Website like this.

AboveAlpha

 

If you leave it to other posters to judge the world will collapse.World leaders and the science world have to take actions and they have been even if majority of people will ridicule them.

Climate change is for real, man is responsible not God.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/24/opinion/costello-debate-climate-change/index.html?hpt=hp_c2
(CNN) -- There is no debate.
Climate change is real. And, yes, we are, in part, to blame.
There is a 97% consensus among scientific experts that humans are causing global warming. Ninety-seven percent!

Yet some very vocal Americans continue to debate what is surely fact.
The question is, why?
Trust certainly plays a part.
According to Gordon Gauchat, an associate professor of sociology from the University of Wisconsin, just 42% of adults in the U.S. have a great deal of confidence (PDF) in the scientific community.
It's easy to understand why. Most Americans can't even name a living scientist. I suspect the closest many Americans get to a living, breathing scientist is the fictional Dr. Sheldon Cooper from CBS's sitcom "The Big Bang Theory." Sheldon is brilliant, condescending and narcissistic. Whose trust would he inspire?

But trust isn't the only factor in why many Americans doubt climate change.
I asked Anthony Leiserowitz, the director of the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. His group has been studying the "why" question for more than a decade.
"We've found there are six very (specific) categories that respond to this issue in different ways," he said.
He calls these categories "Global Warming's Six Americas."

and science has been working hard to understand the process of creation.
http://evolvingthoughts.net/2010/09/stephen-hawking-and-the-creation-of-the-universe/

Read on.
Physicists tend to be a bit fast and loose with the “G” word. I suspect this is because physicists – especially cosmologists and theoretical physicists – think that what they are engaging with involves a direct line to reality, and that this is as close to God as one may get in this life. So Hawking, Paul Davies, and even Einstein all used the phrase “the mind of God“, causing no end of confusion.

Let’s presume for the moment that they aren’t really talking about God, but about the ultimate nature of the world. Certainly, that is what Einstein meant. So what is it that Hawking and ghost think they are denying? The key term here is “deism”.

In the scientific community, it is all right to believe in God if by that you mean something like a divine watchmaker, who wound up the world and let it run, and physicists are now finding out what the inner mechanisms are. God is a creator in the sense that the reason there is something and not nothing is that God made things. The things work according to the rules of the universe God made. This goes back to Aristotle’s notion of a Primum Mobile, a “first cause” or “first mover” (in older texts, movent).

Aristotle’s argument is this: motion is something that must be caused, because nothing moves of its own accord. The heavens move eternally, and so there must be something that is moving them, imparting all motion to the rest of the universe. Now, Newton inverted Aristotle (actually, a number of predecessors did, but Newton put it most clearly), so that motion is the default, and a change of motion needed a cause, but still, assuming that the universe was static at first, you need a prime mover to get it all going. [Contrast this to the Epicurean myth in which all was in motion from the start, and a random swerve caused collisions that ended up causing all of us. They had a purely mechanical account of causation, apart from that swerve.]

So prime mover became first cause, and that led rather directly to the development of deism in the 18th century as the default view of an educated person, especially a scientist. God was the geometer, the clockwork maker, who set up the conditions from which everything evolved (in the traditional sense of “unfolded&#8221. Laplace, who famously said of the role of God in an orbital stability problem, “I have no need for that hypothesis”, proposed a “Demon” that, with sufficient cognitive ability, could predict everything from a knowledge of initial states and the laws of physics.

 

I have been answering but you have been ignoring my question.

From climate change and global warming.

Was there anything mention in Genesis 6:5 about world wide kid eating frenzy or about innocent babies and children being killed by God?

I will keep asking you because you want to know the answer and I can give you a ligical and scientific answer if only you will answer my question so here it is again. Does Genesis 6:5 mention anything about world wide kid eating frenzy or about innocent babies and children being killed by God?
We can talk about pasta on some other thread for now let us concentrate on this particular subject Genesis 6:5. So for the third time does Genesis 6:5 mention anything about world wide kid eating frenzy or about innocent babies and children being killed by God? Or do you agree with Alpha that there were innocent kids and babies being killed by God at Noah's flood?

 

You forgot to mention that humans were created in the image of God not apes and that humans are not apes nor apes are humans.

Amen now do you believe that God exist and that all living and none living things were created according to their own kind humans to humans and apes to apes.

 

I am intrigued by BioLogos. I'm not prepared to say that I'm all-in with their beliefs. I'm still learning. At this point my main contention is that someone has to come up with a theory for "arrival of the fittest" in order for anyone to accept that humans didn't evolve. If not, the alternative is really just faith in a miracle, which takes us out of the realm of science.

Since I believe in the supernatural world, not just God, but principalities and powers of darkness that do rule our world; it is wholly probable and likely in my view that God did create man, in his own image, from the dust. He then created woman, from man's rib. You will NEVER be able to scientifically validate this one-time miraculous event. So why try?

 

I don't like using absolutes, but it will never happen by man to cause flooding to a depth of over 5 miles.
If there was a noah world flood, why are we still here? The earth wasn't destroyed then. It even took a meteor hit, earth is still here.

 

You and Mitt have been educating us on how children and babies are innocent until some age.
It is you who then say, innocents were killed in the flood, until you change your story and say, adults ate all the children so no innocents were left.

 

Do YOU believe all the babies that God killed in the Flood were evil?

- - - Updated - - -

This is why the line "I do not think about things I...er...do not think about"....was so striking in the film "Inherit The Wind". "Drummond" (Spencer Tracy) raised questions...USING the Bible....that Literalist "Brady" (Fredric March) had never even thought about, much less could answer....

leaving "Brady" to look like a rambling fool.

 

Base on that argument men have already achieve the capability to destroy three Nagasaki with one blast that is more than the 5 miles depth cause Noah's flood men have more than one of those super nukes.
You have great faith in man to be good and not destroy this planet that I tip my hat and pray that is the case unfortunately we have witness that man have been behind countless destruction of nature, animal habitat, environmental destruction and mass killing of fellow men.

The earth wasn't destroy that is why the flood receded and Noah and the survivors in the Ark continue on to repopulate this planet. Meteor or nuclear holocaust earth might still be here a planet that is probably to become uninhabitable to living things?

Nope not me it was your friend Alpha that kept claiming and then you and the rest start to echo the same disinformation that innocent babies were killed during the Noah flood. And that you and your group still continue to ignore or refuse to answer does Genesis 6:5 said anything about innocent babies and children? If not why do you guys keep insisting there are?

 

1 Samuel 15:3 mentions killing babies and children. Did God get MORE evil and infanticidal AFTER the Flood???

 

Read Genesis 6:5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

According to Genesis 6:5 there were no babies don't you agree.

- - - Updated - - -

1 Samuel 15:3

Is different from Genesis 6:5 let us first settle Genesis 6:5 then we'll move to 1 Samuel 15:3
So do you agree no babies in Genesis 6:5