Evolution Vs Creation

[Hambone]

"Thou Shalt Not Kill"

Um, I can kind of see how that can be taken as killing is bad. Kind of. Clearly.

[Fatty]

Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer....

 

You know, my father told me that many times as I grew up and by golly I'm not sure how many times I've been able to use it, but I'd like to take this time to thank Dad!

[Hambone]

So, what's wrong with my idea? I've heard more uncreative question dodging in the past 10 posts than in my life. Give me an answer; incororparate Christian doctrine where relevant.

[Fatty]

Tell you what. I like your idea. Give it a shot. Start with me.

[Hambone]

Heh heh. So eager to die first are you? You mistakenly equate my post for my personal thoughts. Once again, however, you avoid the question. Tell me why my idea is bad. Repititious attempts at wit don't qualify.

[Fatty]

I will not even bother. You can type "wait" or "go" all you want, but at this point, you've lowered this argument beneith where I need bother going. For a while, I was very impressed by your ability to debate, and actually very interested in continuing. At this point, however, if your question of "why doesn't a person who kills everyone become like Jesus" is, in your mind, still a question needing answered, then I guess someone else will have to stoop.

 

I'm not avoiding the question, I'm choosing to ignore it. Now, it's my turn to wait until the others involved in this post raise the bar back up where it was.

[Hambone]

You responded like a 4 year old to my hypothetical situation I asked you to disprove. Way to go. The bar has dropped: you dropped it on your jugular when you tried to pick up more than you can handle. It's not an overly complex situation. Why it scares you so much is a mystery.

[Fatty]

. . .

[Guest Bob]

To Bob re: the flood.

 

I agree with what this person says:

 

Thus, there is a conflict between Egyptian chronology as generally interpreted and the Biblical records. Neither the first dynasty of Egypt nor the pyramids could have existed before the flood. If the Bible is historically reliable, as I believe it is, then there must be a mistake in the usual interpretation of Egyptian chronology which needs to be reduced by centuries.

 

The issue is clear. An acceptance of the present chronological interpretation of Egyptian history, and a rejection of the Biblical chronology, opens the door to skepticism of the rest of the early Biblical records, including the record of the Creation of the world in six days. But if Egyptian chronology can be shown to be flawed, a major obstacle to the acceptance of the Bible records is removed, and the Genesis history stands justified.

 

That is taken directly from: Searching for Moses, by David Down

 

Ok, now what we're left with is two documents that say something that conflicts.  For one to be true, the other must be flawed.  Do we have evidence that states the translation of Egyptian history has been done perfectly so as to prove the Bible flawed?  Can we say for sure either way?

The problem with this argument is there is overwhelming evidence of Egypt going about it's daily business during the time of the great flood. On one hand you have the Bible, a written account of a great flood. On the other hand you have a written and oral history dating the Egyptians from around 6500 BC to 3100 BC, around 3100 BC the written histories, the literature and the different dynasties are all accounted for up until the present. If even one account of a great flood, or even a discrepency in the dynast timeline occurred, I might say there were a possibility of a worldwide flood. Nothing has ever turned up, they have a solid history from around 4000 BC (if not further back, depending on your trust in mainstream science and archaeology) to the present.

 

 

If there were one discrepancy, I'd be easier to convince, but there isn't any. The egyptians invented the 365 day calendar around 2700 BC, so both the dates on their records and our dating can't be that far off.

 

While I was looking around I found this article

Noah's Ark-A sinking ship

 

I know it's a tad inflammatory, but it does raise some interesting questions as to the possiblilty of a global flood. Take a look and let me know your opinion.

[Dennis]

im guessing no one has found a version of the bible saying jesus was a pimp did they?

 

anyway guys keep it up this is getting really interesting i am learning a lot from all this to tell u the truth

[Hambone]

I'm pretty sure he wasn't. So much for go forth and multiply.

[Guest Bob]

You know, I enjoy a good debate, Fat and Rev have both made me at the very least take a step back and re-evaluate my opinions in the past and during this debate.

 

I don't agree with them, but I respect their opinions and beliefs. I'll toss up some evidence that jibes with my opinion (only if I can agree it's not horse apples), they reply and an eye-opening conversation takes place. Maybe no one actually is converted, either way, but we kill some time and learn something.

 

This particular thread has become nothing, not thought provoking, not worth a pile of the afore mentioned horse apples. Ham, you need to take a step back and maybe get some help for whatever caused you to hate so much at such a young age, or, stop trolling just to cause problems. Whichever it is, I hope you do it soon. This is coming from someone who AGREES with your evidence, just not your attitude.

 

I'm done with this good for nothing thread.

[Fatty]

Yes, Ark had to be huge, and yes, a very sarcastic article.

 

Here's one to hold up against it:

 

 

How Did All the Animals Fit on Noah's Ark?

 

Very interesting reading.

[Hambone]

Ugh. Don't quote me on this, but sorry for being a butt. I'm angry. I'm not a fan of restraint personally. That's my attempt at an apology.

[ConGregation]

Ill TAKE IT!

 

I agree with Bob. The thread has no value.

[Hambone]

Ok then, here's something for ya.

 

All cells do respiration. Respiration (not as humans call it) refers to the process by which all cells make energy, in the form of the universal currency A(denosine) T(ri) P(hosphate). Specifically, a process called gylcolysis (glyco - glucose, lysis - splitting). This begins when a glucose is hydrolyzed into 2 pyruvate molecules, acids and the synthesis of ATP. Two coenzymes (NAD+) are reduced during this process. All cells do this. This pathway alone is inefficient, and nature loves efficiency. The problem with this is that all the coenzyme would be converted, and the cell would stop making ATP, and die. At this point, cells take one of three known pathways. Alchohol fermentation (think yeast), Anaerobic/Lactate (think oxygen deprived muscle), or Aerobic (think humans). All three have one thing in common, they all oxidize the coenzyme so it can be used for glycolysis again. The process can continue with a new glucose molecule. The three pathways show something interesting. Cells that do alchohol fermentation typically are not cells favored for evolution. Alchohol fermentation kills the cells eventually in a closed container. Anaerobic Pathway causes buildup of lactic acid. The aerobic pathways requires huge amounts of ATP just to keep the oxygenic medium moving, but it is infinitely more efficient. These are the cells that evolved. To reiterate a fact though, all cells start the same way. No matter how complex, or how simple, all cells start their respiration process the exact, same way. Every cell is related, if by nothing else, cell respiration. Comments?

[ConGregation]

Nice post, Ham!

 

Interesting stuff. But the Creationist is only going to come back with design vs evolution. Basically that God could have designed it to work that way. This is the quandary of the whole debate.

[Hambone]

One of the clichéd arguments against evolution is that say, cat + bird does not = dog. This is not false. However, as unrealistic as this argument seems, there is a simple expirement that can suggest otherwise. When a single human and a single mouse cell are removed and placed in a closed enviroment, within 60 minutes they will completely intermingle and mix. So, Human + Mouse = ? may not be entirely unrealistic.

[Fatty]

cat + dog = messed up cartoon.

[Hambone]

Complete assimilation of two unlike cells related only by phylum is a little more real than cartoon.

[Nitemare]

Christians believe in Heaven, an afterlife after this world. So, why not kill everyone in the entire world? Send them all to Heaven, you'd be a hero. Of course, it's a sin to kill. But Jesus suffered for all of mankind apparently, so if one man thinks he has what it takes to kill everyone and accept sin and punishment, would he not be a Messiah? By killing everyone you send them all to Heaven, if you truly believe that. The man who sends you is your Savior, accepting sin to better your existence.

I guess I'll "stoop" to answer this question.

 

Since there is no "simple" answer to this here comes the essay.

 

To fully answer this question you must understand the true reason Christ came to Earth. In the OT(Old Testament) Man had no direct relationship with God like we do in the NT(New Testament). The relationship between man and God was one of sacrifices and covenants. This is why you see angles visit people so often in the OT.

 

Jesus came to Earth to fullfill the prophecy which IS the OT.Throughout the entire OT you can see the fortelling af a Messiah. The one who would come to redeem the Earth. Jesus wasn't forced to come to Earth he had a choice. Do you think it was a cake-walk for him...of course not. He was as much Diety as he was human. You can see in the Garden of Gethsemanie Jesus praying to God asking if there was another way.

 

You ask, Why not kill everyone and be known as a savior. The dictionary definition of savior is:

 

1) One that saves from danger or desctruction.

2) One who brings salvation

 

Let's examine definition 1. To save from danger or destruction....kill everyone does not = save from danger or destruction. If that's not enough I will continue.

 

Definition 2. To truly understand this we must know what salvation is.

 

Dictionary Definition for Salvation

 

1) a: Deliverance from the power and effecct of sin b: the agent or means that effects salvation (Digressing for a moment aren't you not supposed to use the word in it's own definition???) c: the realization of the supremacy of infinite Mind over all bringing with it the destruction and illusion of sin, sickness, and death

2) Liberation from ignorance or illusion

3) a: Preservation from destruction or failure b: deliverance from danger or difficulty

 

Ok, that alot to cover. Well to paraphrase the deffinition salvation is being saved from hardship(including death). Hmmmm, once again a savior could not be one who runs aroung killing people.

 

Now, you might want to examine the sinful part of this. Why can't someone who has sinned be a savior of man. First of all(and this will cover the Cain offering vs Able offering) a sacrifice must be pure. In the old testament when you sacrificed something to God it had to be pure, only the finest of gifts. This is why Able's offering was accepted and Cain;s was not. Able offered the best he had and Cain gave his left-overs to God.

 

A pure offering eh?? Well, being as much Diety as man, Jesus couldn't exactly come to earth and start sinning because then he is no longer an acceptable offering, and no longer a perfect Diety.

 

At this point it all seems like ramble so I'll refresh what I'm adressing

 

So if one man thinks he has what it takes to kill everyone and accept sin and punishment, would he not be a messiah?

 

No. Jesus was not here on Earth to sin for man, but to suffer for man's sin. He chose to come to Earth, fullfill the prophecy, die by man, descend to Hell in man's place, and rise again to take his rightfull place at the right hand of God, as the savior of mankind.

 

If there is anything in here that you need more clarification on I would be happy to get scripture to back it up.

[Fatty]

Complete assimilation of two unlike cells related only by phylum is a little more real than cartoon.

Have you lost the ability to sense a joke now? Although, all things being equal, cat + dog DOES = a messed up cartoon.

[Nitemare]

He just like to sound smart. BTW i agree, cat+dog = messed up cartoon.

[Hambone]

Thanks Nitemare. That's all I wanted was a reason why my idea was wrong. You did it, yay. Here's another question I want to ask, not particularly related to Creationism, however.

 

Souls. There's alot of words about souls in Christianity. What, exactly, is a soul then? I asked one of my Christian friends this, and he said it's something incorporeal. When then, does one obtain a soul? At birth? At conception? If at conception, does the mother carry half a soul and a father the other half? What about artificial conception? Does a soul have mass? Anything real has mass, right down to photons. So, if a soul is real, scientifically it has to have mass. Then, when a soul is to be tortured, how does it feel pain? Neurons that translate pain are massive objects. Does a soul go into Hell and recreate the person? How can it do that without any form of genetic material? I liked your answer to my first question, so I'll be interested to hear thoughts on the soul. I'm a mathematical person, in case you couldn't tell.

[soul .gc]

If you are looking for proof of the Soul you will not find it. It, like belief in a higher power, requires Faith. Actually, your view on evolutionism requires faith as well since no one can prove factually how the galaxy was formed.

 

My thoughts are that each person has a soul at the time of birth. The soul develops as the person does, adjusting and defining the person as the person themself defines the Soul. The Soul is not the genetic code of the person but the spiritual makeup of the person. There is no mass in my opinion since it is incorporeal.

 

I am not here to prove to you the existence of my soul, just to say that I believe I have one.