So You Say Prove To Me There Is A God

[marie glen]

...If all life evolved from one life form.. how many transitional life forms - living and fossil - would there be?? and why are they still "missing"? There's really only a handful of what's called possible transitional life forms.. One being the horse, which the line goes back and forth as to the size and as to the hoofs (tho I can't remember exactly how) but why would either of these characteristics 'evolve' back and forth?

People believe bacteria 'evolves' a resistance to anti-biotics. But what happens is the antibiotic kills off the nonresistant and the resistant multiply. This, as we know, is natural "selection" a separating of traits present in the dna instruction code.

Most folks believing the theory of evolution as to origins do not know the difference between macro 'evolution' (origins) and natural selection, long known before Darwin's theory. The ideas of mud to man.. or whale to land cow.. or 'flying' squirrel to bird are fAr removed and worlds away from "natural selection". Whit moths / brown moths -  where there's white lichen on the trees, the brown moths are picked off, and the white multiply. Where there is no white lichen on the trees, the opposite. Natural selection of traits present..

To a devout nonbeliever, we likely cannot "prove" the existence of God.. But more importantly, no one has ever "proven" life springing from matter.. or the universe forming somehow on its own, I don't care how sub atomic they may get.. In order for the universe to exist, there had to be a creative force.. Whether intelligent or not.. Something.
my :2c: :smile:

I believe man's adult fairy tale to be the false prophet / teacher / prophecy(!) which has caused the "falling away" of christendom from the faith which made it great.. It being the "great delusion"... jus sayin' :smile:

[CST]

I don't have a major with evolution or natural selection once it get's going but I do have a logical problem with it actually getting going.

All life on Earth supposedly evolved from one, single celled life form which multiplied by cell division so lets imagine that life form. There's one of them. Now it needs to reproduce so to do that one of two things happens:

a - it splits into two of its self completely successfully. They then split into two more each which split into two more until...

b - (one of the cells undergoes a mutation as)it splits creating either two new creatures that are identical or two new creatures that are different or one new creature and the original creature

Evolution depends on this happen but the problem seems to be that a soon as this change occurs or eventually there comes a point where both creatures has to survives but as what generation is this. What does it matter if all the life on the planet can be traced back to this one creature when it's easily perfectly possible that up to 50% of either of it could have different second generation relatives and 25% different third generation relatives. In principle the relationship could become very thin very quickly but, so far as I can tell, the theory of evolution suggests that it hasn't.

[marie glen]

Oh! I was wondering how they would get two out of one when there's only one.. and no male and female.. I forgot about the splitting cell.. :laughing7:

And every life since, from that one cell.. wow, what a "miracle"! Especially if all or even most, or some. of the changes were mutations.. as I have heard that mutations are very rarely, if ever, improvements..

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[CST]

Yeah, but the point is that thinks that aren't improvements tend to destroy the creature they're part of sooner or later that's how evolution works. But here's the thing, in a single celled organism one mutation that takes will completely change the organism into something different. This isn't true in multi-celled organisms. Presumably then the more cells and organism has the lower its propensity to evolve because there are more possibilities for it to evolve into and survive and develop when it is single celled. While in multi-celled organisms there are lots of potential mutations that just won't be situated to do anything at all and, probably, many more possibilities of those.

[marie glen]

Mutations can come about either by mistakes in cell copying of itself (replication, as we always need new cells) and by environmental causes? Or by losing genetic info, or inserting new info..?

I found many sites listing the idea of beneficial mutations.. but isn't the genetic code subject to the 2nd law of science, the law of entropy stating all matter tends toward entropy/falling apart..?

Is this the crux of the whole matter? In the theory of evolution as origins of life and variation of life, how does all the improvement occur if one of the natural laws most affecting everything is the 2nd law of science/entropy? ...that both matter and communication (which the dna code is both) break down over time (and w/ communication, space/distance) - as the grade school experiment of starting a sentence at one end of class whispered and passed along to each classmate, until the last, and comparing the two as to its accuracy or breakdown.. (I'm sure there's some sort of technology which overcomes this to a degree, what with our iphones, etc! but I haven't a clue what that might be!)

I did a google search for sites listing "positive mutations" but to me is the question, are these actually mutations? or variations? (Variation being separation of traits present, but mutation being loss of, or adding of, information? or is the adding of information, really simply variation of traits present? or change in information, by dropping a letter (so to speak).. One such page - http://bigthink.com/daylight-atheism/evolution-is-still-happening-beneficial-mutations-in-humans

But I like this page, I'm currently reading today, in between lawn mowing and other chores :gsmile:
https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/mutations/are-mutations-part-of-the-engine-of-evolution/

    :Peace2: :girlheart:


P.S. - "So You Say Prove To Me There Is A God" --- Prove to me there isn't God! :laughing7:

[CST]

It's the Second Law of Thermodynamics I believe you are referring to and it doesn't scientifically mean all matter grades towards decay it's just uses allegorically as such because that tends to be our experience on the macroscopic level. Our experience is that the propensity for replication failure increases across the board as we all get older. But that, of course, doesn't stop them happening when we're younger.

Entropy deals with the concept that the universe is a closed system and contains a finite amount of energy which is used up in work. Energy cannot be created or destroyed but only changed from one form to another is the Law for the Conservation of Mass/Energy so the idea is that energy can neither enter or leave the system.

But it can be used up to reach a state that it can no longer be used for work when there is no longer enough energy to do any work we will have reached a state called 'the heat death of the universe' where basically nothing can happen anymore because the energy in the universe can't be used to do anything.
Entropy describes the propensity for the universe to do this. In short the energy in the universe runs down the hill but has no way of running back up the hill afterwards.

Grade school game? You mean Chinese Whispers don't you. Fascinating to get onto that as an example.

Not sure how many examples you'll find of 'positive' mutations. I continue to hold that the identification is rather subjective on things like that.

[GodIsLove]

Personally, I know this isn't an evolution debate page, but for now I want to throw it out there for others reading this that may feel the same:

I believe in evolution GUIDED by God. There's no way it is all random chance and mutations but rather that an intelligent creator is guiding it all.

For example, how each species has adapted to its climate and environment as well as how it exists in a perfectly symbiotic relationship with all of the other plants, animals, insects, even bacteria etc.

Interestingly, I have been pondering the "punishments" of Adam and Eve. Eve was punished by having to endure painful childbirth. Well scientifically humans do have much more difficult labors and deliveries because our skull size is large compared to our pelvis (walking upright and larger brains)--well what if this was when God endowed humans with larger brains to know good and evil. So not a punishment of having to endure pain in childbirth but a consequence of knowing good and evil, which animals do not.

And Adam's punishment is essentially to have to farm for food, which is also a consequence of greater knowledge than the animal kingdom. Animals must just hunt and forage, but farming, while difficult, is also beneficial (can ensure survival, begin to produce excess food to store for later to protect against famine, some can farm while others can do other tasks within the tribe).

So I have been entertaining the idea that this is when humans were created out of the animal kingdom by God, and set apart on a journey to learn good from evil in a process of ongoing creation versus creation as a one time event.

[marie glen]

CST, I never heard it called "Chinese Whispers"! How interesting! :smile:

   I was rather fascinated once, listening to an "intelligent design" scientist talking about origins.. I always remember just this little part of it. He was talking about how the debate 'evolves' ( :laughing7: ). Intelligent design/creationists said it is in the natural order that matter erodes, not improve. (I don't fully get the 1st law of science, somehow matter and energy are interchangeable? tho that may be the wrong word! the amount of energy stays the same, it just changes?)

So then, the evolutionary scientists said "well, energy coming into the system, changes things. The sun (for instance?) superseded the law of entropy long enough for life to form."

So what's the intelligent design scientist, on the dvd I was watching, do? He plucked a leaf off a tree. Then he said "set this leaf in the sunlight and what will happen to it? While it is on the tree - alive - it will use the energy of the sun (I can't think of the right word) and produce energy.. or nutrient.. aka, improvement. But if you pluck it off the tree and it no longer is alive, the sun will burn it. It will disintegrate it.

[...wait.. what.. if there's no life, it will burn.. hmmm, thinking of other threads..]

The leaf is like a compost pile. I've never had a compost pile, but I know it heats up, gets very hot. Everything sort of burning as it all breaks down. And you want the compost pile to be in the sun.

I really enjoy watching such dvd's. I watched a really good debate one on youtube. I think it's still there. But it's 3 hours long! But boy is it ever good! Ken Hovind and someone... I want to watch the one with Ken Ham and Bill Nye.

I read two pages on the www.answersingenesis.org site today, well, i'm still reading the second one. I haven't visited answers in genesis for a long time, I forgot how much I like reading these sorts of information.

Today I read how if there was oxygen in the atmosphere when the first biocells formed (wrong word again?) the oxygen would have burned them up unless they had a survival mechanism for protection form it. And if there was no oxygen, which oxygen makes up the ozone, then ultra violet rays would burn it up.. (And water breaks apart amino acids.. so life forming originally in the ocean..?)

It's kind of sad (actually very sad) that the only thing that has been taught in public education is man's current theory (which is losing water all the time) and in the universities has been exclusively taught even longer.. (yep, then we had the animal house type movies.. talk about change to the culture -the false prophet gives birth to the flood of the harlot which ruins the earth all 7 continents (imo)

As a scientist if you don't toe the line as far as evolution, you won't get any of your papers published.. ("peer" pressure!) may even find yourself unemployed. And as a public school teacher.. well..

I'm going to reread those answers in genesis dot org pages from time to time so I can use the right words! I was in an atheist / intelligent design debate forum lately, and tho I didn't do too bad, i could surely do better.. However, I think i did do a tad better than some others who kept threatening the atheists with 'hell'! :mshock: :faint: Thank Yahweh for a sense of humor! ("The Divine Comedy"!) I do surely like to tell folks about 1 tim 4:10! or another and so far I've not been kicked off or blocked..

https://answersingenesis.org/origin-of-life/can-natural-processes-explain-the-origin-of-life/
https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/mutations/are-mutations-part-of-the-engine-of-evolution/ I posted this earlier in this thread while I was reading it.. it turned out to be very good!

:Peace2: :gsmile:

p.s. - there's tons of Kent Hovind debates on youtube..!

I found answers in genesis dot org on youtube..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvEDnlH3G1c

I liked listening to this guy.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anyCaRSGJAg - Why Science Needs Faith and Faith Needs Science | Alister McGrath, PhD
by Theology, Philosophy and Science (on youtube)


GodIsLove.. that's pretty creative! It seems kind of romantic in some way.. It feels like your story takes place in Eden.. Very interesting theory! :thumbsup: :smile:

[CST]

Personally, I know this isn't an evolution debate page, but for now I want to throw it out there for others reading this that may feel the same:

I believe in evolution GUIDED by God. There's no way it is all random chance and mutations but rather that an intelligent creator is guiding it all.

For example, how each species has adapted to its climate and environment as well as how it exists in a perfectly symbiotic relationship with all of the other plants, animals, insects, even bacteria etc.

Interestingly, I have been pondering the "punishments" of Adam and Eve. Eve was punished by having to endure painful childbirth. Well scientifically humans do have much more difficult labors and deliveries because our skull size is large compared to our pelvis (walking upright and larger brains)--well what if this was when God endowed humans with larger brains to know good and evil. So not a punishment of having to endure pain in childbirth but a consequence of knowing good and evil, which animals do not.

And Adam's punishment is essentially to have to farm for food, which is also a consequence of greater knowledge than the animal kingdom. Animals must just hunt and forage, but farming, while difficult, is also beneficial (can ensure survival, begin to produce excess food to store for later to protect against famine, some can farm while others can do other tasks within the tribe).

So I have been entertaining the idea that this is when humans were created out of the animal kingdom by God, and set apart on a journey to learn good from evil in a process of ongoing creation versus creation as a one time event.

Hmm, I certainly like that thinking and don't like to reject it out of hand and in fact I'd like to embrace it in many ways. But I also have some other information to bear on some of that which I hope to come to later.

Bu do I believe in evolution guided by God? I believe in evolution as an idea of God that He has implemented and because it is a wise and good idea which He has implemented well it comes off.

However how directly guided it is I'm not so sure. Even Isaac Newton didn't like the idea of the 'tinkerer' God who had to step in every five minutes to stop His creation falling apart. That sounds like God had done a bad job and I agree.

Genesis says that on the seventh day God ended His work of creation because it was complete and I think that makes evolution a very good bet for explaining new species appearing on the planet which otherwise would have no explanation because God has told of He's stopped creating stuff.

But you said that God increased the pains of woman in labour. Yeess, I think I read somewhere (though I forget quite where at present) that that's not quite true. That's how Christians choose to interpret what the Hebrew of the Bible says but it's not actually meant to be understood that way. If I remember rightly. Certainly it's the only part of the woman's punishment which God directly take credit for. He declares "I will..." and then says He'll do it. I noticed that but it's just possible I conflating that with confirmation of the other part of the punishment where God basically seems to say woman will serve man which He doesn't take direct credit for and makes little sense because it seems to reward Adam for sinning to some degree.

At the same time though I did already find the idea of God telling the woman He'll increase her pain in childbirth as a bit off too. Increase from what? She's never given birth before how would she know? Is there meant to be some psychology here? She gives birth in torment and then wonders what it would be like if she hadn't sinned? It's very strange. I'll try and find what I think I read about the Hebrew if I can. Although maybe I've misremembered. The correlation between man's produce and women's produce certainly seems plausible.

CST, I never heard it called "Chinese Whispers"! How interesting! :smile:

   I was rather fascinated once, listening to an "intelligent design" scientist talking about origins.. I always remember just this little part of it. He was talking about how the debate 'evolves' ( :laughing7: ). Intelligent design/creationists said it is in the natural order that matter erodes, not improve. (I don't fully get the 1st law of science, somehow matter and energy are interchangeable? tho that may be the wrong word! the amount of energy stays the same, it just changes?)

So then, the evolutionary scientists said "well, energy coming into the system, changes things. The sun (for instance?) superseded the law of entropy long enough for life to form."

So what's the intelligent design scientist, on the dvd I was watching, do? He plucked a leaf off a tree. Then he said "set this leaf in the sunlight and what will happen to it? While it is on the tree - alive - it will use the energy of the sun (I can't think of the right word) and produce energy.. or nutrient.. aka, improvement. But if you pluck it off the tree and it no longer is alive, the sun will burn it. It will disintegrate it.

[...wait.. what.. if there's no life, it will burn.. hmmm, thinking of other threads..]

The leaf is like a compost pile. I've never had a compost pile, but I know it heats up, gets very hot. Everything sort of burning as it all breaks down. And you want the compost pile to be in the sun.

I really enjoy watching such dvd's. I watched a really good debate one on youtube. I think it's still there. But it's 3 hours long! But boy is it ever good! Ken Hovind and someone... I want to watch the one with Ken Ham and Bill Nye.

I read two pages on the www.answersingenesis.org site today, well, i'm still reading the second one. I haven't visited answers in genesis for a long time, I forgot how much I like reading these sorts of information.

Today I read how if there was oxygen in the atmosphere when the first biocells formed (wrong word again?) the oxygen would have burned them up unless they had a survival mechanism for protection form it. And if there was no oxygen, which oxygen makes up the ozone, then ultra violet rays would burn it up.. (And water breaks apart amino acids.. so life forming originally in the ocean..?)

It's kind of sad (actually very sad) that the only thing that has been taught in public education is man's current theory (which is losing water all the time) and in the universities has been exclusively taught even longer.. (yep, then we had the animal house type movies.. talk about change to the culture -the false prophet gives birth to the flood of the harlot which ruins the earth all 7 continents (imo)

As a scientist if you don't toe the line as far as evolution, you won't get any of your papers published.. ("peer" pressure!) may even find yourself unemployed. And as a public school teacher.. well..

I'm going to reread those answers in genesis dot org pages from time to time so I can use the right words! I was in an atheist / intelligent design debate forum lately, and tho I didn't do too bad, i could surely do better.. However, I think i did do a tad better than some others who kept threatening the atheists with 'hell'! :mshock: :faint: Thank Yahweh for a sense of humor! ("The Divine Comedy"!) I do surely like to tell folks about 1 tim 4:10! or another and so far I've not been kicked off or blocked..

https://answersingenesis.org/origin-of-life/can-natural-processes-explain-the-origin-of-life/
https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/mutations/are-mutations-part-of-the-engine-of-evolution/ I posted this earlier in this thread while I was reading it.. it turned out to be very good!

:Peace2: :gsmile:

p.s. - there's tons of Kent Hovind debates on youtube..!

I found answers in genesis dot org on youtube..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvEDnlH3G1c

I liked listening to this guy.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anyCaRSGJAg - Why Science Needs Faith and Faith Needs Science | Alister McGrath, PhD
by Theology, Philosophy and Science (on youtube)


GodIsLove.. that's pretty creative! It seems kind of romantic in some way.. It feels like your story takes place in Eden.. Very interesting theory! :thumbsup: :smile:

Really, I thought that's what it was called and what everyone called it. Mind you it does sound racist in certain context on reflection.

I can help thinking you or someone you've got some of your information from is using the term 'Law of Science' rather arbitrarily. There are lots of laws of science I don't think you can really call any the first, second, third etc. although the one you are talking about the Law for the Conservation of Mass/Energy is pretty fundamental (Mass = Matter by the way) And yes, it also suggests that energy can be turned into matter and vice versa and there's a finite amount of both which can never increase nor decrease.

If he's saying energy is coming into the system in an absolute sense he's simply wrong energy cannot enter this system of the universe, that's the law.

The word you're missing is photosynthesize but the sun won't burn the leaf very quickly or at at unless the right conditions are met. More likely the leaf will be broken down by bacteria who use it for food.

Oh, I'm with you now. He's using 'burn' as a scientific shorthand. The bacteria breaking down the leaf will eat it get its nutrients and stuff and use in for energy which hey will 'burn' in order to live on. Got it! (I think)

You don't want the compost pile to be in the Sun though you want the compost to be evenly distributed on your flowerbeds ultimately.

Things don't burn just because there's oxygen present though or else we'd all be dead now. There needs to be sufficient heat and fuel to to burn.

But it's true life often does need protect from UV rays. We certainly do but perhaps not all life whichmay be able to find some form of shelter I'm not sure.

I do think Alistair McGrath is pretty good though. I've got two of his book and read others I think.

[eaglesway]

I don't believe in evolution. I do believe in adaptation. I believe God created every creature and as conditions have changed those that could not adapt perished and those that could adapt survived to the degree they were able to adjust to their surroundings.

The one evolution scenario I have entertained at times is one that(in brief) goes like this. When man reached a certain point of development, up from the clay and from the sea, God breathed the spirit that separates man from beasts into Him(collective Adam), and so we begin.

My problem with that, is that God could have just as easily done exactly what Paul says He did.

He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, 27 that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and exist Acts 17

For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. Romans 5

For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

Adam is one man.....Jesus Christ is the second Adam, one man.

At what point, as we decide we see so much more clearly through science than by the scriptures, do we just throw out the scriptures entirely as myths, fables, proverbs and platitudes?

I don't know what that point is :o)

But I see the creation of the world in 7 periods of time to be just as likely as that He did created it all through Jesus Christ, and then caused Jesus to be born into the world He had created through a virgin, and then died and was raised on the third day, and then was raised from the dead, and then ascended to the Father's right hand from which place He is drawing all mankind to Himself for ultimate universal reconciliation and the restoration of all things.

If God can do all that, and reconcile us, and use us to reconcile and restore the rest of the world in the ages to come- He can speak the whole world into existence in 5 minutes if He wants to. I will have no problem believing it.

[CST]

Adam's spirit comes from God remember, you know that breath of life it animates Adam and every other human being that's ever lived. So what you say, if I've understood correctly, is true. But not a revelation because the spirit of Adam is spirit from God.

[CST]

No Adam fell in the flesh, remember? The Bible persistently analogizes sin as being of the flesh not of the spirit.

[eaglesway]

There are sins of the flesh and the spirit.

"A haughty spirit comes before a fall."

Arrogance, witchcraft, jealousy, envy- all sins of the spirit.

Adams sin was described by Paul as "disobedience to a diret command"

Eve's was defined as being taken in transgression though being deceived.

These seem to me to be spiritual sins.

[marie glen]

Amen.. the gnostics (collected esoteric thoughts of the nations) thought the 'blame' for life's imperfection (in life as we presently know it) was because 'spirit had fallen into matter' - rather than the claim of Yahweh that sin/rebellion was the cause and downfall. Not recognizing one's own flawed nature being the guilty party and what we need to overcome, repent and be saved from. It was instead hidden knowledge/wisdom which would save.. simply the carrying on of the original "I will"! Which likely was also the spirit of Cain's offering and all false religion since (imo. And which still holds large sway in the world.) :gsmile:

If God can do all that, and reconcile us, and use us to reconcile and restore the rest of the world in the ages to come- He can speak the whole world into existence in 5 minutes if He wants to. I will have no problem believing it.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

The world stumbles over that.. yet has no trouble believing in the 'miracle' of the universe (and life) simply coming about all on its own.. (Now there's an immaculate conception!) And still believe it when natural law would seem to oppose it, and there is no evidence to support it.. And what (some of) the Lord's people stumble over is reliance upon what men as 'authorities' think and claim. Not realizing that if instead of Adam's creation as told in Genesis, if mankind evolved from lesser life forms.. through death, and series of deaths, then it would not be true what Yahweh says, that "death came about through sin".

Implied in man's current theory, is the idea that ultimate reality is non-life, making life the anomaly, rather than death. Whereas  "In the beginning, God." (In the beginning, Life..)

[CST]

Amen.. the gnostics (collected esoteric thoughts of the nations) thought the 'blame' for life's imperfection (in life as we presently know it) was because 'spirit had fallen into matter' - rather than the claim of Yahweh that sin/rebellion was the cause and downfall. Not recognizing one's own flawed nature being the guilty party and what we need to overcome, repent and be saved from. It was instead hidden knowledge/wisdom which would save.. simply the carrying on of the original "I will"! Which likely was also the spirit of Cain's offering and all false religion since (imo. And which still holds large sway in the world.) :gsmile:

If God can do all that, and reconcile us, and use us to reconcile and restore the rest of the world in the ages to come- He can speak the whole world into existence in 5 minutes if He wants to. I will have no problem believing it.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

The world stumbles over that.. yet has no trouble believing in the 'miracle' of the universe (and life) simply coming about all on its own.. (Now there's an immaculate conception!) And still believe it when natural law would seem to oppose it, and there is no evidence to support it.. And what (some of) the Lord's people stumble over is reliance upon what men as 'authorities' think and claim. Not realizing that if instead of Adam's creation as told in Genesis, if mankind evolved from lesser life forms.. through death, and series of deaths, then it would not be true what Yahweh says, that "death came about through sin".

Implied in man's current theory, is the idea that ultimate reality is non-life, making life the anomaly, rather than death. Whereas  "In the beginning, God." (In the beginning, Life..)

Hmm, makes sense except why does the Bible band on about sin being of the flesh so much. Being dead in the flesh but alive in the spirit seems a bit meaningless if the spirit can still be sinful. The phrase seems to imply it can't and as far as I know though I may have forgotten Jesus' spirit didn't did so I'm not sure that fleshy death would atone for sins of the spirit.

I'm pretty sure you may have misunderstood the application of 'death' in the Eden narrative. The story as presented is that of the man and women sinning by disobedience and then finding themselves continuing in disobedience even when they don't want to. It wasn't simply about dropping dead like they'd been poisoned which happens a lot. It's a story used for teaching about the consequences of sin and it works and there are signs it's a story. Why do people feel the need to take it as a historical treatise?

Hmm, maybe because it's a rather good story.

[eaglesway]

IMO, if one can be alive in the spirit they can be dead in the spirit.

The flesh is the carnal(natural, unrenewed/regenerated/illuminated) mind.

but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

As for you, you were dead in your trespasses and sins, 2in which you used to walk when you conformed to the ways of this world and of the ruler of the power of the air, the spirit who is now at work in the sons of disobedience. 3We all lived among them at one time in the cravings of our flesh, indulging its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature children of wrath....

Sin is spiritual, and it is tied to the flesh and the mind.

The lusts of the flesh and the pleasures of the mind....

For everything in the world--the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life--comes not from the Father but from the world.

What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us.

The understanding of the difference between the spirit of the world and the spirit that comes from God reveals the secret of righteousness and sin.

[AlfredWang]

2. Incorruptable Bodies of The Saints - I am not Catholic and I am not familiar with many Catholic beliefs and ways. But you have to admit that there is something very mystical about the fact that the bodies of saints don't decay. Look up St. Bernadette of Lourdes.

Is this "saint" word from the Bible?

[CST]

It might be, it depends which translation you're using and how broad or narrow your definition of the word 'Saint' is.

[Caffus]

Well, I know I cant make anyone believe anything on my own. But, I have no doubt and no doubt of who He is. He gives me love and life and shows me truth by life experiences that reflect the truth of scripture. So, many scriptures make sense to me now that I couldn't understand before. Especially the one that says Faith without works is dead and works without faith is dead.  I used to really wonder about that when I was an ET believer. I believe it means that true faith in the Gospel that our salvation is 100% Christ's doing 0% ours, belief that He unconditionally loves us, it produces good works as we long to please Him out of thankfulness and love. Works without faith are dead because they are done out of trying to save ourselves or to impress mankind. Makes sense to me. He is my Teacher.  :HeartThrob: 

[sheila]

He has TWO wittnesses in this world[Sodom and Egypt] the two sons of oil..even Jesus Christ the Word of God and the Holy Spirit.

   and though the Beast over come and kill their testimony in the earth...and rejoice and give 'gifts' in men to one-another.........

   and refuse them burial[cause the word of God and Holy spirit to stink with their corruption[beast mind] of it.

   a breath of ife[consume with breath of His coming] will enter them and they will stand on their feet....and a voice from Heaven

  will say ..'COME UP HERE"   God will Prove His word and testimony...many who have already died and rose and come with Him

  on the clouds of Heaven have also wittnessed this. and He proves and re-proves His faithful and true wittness unto ALL.

[sheila]

now the 'serpent' is the most subtil beast of the field....and as Paul spoke of his fear that just as he seduced Eve in the garden

so too, he would seduce those betrothed to Christ.  and he did just that..through doctrines of error to such an extent that the testimony

of the church become so divided it could not stand/through sects/denominations/false prophets etc. the kingdom of darkness

give 'gifts' of men in these various religions..and push darkness for light. Because of this when His feet touch down on the Mount

  Olive..it is cleaved in two...the narrow valley that those escape the offering of this 'strange' fire that satan caused to come down

  is between the right and left hands of  God..even the testimony of Jesus Christ/the 'word of God" and the Holy spirit..His mountain

valley goes all the way to AZEL...the place of seperation and Azazels goat.

   Mount Oliv sits between two other peaks...the Mount of corruption and the Mt Scopus..watchers...[scope]

    the scope/eyes from on High and Mt of corruption finds the garden between them.on the Mt Olive

now the garden of Paradise is between corruption and incorrupton...and God watches him that he does not practice sin.and the

  Mount of corruption has his watchers..even the fallen angels.

[sheila]

Now Paul was caught up to paradise and heard unspeakable things for his time...and he found that the splitting of the Mount Olives

was for the passage of ALL men into eternal life between the right Hand[Christ//Word of God and the left hand the Holy spirit]

   but men perverted it to their own destruction[into condemning man to et and eternal death instead of the free gift of eternal life]

   Paul also found that the will to do good was present with him..but evil also[Mt Scopus/Mt Corruption] and praised God for the deliverance

of this body undergoing this death.......Paul was seeking the first resurrection/fullness of the revelation of Christ while in this life

but it was not time[born pre-mature] for the full revelation in his time...and they are not perfected apart from those who are His at His

coming. Paul was seeing as a glass darkly NOT because of any failing on his part..but that it just wasn't time for all things to be revealed

and what was revealed to him in Paradise it was even unlawful to reveal much of it then[the people couldn't bear it]


   ThusJesus told His disciples that He had much more to declare to them..but they could not bear it..in His day[love does not put

more on someone then they can bear]..offspring of vipers do..heap up loads impossible to bear..even Jesus had to have a simon to

help Him bear His cross.we all need a little 'help" sometime...and the Helper of Israel[all mankind] is willing.It is time now.


    Now El-I-Jah must come again and carry us HOME..the whirlwind of the Lord seperates wheat from chaff/His Holy spiritual seed

from the flesh.This is the 'seizing' and catching away of the bride[church] the 'rapture" etc.  For deliverers will arise on Mt Zion/

God's Mountain in the clouds..on this Mountain He removes the shroud covering all men..and serves a spiritual feast/wedding

supper..of well oiled dishes..rich with marrow.  the only man thrown out of this wedding feast/has no garment..is the son of

perdition/adversary...even his spirit that possesed man's body. him that wrecks the temple of God[mankind made for His spirit to dwell]

  God will destroy.When God gave Grace to man..satan was Not to touch him..what you do unto one of these least that

believe in me..you do to me. His attack was NOT at God's command..and he will even fall on account of you....God will cause them to

bow at your feet..and cause them to know that He has LOVED ALL MEN..HIS WHOLE CREATION.

[Jason]

Hi all,

I have to be honest and say this thread could do with people taking some 101 classes in science and in particular evolution.  You have to offer more than 'Gee look at all this neat stuff in the universe - I have no idea how it all works so God must have done it'.

As a non-believer I have spent many years studying faiths (with emphasis on Christianity) and have at least read and studied all the books in the Bible many times over - I would at least expect the same kind of familiarity by the Christian community with the intricacies of opposing views to their own.

Here is a link to a Christian web site that explains why many scientific concepts that Christians generally disagree with (and don't understand too well) are in fact correct (but that doesn't stop him being a Christian).  Mostly it deals with evolution and why flood geology is just plain wrong http://home.entouch.net/dmd/

All the best,

Jeff - The Agnostic Universalist.

You are undecided to the question of God's existence.  https://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/origin-of-life-5-questions/#?insight[search_id]=a87e8420-1ada-495a-b1b1-e533c3413756&insight[search_result_index]=2 would be a good start on just some basic facts about the complexity of life... that said, I'm not a young earth creationist (I'm a UR proponent) or anything like that, it's just a decent book that may perhaps convince you that life was designed...

Another point that could easily be made is the law of entropy pretty much guarantees that life would never start of its own accord, if you look at a computer you know it's designed, and it breaks down over time, so does every single thing that man has ever made, as well as your body (which was literally built in your mother's womb, you can't deny that fact), and then it would seem extremely odd if all life comes from life and is literally built by life itself, why would it be any different at the beginning?

So evolution isn't even part of the picture here (sure, micro-evolution is a fact, macro-evolution is a stupendous leap of faith, quite similar to believing in God - you may as well believe in God if you believe in evolution), the question is rather, "Did God create the first humans or not?" - to which the law of entropy says, "Absolutely.  If not, then the amount of miracles that had to occur (without God) for life to occur may as well just concede that God exists." - to which you could say, "Oh, it's just a huge chain of tiny little accidents that all just happened to occur at exactly the right time, BEFORE the law of entropy could destroy the products thereof.  Even though naturally matter tends to become more disorganized and chaotic over time (it breaks down), the opposite accidently kept happening in this case.  DON'T FORGET that it "evolved" over millions or billions of years (thus violating the law of entropy the entire time).  Even though a person, for example, lives and dies in about 70 years (and reproduces after its own kind), the first "cells" accidentally came together, learned how to reproduce themselves, decided that they would become all the myriad forms of life, then mass-produced themselves, and FINALLY all these "cells" each decided what they would be, one group decided that they would turn themselves into elephants, another group decided that they would become salmon" - OH, OOPS, the "cells" didn't decide... IT WAS ALL ONE BIG ACCIDENT!!!" - IN FACT, some of those "cells" are accidentally TYPING THIS MESSAGE RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!! LOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL - forgive me (I mean... forgive THE CELLS - that's all that's typing here, an accident) - according to evolutionists  :LH: - Sorry, I'm really not trying to make fun of you, but even just the amount of physical evidence you have to ignore is just... unfathomable - like God's love.

[marie glen]

Amen Jason! I thoroughly enjoyed reading your post! :goodpost: :2thumbs: It's very true.. for Life to spring forth out of nonlife (or for the universe to spring forth from nothing) is an immense immaculate conception!

Jeff - The Agnostic Universalist's link no longer works, nor its original w/o the specific page.. But I like the handle "agnostic universalist" :gsmile:

[CST]

Hi all,

I have to be honest and say this thread could do with people taking some 101 classes in science and in particular evolution.  You have to offer more than 'Gee look at all this neat stuff in the universe - I have no idea how it all works so God must have done it'.

As a non-believer I have spent many years studying faiths (with emphasis on Christianity) and have at least read and studied all the books in the Bible many times over - I would at least expect the same kind of familiarity by the Christian community with the intricacies of opposing views to their own.

Here is a link to a Christian web site that explains why many scientific concepts that Christians generally disagree with (and don't understand too well) are in fact correct (but that doesn't stop him being a Christian).  Mostly it deals with evolution and why flood geology is just plain wrong http://home.entouch.net/dmd/

All the best,

Jeff - The Agnostic Universalist.

You are undecided to the question of God's existence.  https://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/origin-of-life-5-questions/#?insight[search_id]=a87e8420-1ada-495a-b1b1-e533c3413756&insight[search_result_index]=2 would be a good start on just some basic facts about the complexity of life... that said, I'm not a young earth creationist (I'm a UR proponent) or anything like that, it's just a decent book that may perhaps convince you that life was designed...

Another point that could easily be made is the law of entropy pretty much guarantees that life would never start of its own accord, if you look at a computer you know it's designed, and it breaks down over time, so does every single thing that man has ever made, as well as your body (which was literally built in your mother's womb, you can't deny that fact), and then it would seem extremely odd if all life comes from life and is literally built by life itself, why would it be any different at the beginning?

So evolution isn't even part of the picture here (sure, micro-evolution is a fact, macro-evolution is a stupendous leap of faith, quite similar to believing in God - you may as well believe in God if you believe in evolution), the question is rather, "Did God create the first humans or not?" - to which the law of entropy says, "Absolutely.  If not, then the amount of miracles that had to occur (without God) for life to occur may as well just concede that God exists." - to which you could say, "Oh, it's just a huge chain of tiny little accidents that all just happened to occur at exactly the right time, BEFORE the law of entropy could destroy the products thereof.  Even though naturally matter tends to become more disorganized and chaotic over time (it breaks down), the opposite accidently kept happening in this case.  DON'T FORGET that it "evolved" over millions or billions of years (thus violating the law of entropy the entire time).  Even though a person, for example, lives and dies in about 70 years (and reproduces after its own kind), the first "cells" accidentally came together, learned how to reproduce themselves, decided that they would become all the myriad forms of life, then mass-produced themselves, and FINALLY all these "cells" each decided what they would be, one group decided that they would turn themselves into elephants, another group decided that they would become salmon" - OH, OOPS, the "cells" didn't decide... IT WAS ALL ONE BIG ACCIDENT!!!" - IN FACT, some of those "cells" are accidentally TYPING THIS MESSAGE RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!! LOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL - forgive me (I mean... forgive THE CELLS - that's all that's typing here, an accident) - according to evolutionists  :LH: - Sorry, I'm really not trying to make fun of you, but even just the amount of physical evidence you have to ignore is just... unfathomable - like God's love.

Hmm, I feel that there may a flaw in that argument at least from the perspective of traditional Christian reasoning, this argument might work well for for the existence of a god but not necessarily our God. That's because entropy is basically the scientific expression the the consequence of sin, i.e. the observation that nature tends towards decay, destruction and death.

Unfortunately, according the Christian tradition that is not native to nature (God's creation) but was introduced by Adam's reckless decision to eat from the Tree of The Knowledge of Good and Evil.

The thing about entropy is that it contradicts that thinking, entropy predates humanity and is a fundamental part of nature. If your going to accept that that nature is either flooded with death and evil even prior to our sin and was created that way by God or else the consequences of Adam's sin work multi-dimensionally through time.

Acceptation of either position makes entropy hard to use as an argument for God in the traditional sense, in the first case God doesn't traditionally behave like that if you're going to believe the second than you don't have to take anything about the current universe as historically derived at all.