If God will do some "tricks" for you, you'll listen? I don't believe you. You will not even dialogue with someone about the subject. You cannot discuss even one issue w/o trash-talking the person. Just my opinion but religious discussion brings out a huge emotional response in you and you cannot control it.
This is again avoiding the issue. No old earth creationist believes that NO evolution occurred. Of course, evolution changed the Galapagos finches and some of the animals on Australia and biston bistularia, etc. But this is not the issue. The issue is the Cambrian Explosion, cartiliginous fish to non, amphibian to reptile, reptile to mammal, reptile to bird, mammal to whale/bat/etc. All of these supposedly occurred in a VERY short periods of time: less than 10 million years by secular estimates. This is the dirty secret of mutational and natural selection: the earth is way, way, way too short of a time frame for the quantum leaps that have taken place on this planet. That is why brilliant minds like Stephen Gould searched for a puncuated equilbria, a way to accelerate Darwinism along. And what archaeologist would not admit that there are huge gaps in the fossil record? When you say that there are no major problems, you are contradicting even what major Darwinists are willing to admit...
so you agree "some" evolution ocurred in some places but that's it? RIIIIIIIGHT. more like, it's constantly happening all over the place at all times and has been happening for millions of years. that's another reason religion is so strong--too few can (or are willing to) really grasp the science of things. religion is an easy (incredibly weak) universal cop out for anything that requires and effort to understand. i'm not avoiding anything. i'm just not going to get into explaining the intricacies of evolution on ET. the information is out there if you are willing to find it. as i said, buy those evolution DVDs and read some books about this.
Wow, that is probably the most over-generalizing, uneducated, ignorant statement that you have made to date. Who are *YOU* to tell the rest of the world's population what is and is not acceptable to believe? Your egotism is outstanding. Do you actually believe that everything you believe is correct and billions of people who believe in a religion are weak people? You really should study some history. To assume that any theological belief within a person makes that person weak is probably the most asinine statement you could make. Evolution is a property of physics where systems are constantly competing in an environment with limited resources. During such time, certain systems exhibit traits that tend to give their offspring advantages, and these offspring will then have a greater chance of surviving until the cycle is repeated again. Systems also have emergence properties. That means that a large system will exhibit characteristics not found in any of its subcomponents. However, what does evolution have to do with God? The two certainly aren't mutually exclusive. It is very possible that something got all of this underway and created physics in the process to maintain organized systems in such a way that they can evolve and reach higher orders of complexity. I do believe in a God. I also understand that my belief in God is beyond the ability to prove in a way that a non-believer (read atheist) would accept. However, the great thing about *MY* belief is that I don't feel the need to convert anyone, and my belief structure works very well for my life. I'd suggest you keep an open mind about these things. You're playing with very high stakes. Gordon, if you short God, you just may get a margin call you can't handle. I'd drop the egotism and start asking yourself the most fundamental questions. If you ask yourself these life questions and you come up with a solid answer before you are dead, you haven't thought enough about the subject. Peace out.
what's up with all the evolution / creationism banner ads on the top of this page ?? looks like google's got some new marketing software. :eek: surfer
as i did say previously, i am willing to accept any truth--no matter what it is. i do not deny that it is possible a higher being created us. make no mistake, i do not assume that to be true, though, until facts indicate that. what i WILL claim is that IF there is a "god" that created us, NO CURRENT EXPLANATION BY MAN IS ANYWHERE CLOSE TO THE TRUTH. in other words, a god may or may not exist, but i can say with 99.99999999999% certainty, all man made religions are probably false.
What I don't understand is how you can use the "lack of evidence" arguement against theists in their attempt to "prove" god's existence, yet you are 99.99999999% sure that all man made religions are probably false. Where are *YOUR* facts?
click on this link and ask yourself if man knows the true origin of the universe. it's obvious we don't (ridiculous that i have to point this out). here are *MY* facts: http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/scienceopticsu/powersof10/
Well, that's what the reference books say. Platonian philosophy crept into late Hebrew and late Christian theology. The leading religious sects at the time of Jesus were being hyper-criticized by Jesus, so I think the Bible paints a picture that these religious leaders were on the wrong side of the market, so to speak The Hebrew scriptures are quiet about an afterlife, as you've pointed out, because it wasn't their belief that people survived death at all. But the question you raise is if the passages you cited teach that there is an afterlife, esp. is there a surviving-death immortal soul that travels to heaven at the time of the person's death? Let's look at those passages. In Ecc 12:7, the Hebrew word translated as "spirit" is "ruach", not the same as the Hebrew word used for "soul". The spirit is not the soul. It's a different thing. You'll note that other passages refer to both spirit and soul, obviously inferring a distinction between the two (Heb 4:12, for example). In Hebrew, "Ruach" means air, breath, wind, power, animation. A different definition that that for soul, or "nephesh". "Ruach" is a force, not a bodiless person. It's what the Bible says God "breathed" into Adam to make Adam *become* a living soul (Gen 2:7). What it doesn't say is that God blew a "soul" into Adam's nostrils to create in him an embodied "spirit", which would have been more in harmony with the thought that man has an immortal soul, if that were what scripture taught. The same word "ruach" is applied to both animals and people in Eccl 3:22, as you've noted. The distinction that passage makes however is that after death there is a prospect that does not apply to animals, who otherwise share this same ruach, this same life animation with mankind. But does that necessarily mean an immortal soul is at work and flies off to heaven? Consider other passages that speak of when a person dies and their ruach, such as Ps 146:4. "His spirit ("ruach") goes out... in that day his thoughts do perish (Ps 146:4). A person's thoughts, their likes, dislikes, memories, et al, these important things that make a person a person, perish, they do not continue in another realm. If the person's thoughts perish when he loses his spirit/ruach/life animation, then obviously if there were a bodiless spirit creature surviving the death, according to this scripture, it wouldn't be the person anymore, it would be a vegetable. This does not harmonize with an immortal soul concept. What then is meant by declaring that the ruach "goes upward" if there is not a travelling immaterial soul? I'd suggest that rather than try to justify a premise that is not stated anywhere in scripture, consider instead the very plainly stated multiple scriptures that speak of the Judeo-Christian premise that God will remember the dead in the resurrection. This promise of a later renewal back to life (not a promise of surviving the death experience ) is not accorded to dead animals but only to mankind, and hence the distinction between the two eventualities ("upward and downward") even though both humans and animals share the same "one spirit" (Ecc 3:19). In fact, doesn't that same passage plainly state that "all are returning to the dust" when they die? So then what can be meant by "his spirit ("ruach") returns to God who gave it?" When Christ was dying, it's written in Luke 23:46 that he cried out "Father, into your hands I entrust my spirit, and when he had said this, he died." Well now, the bible plainly states that Jesus didn't go to heaven right then and there, in fact, that he was in "hell" for 3 days following his death, and resurrected only after that back to life on earth. Further, that he didn't ascend into the heavens until some 40 days later. So if his "spirit" didn't return to God at the time of his death, what did he mean? In complete accordance with the other scriptures mentioned herein, wasn't he saying that he entrusted his "ruach", his life animation, his opportunity to be resurrected and his only chance of life again, to be in the hands of his Father (God)? You quoted the passage that said God is the 'giver' of the spirit. It's evidently his to give. Likewise, its "return" to God also denotes that this life force belongs to him and Jesus' death cry underscores his hope and the theological point that the prospect of life returns to God who has promised to give this 'life breath' (as the Catholic New Amsterdam Bible translates 'ruach') to the dead, invigorating them with life again. Man, I should've been a preacher. Open a little storefront church and ask for donations, lol. Now can I go back to trading? PS "eternal home" is a reference about going to the grave ("sheol"), not to heaven. Compare Ecc 9:10.