God

[Truther 1,579]

 

 

Has anyone suggested that we were put on earth by aliens yet?

 

Cheers, D.

 

I don't know about aliens actually "putting humans" on Earth, but lots of things do seem to suggest genetic engineering has played a part in creating us, if a "god" did do it he wasted a lot of time in the process because only 5% of human DNA is actually active as far as i know, maybe he couldn't make his mind up? Maybe one of the creationists could explain humans growing a prehensile tail to us all, as we were "made in his image" does god have a tail? He gave us a big brain but we can only use 10% of it, bit strange that? lol.

 

This ones a waste really, simply because creationists will refuse to accept the the earth was a molten ball of iron, but i think its interesting so ill chuck it out there, go to any steelworks and throw any living organism in a crucible full of molten iron, no living thing could survive, so at one time the Earth was completely sterilised, absolutely no life or anything life could evolve from, so logically whatever life came from must have come later, so in effect we must be "alien" my own thoughts are life came trapped inside ice comets, the scientists say life started in the sea, and the sea came from ice comets hitting the Earth, seems to make sense?

 

So in other words life thrives in other places in the universe,make´s sense if you come to think about it.

 

 

Sorry mate i missed this post.

 

I reckon its pretty much a cert we aren't alone, with so many stars/planets, so many universes, the odds make it an impossibility from what iv'e read?" more stars and planets than grains of sand on every beach on the Earth" it might never end? and one grain of sand with life is us lmfao, and if you believe in god (most Christians believe we are unique, i think?) god in all his wisdom, created the Earth and created humans uniquely in his image among all animals Just look round at your fellow humans and you know that's bollox surely, who the f**k would make us all religions preach peace and love every other verse but how many die where religion plays a significant role?

 

What if the real "creator" sets the test of becoming an atheist, rather than joining a religion if he was looking to find people to populate a chilled out heaven that makes perfect sense, its as valid as anything else? Think about it, eternity sat in bible class in heaven, worshipping a bloke who will burn you if you don't, or sat round a camp fire hitting a bong at a wife swapping party in "real heaven" lol.

 

Sorry tangent.

[RemyBolt 420]

 

No offence intended at all mate, i find your posts really interesting, and surprising from such a dedicated Christian. I did say in an earlier post i don't deny the possibility of a "creator" and its a complete waste of time arguing that point anyway, as is evolution, evolution of species is a fact in my opinion, where we differ(if im reading you right) is where the source of life to evolve actually came from?

 

As you brought up "mistakes" being made in the bible due to translation from ancient Hebrew i would be interested on your take on the "Elohim" question?

 

Elohim is like fish or sheep, singular and plural at the same time. It's really not something I've gotten too bogged down in. For the simple reason, singular or plural applies to God as I believe. I have already referenced the tri-union, Father-Son-Holy Spirit, representations of Body, Spirit, Soul. So I think Elohim is a more than apt term. But again, that's my interpretation of it.

[*The*Field*Marshall* 674]

Haha cheers Dep, nice to feel wanted. gnash, I'm honoured sir - thank you. Sorry been busy, tried to keep half an eye on the topic.

Dep, the Indian guy you've posted, Ravi Zacharias, is probably the number one apologist (defender of the faith) alive today, tremendously intelligent and knowledgeable, you wouldn't need to go much further than his website to find out most everything you need to know about the Christian faith http://www.rzim.org/ the lead speaker or "the fool" in the second video is R.C. Sproul, no fool in my estimation, the man is an oracle of information and a prolific writer. Regarding the word "fool" the bible says "The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” Psalm 14:1.

 

Born Hunter is right regarding Mr Berlinksi, he is more known for his philosophy, but you did say you had dyslexia? Haha. Although I would say from seeing a bit of him, he has a "top" mind.

Responding to johnny boy, excuse me for being dismissive, its a legitimate question, the Egyptians have an ancient history. . But I believe the chronology of the bible is the most ancient and accurate of all, if you know a bit (I don't know a lot) about Egyptian history and chronology, you'll know that historians have long struggled with it, it has gaps and discrepancies. On the contrary I believe the bible is a highly accurate historical document, it has been used to source historical people and places, two great secular archaeologists Nelson Glueck and William Albright both commended the bible for it's accuracy. Of course, I would say that, you got to do your own research. Anyway, I suppose your point was that there was no global flood, well the bible teaches it was global and I think there's a growing belief among the seculars that there may well have been a global flood, of course it would have nothing to do with Noah. There are stories of the flood throughout all history and cultures, its fascinating. Marine fossils on the top of mountains, I think its safe to say, there was a great flood.

 

Remy, interesting posts, you're obviously an educated man. Whilst you are quite right regarding the Hebrew language and use of the word Yom, it can indeed mean an age, but it can also mean a day. I understand you are trying to marry the belief of billions of years and the bible, that's difficult to do. . It was Deputy Dog that made the point, a legitimate one in my opinion, "How did you conclude that dinosaurs were millions of years old? It's only the evolutionists that believe that dinosaurs are millions of years old and would say the bible cant be trusted either. How do you trust one thing they say and not other??" Which also leads me to question your following statement:

 

"So the idea of the 6 day creation is...embarrassing and scientifically impossible"

 

Hmmm this statement is a little bit disconcerting. . Scientifically impossible? Coming from that view point you would also say the life of Jesus was scientifically impossible? To think, the bible states He resurrected a man from the dead (Lazarus) made a blind man see, turned water into wine. . You could go on and on, you get the point, none of those things are as you would say "scientifically possible" What do you do with that? I wouldn't limit God to anything, dare I say it, I often wonder why He took as long as week! Haha. .

 

I'm tired of stressing the point, creationists do not oppose science, we use and celebrate it everyday. We reject the idea of Darwinian evolution and deny its claims from a scientific view point.

 

Another reminder I feel must be made, our viewpoint - very important to remember, it's not necessarily what we see, but how we see it. If you believe that God made man as he is you will put your finger on end of your spine and think well, that's where it stops, that's the way I was designed. With an evolutionary view point, you'll think, this is where my tail would have been! Its the same way when you see some marvellous little creature, you could either think, well, that's evolution in progress! Or you could think, you are what you were confined to be. I'll put my trust in an unchanging God, not any man or institute. "Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men."

 

I am tired of going over same things. . Just bear in mind, we live and die, and we will be judged according to our actions and the decisions we made. We can disregard and make light of the bible and the God it acclaims, it will bear nothing on the fact that He lives and reigns and waits for us.

[RemyBolt 420]

Remy, interesting posts, you're obviously an educated man. Whilst you are quite right regarding the Hebrew language and use of the word Yom, it can indeed mean an age, but it can also mean a day. I understand you are trying to marry the belief of billions of years and the bible, that's difficult to do. . It was Deputy Dog that made the point, a legitimate one in my opinion, "How did you conclude that dinosaurs were millions of years old? It's only the evolutionists that believe that dinosaurs are millions of years old and would say the bible cant be trusted either. How do you trust one thing they say and not other??" Which also leads me to question your following statement:

 

"So the idea of the 6 day creation is...embarrassing and scientifically impossible"

 

Hmmm this statement is a little bit disconcerting. . Scientifically impossible? Coming from that view point you would also say the life of Jesus was scientifically impossible? To think, the bible states He resurrected a man from the dead (Lazarus) made a blind man see, turned water into wine. . You could go on and on, you get the point, none of those things are as you would say "scientifically possible" What do you do with that? I wouldn't limit God to anything, dare I say it, I often wonder why He took as long as week! Haha. .

Yom can mean a 12-hour day, 24-hour day, period of light, etc. But if science shows something to be right, that's just how it is. One of the reasons for the timescale issue in basic creation is carbon dating, OSL dating and pollen dating. If items older than 6000 years are documented, then we have an issue. A major issue with the theory/opinion.

 

What is the creationist view of dinosaurs? Were they in the Bible (if a Christian is reading this and says NO, check Job. Not definite, but hints to be).

 

As for the life of Jesus, more documented evidence he existed than Julius Cesaer. So that's nice to have for evidence. As for the things He did, have to be taken on faith (we can debate this another time).

[Truther 1,579]

 

 

No offence intended at all mate, i find your posts really interesting, and surprising from such a dedicated Christian. I did say in an earlier post i don't deny the possibility of a "creator" and its a complete waste of time arguing that point anyway, as is evolution, evolution of species is a fact in my opinion, where we differ(if im reading you right) is where the source of life to evolve actually came from?

 

As you brought up "mistakes" being made in the bible due to translation from ancient Hebrew i would be interested on your take on the "Elohim" question?

 

Elohim is like fish or sheep, singular and plural at the same time. It's really not something I've gotten too bogged down in. For the simple reason, singular or plural applies to God as I believe. I have already referenced the tri-union, Father-Son-Holy Spirit, representations of Body, Spirit, Soul. So I think Elohim is a more than apt term. But again, that's my interpretation of it.

 

 

Bit of a pointless question thinking about it now. A big thing for Christianity when it can be just as easily interpreted either way though mate.

[hutch6 550]

With the aid of modern medicine and medical advancements we are in fact de-evolving as a species, a simple truth. Have we reached the pinnacle of the human race? Possibly.

[gnasher16 30,063]

 

 

it makes me wonder should all species eventually become extinct given enough time and the process of natural selection......ie,there will always be something better come along...surely thats what evolution is and it cannot be stopped naturally ?

 

 

Yes, that’s the thing though mate: if something’s environment doesn’t change they don’t seem to need to evolve either.

 

Look at things like the coelacanth: they live at the bottom of the sea in an area where nothing ever changes and as a result they still look - and infact are - identical to fish from before the age of the dinosaurs.

 

 

If we spend the rest of history living the same way we do now, where would be the pressure for us to evolve?

Although I must admit that dose sound a bit boring.

 

Not sure i see that......if environmental change is needed for evolution to take place then why should it ever stop when it never has before....naturally that is.

 

Surely if evolution were to stop then living things would back right up and degenerate ( de - evolution if thats even a word ? ) .....i guess what im asking is ....are human beings the ultimate product and final goal of evolution ?....if im not wrong the fossil records indicate that 99% of all living species that ever lived are now extinct.....which my logic tells me evolution is searching for perfection and left to nature would humans be the only living things left given enough time....and given even more time.....will we also become extinct ?

 

Im not asking you for answers by the way ...just throwing a few thoughts out there.

[gnasher16 30,063]

Gnash, nothing happens now with humans naturally, as medicine has intervened. I know this may sound odd but there are people being kept artificially alive today just for the sake of it, because they can. What worries me is, to what purpose are they being kept alive?

 

TC

 

I get that im talking purely in terms of natural selection........hypothetically of course.

[*The*Field*Marshall* 674]

I certainly wouldn't argue the point with you that the world is 6000 years old Remy, as I we previously stated, no one really knows. My own view is that it is in the thousands and not millions/billions. As for carbon dating, the most accurate of the dating methods, I was under the impression from the little bit of research I done, is that it only deals with thousands and not millions of years. . As for dating methods on a whole, again I wouldn't personally pin a whole lot of trust in them, being as I understand, largely dependent on input and interpretation.

 

As for Jesus, you are right, there's little doubting the fact that He existed, but as for what He did (miracles) and who He claimed to be (God) no natural evidence could convince you of that, only by faith do we know these things. . Just as Hebrews 11:1-3 says "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the men of old gained approval. By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible."

 

On that note I'll finish by defining what faith is from a Christian perspective as it certainly isn't what most think, a notion, wing and prayer or blind. It is something you posses via a gifting from God. Ephesians 2:8

 

If this thread is coming to a finish, lets all remember, there's no malice or hard feeling, just a healthy debate. If it hasn't made us question what we believe in, then at least it will convince us all the more. Pm' welcome anytime. All the best, God bless

[Born Hunter 17,763]

With the aid of modern medicine and medical advancements we are in fact de-evolving as a species, a simple truth. Have we reached the pinnacle of the human race? Possibly.

 

Evolution theory doesn't predict de-evolution as such to my interpretation. We continue to evolve as all living life does. The only difference is that we have changed our environment with the use of technology. Different genetic factors are now selected as 'fittest'. It's a unique situation where technology forms part of our environment and where as a species we have control to change our environment and so our evolution. Perhaps not intelligently or in a planned fashion though. Our survival will probably become more dependant on managing our environment to suit our genetics as opposed to adapting our gentics through evolution to suit the environment. Nonetheless, those that are best suited to their envornment will pass on their gentics. What makes predicting how that will happen EXACTLY is the incomprehensible number of variables in such complex biological systems. Classical physics is like a toddlers shape puzzle box in comparison. That's if you believe in mainstream evolution theory of course......

[mushroom 12,883]

I can't do it but someone should put a link to the nuns on the run film when Robbie Coltran explains the trinity to Eric idle lol spectacles testicals wallet and watch lmao

[Mr Muddy 141]

 

 

 

it makes me wonder should all species eventually become extinct given enough time and the process of natural selection......ie,there will always be something better come along...surely thats what evolution is and it cannot be stopped naturally ?

 

 

Yes, that’s the thing though mate: if something’s environment doesn’t change they don’t seem to need to evolve either.

 

Look at things like the coelacanth: they live at the bottom of the sea in an area where nothing ever changes and as a result they still look - and infact are - identical to fish from before the age of the dinosaurs.

 

 

If we spend the rest of history living the same way we do now, where would be the pressure for us to evolve?

Although I must admit that dose sound a bit boring.

 

Not sure i see that......if environmental change is needed for evolution to take place then why should it ever stop when it never has before....naturally that is.

 

Surely if evolution were to stop then living things would back right up and degenerate ( de - evolution if thats even a word ? ) .....i guess what im asking is ....are human beings the ultimate product and final goal of evolution ?....if im not wrong the fossil records indicate that 99% of all living species that ever lived are now extinct.....which my logic tells me evolution is searching for perfection and left to nature would humans be the only living things left given enough time....and given even more time.....will we also become extinct ?

 

Im not asking you for answers by the way ...just throwing a few thoughts out there.

 

 

Can’t give you answers mate, just my opinion

 

It think ecosystems that don’t put pressure on life to evolve are very, very rare; that’s why only a very, very few creatures seem not to evolve.

 

I don’t think evolution is on a pre-determined path with a goal at the end.

An organism might evolve to perfection, then its ecosystem changes and it has to start over again. They’re a running fast as they can just to stay still (red queen hypothesis).

 

I do think humans are creating our own ‘managed’ ecosystems that doesn’t put pressure on us to evolve any further – stay in the image of God, as it were – I guess you could call that the ‘goal’ if you believe there was ever a goal.

 

Bloody Hell.....I think we might have just solved the meaning of life

[shepp 2,285]

Whale evolution

 

[hutch6 550]

 

With the aid of modern medicine and medical advancements we are in fact de-evolving as a species, a simple truth. Have we reached the pinnacle of the human race? Possibly.

 

Evolution theory doesn't predict de-evolution as such to my interpretation. We continue to evolve as all living life does. The only difference is that we have changed our environment with the use of technology. Different genetic factors are now selected as 'fittest'. It's a unique situation where technology forms part of our environment and where as a species we have control to change our environment and so our evolution. Perhaps not intelligently or in a planned fashion though. Our survival will probably become more dependant on managing our environment to suit our genetics as opposed to adapting our gentics through evolution to suit the environment. Nonetheless, those that are best suited to their envornment will pass on their gentics. What makes predicting how that will happen EXACTLY is the incomprehensible number of variables in such complex biological systems. Classical physics is like a toddlers shape puzzle box in comparison. That's if you believe in mainstream evolution theory of course......

 

 

This will sound horrible but with the aid of modern science numerous genetic changes are being introduced into the gene pool that simply would not have been able to 100 maybe just 50 years ago.

Going from the massive expansion of the genetic possibilities following the introduction of such things like the bicycle we now have the allowances and access for such individuals that some years ago would have been confined to a house or hospital, that now allow them the freedom to lead a life outside of such parameters which is a great thing. They provide a certain level of independence, a value of self-worth and I am all for that but does this all come at a cost long-term ultimately for the human as a species?

[Born Hunter 17,763]

 

This will sound horrible but with the aid of modern science numerous genetic changes are being introduced into the gene pool that simply would not have been able to 100 maybe just 50 years ago.

Going from the massive expansion of the genetic possibilities following the introduction of such things like the bicycle we now have the allowances and access for such individuals that some years ago would have been confined to a house or hospital, that now allow them the freedom to lead a life outside of such parameters which is a great thing. They provide a certain level of independence, a value of self-worth and I am all for that but does this all come at a cost long-term ultimately for the human as a species?

 

 

As a species we're fine, technology has only influenced us for a minute time scale. If you believe in evolution then you'll believe that 50-100 years is piss in the ocean on an evolutionary timescale. If our environment was changed by the loss of all science and tech we'd be back in a 'natural' (I hate that word) environment and be playing by the old set of selection rules again. People would be being selected by non technologically influenced factors as opposed to technologically influenced ones..... evolution goes on! .........as it is doing now.

 

In 100k years thing may be very different....... If we continue on this course of technologically adapting our environment to suit our genetics then we will just have to make sure that our scientific and technological advances and abilites progress fast enough to sustain us. Species become extinct because, as a species they havent the ability to adapt in a sustainable way to a change in environment...... on our current course of adapting our environment to suit when will we hit that point? If ever?

 

One day we'll reach a level of advancement where we have sufficient ability to manage our genetics to define our own evolutionary progress.