Thoughts on society.....

[imported_midas]

Bloody Steve and Rasputin have taken this thread to a level beyond my knowledge.
I,m going away next week for an overnight stay in Melbourne,so I,ll have to nick the Bible out of the hotel room to bring myself up to date.

 

[Marcus]

Re the goats milk and spiders web thing. I understand that you're saying that scientific advances like this give the impression that scientists are god-like and this in your opinion may debunk the theory of evolution but imo, this is just one of many such advances. People have been exploiting naturally occurring elements and organic matter for centuries. Its quite a normal experiment to join two unique substances together, stimulate them and create a new substance. Many alloys, plastics, chemicals, and drugs have been made in labratories by scientists. - Willow

Creating a new substance confirms the creation theory.

But still my question remains...

...how can the evolution theory prove that this goat which has the ability to produce spiders silk in its milk come to existance?


Anyway, still not sure where you are leading on that one. Are you saying that men are becoming gods or that men were created by scientists and we are the result...?- Willow

CS's post #550... is along my line of thinking.


Marcus is cagey fella but do you think he was really trying to set up an answer? - Willow

Cagey?.... lol... yeh your probably right... but it takes one to know one.


"If scientists can create new life, or alter DNA, this is an example of intelligent beingsdesigning/creating something. It backs up the concept of creation.." - CS
This is really dull but what you are doing is twisting logic to suit your own view.
I can do the same if you like....it can be argued that there is no God because humans are creating life/something. - Willow

But Willow... that 'life/something' had a creator... if it wasn't for the humans it wouldn't be there.


Hi Canadian Steve and Marcus..I haven't got the time to go through hundreds of threads to see if this has been covered before..BUT..Do either of you guys believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old ?? - dubopov

Hey dubopov!

No I do not believe. The Earth is very very old... but the world that we (humans)know of it is very very young.

The 6,000 year thing...is of course when Christians estimate they entered the world (though not all would agree). Adam and Eve areestimated to have been around 6,000 (approx. 4,000 BC)years ago (though some believe between 6,000-10,000 yrs ago, buts lets just presume 6,000 from here).

If you believe in Noah's Ark, then estimates for that year is suppose to be around 2,300 BC when God created the flood (there is evidence to suggest a great flood of that nature did in fact occur around that time).

If Noah's Ark is true... then we all are descendants of Noah.

Remember... the Bible tells us that Noah and his wife, and his three sons and their wives... were the humans that were on the boat (8 people = 4 couples). After the flood, the sons of Noah had many descendants... very many.

If you read Genesis 11:1-9, it says God scattered people all over the Earth and confused their language. Now if you read this... many won't believe... but lets look at history. Name a habital place on earth were was no people before all these "discoveries" happened?... They say Australia was discovered in 1788... and it was a vacant land - not true. Aborigines were here before Cook ever arrived. Look at the US... the Native Indian's were there before the British. South America all ready had the Inca's there before the Spanish came.

Interpret the above paragraph which ever way you want.


To those that want a better understanding of what the Bible really means and some of its passagesI really recommend you go here http://www.kjvbible.org/

This site uses the King James version of the Bible which was first published in 1611 - I think it was the first Bible in english, and it uses science/geology to make sense of the Bible.

 

This message has been deleted by the author.

 

[Marcus]

bronco... read 2 Peter 2:8

Here is the King James passage.

But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

 

This message has been deleted by the author.

 

[Willow]

Marcus: "Creating a new substance confirms the creation theory. "
lol.. okay marcus. you interpret anyway you like.
I just think its a little odd to use scientific advances to support creationism. Especially considering the long history of creationists being opposed to science.
I would have thought that this could be argued both ways with humans showing that we don't need to a god to create new substances. Its just a question of which view you choose to take.

As Rasputin said: "The church...isvery steadfast in its objections to such endeavours as cloning and genetic engineering,quite understandbly so if they really believe what is written in their book. "

You say thatthe manipulation of DNA is confirmation of creation. Then why is the church against genetic engineering research or trying to come to terms with it?

 

[Marcus]

How does this disprove the evolution theory? - Bronco

Evolution is supposed to explain this... but it can't.



Just because a new form of goat has been created how does that show that the original goat couldn't have been a result of evolution? - Bronco

Because the scientist told us. But if the scientist didn't tell us this... one could wrongly assume evolution took place.

 

[Marcus]

I've got some English contemporary version but my 2 Peter 2.8 says: "Lot lived right and was greatly troubled by the terrible way those wicked people were living. He was a good man, and day after day he suffered because of evil things he saw and heard. So the lord rescued him" - bronco

Sorry man... my mistake... should be 2 Peter <u>3</u>.8

 

[Marcus]

Marcus: "Creating a new substance confirms the creation theory. " lol.. okay marcus. you interpret anyway you like.
I just think its a little odd to use scientific advances to support creationism. Especially considering the long history of creationists being opposed to science. -Willow

I'm a creationist, but I am definitely not anti-science.


I would have thought that this could be argued both ways with humans showing that we don't need to a god to create new substances. Its just a question of which view you choose to take. - Willow

Which view do you take here...

Who is your father... (a) your grand father?...OR (b) your father?


You say thatthe manipulation of DNA is confirmation of creation. Then why is the church against genetic engineering research or trying to come to terms with it? - Willow

You have to ask the church... I can't speak for it.

But personally... I'm against human cloning.

I think we are going to have a lot of problems with it. They say a copy is never as good as an original - and that I agree.

What happens when copies starts making copies? - the quality gradually gets worse. We are going to have some serious human defects then.

 

[Willow]

"Evolution is supposed to explain this... but it can't."
Not so. As a science, Evolution is a theory formulated from observations and evidence. It asks an many questions as it answers and like any science, there are sometimes a few debates.

Perhaps you think creationism has all the answers. But then there are others who have a different interpretation of this belief and debates exist here as well.

It works both ways.

 

[Willow]

marcus: "I'm against human cloning....What happens when copies starts making copies? - the quality gradually gets worse. We are going to have some serious human defects then." yes well... we just don't know the answer to that one yet.
I understand why it scares people but it does seem that it will be happening regardless of whatthe critics think.
So only time will tell.

 

[Marcus]

"There has been thousands of cases of people having near-death experiences or out of body experiences to validate such claims. "
There have been millions more that have seen nothing. The near death experiences are explained by images in the brain as it battles for survival.
In simple terms...
If you firmly believe in heaven andall its glory, then you'll most likely seea bright light when the brain is in trauma. If you believe in hell and have a guilty conscience, you'll see fire and despair. If you are an Athiest, you'll see and recall nothing before being brought back from the operating table. -Willow #448


This has intrigued me quite a bit.

There is a passage in the Bible that I have read that may have some meaning to this (or at least my interpretation)... I forgot where I saw it - so when I find it I will put it up.

But my question...

If indeed these images are of the brain "fighting for survival"... then why is the athiest seeing nothing?

 

[Marcus]

marcus: "I'm against human cloning....What happens when copies starts making copies? - the quality gradually gets worse. We are going to have some serious human defects then." yes well... we just don't know the answer to that one yet.
I understand why it scares people but it does seem that it will be happening regardless of whatthe critics think.
So only time will tell. - Willow

That imo is the scary part.

There have been no boundaries put on it - and that makes me worried. I know whatever laws you put on it there will always be someone that will go against it.

There is a possibility that we will have a mad scientist at work... creating some really weird creatures. Crossing lions with gorillas... elephant with a mouse... might even cross a human with an animal - maybe with a gorilla calling it ape-man. Strength of an ape, the intellegents of a human..... bit scary.

 

[Cronulla_Mania]

Hmmm, interesting talk about the beginnings (and end) of the world. I must go back and read revelations again. But ones interpretations of what is said in the testaments will change every time you read it. I to don't remember the section where cloning is talked about, or where the end of world occurs as a result of humans trying to emulate God. I always recall that the last days would come in a time of 'lawlessness', when God would come down again, to judge the good from the bad and create a new heaven and earth.Im pretty sure words to that effect are said somewhere in revelations

Question on Revelations. Its in thenew testament,but who exactly wrote it? It was written to John, at a time when Christians were being persecuted. In my Bible, it says (and this is not in the passages, its like an intro), "Through Christ the Lord, God will finally and totally defeat all of his enemies, includingSatan, and will reward his faithful people with the blessings of a new heaven and a new earth when this victory is complete"

Moffo

Moffo

 

[Willow]

"then why is the athiest seeing nothing?"
Well I did say in 'simple terms' and 'most likely' but come to think of it, it was wrong of me to assume that Atheists see nothing.

I was talking to guy just a few months ago who died on the operating table and was brought back by the doctors.
I asked him what he saw and he laughed and said that everyone has asked him that.
Anyway, hesaid he saw nothing and has no memory of the incident apart from waking up in a hospital bed. Now I don't know if this guy is an Atheist or a Christian so who am I to assume?

Its quite possible that some Atheists see bright lights and some Christians see nothing.
The point really was about the brain being in trauma and having possible subconsience reactions to this stress.

 

[imported_Rasputin]

Question on Revelations. Its in thenew testament,but who exactly wrote it? It was written to John,
Err, actually Revelations ispart of neithertestament, it is a book by itself. It was purportedly written by a monknamedJohn who was held in captivity on a mediteranian island by the Romans. He wrote it tothe 7 branches of the Katholic (Greek word for Univeresal) churches, diases, that existed at the time it was written.

The bible itsel did not come into existence till approx the year 315 AD, old Julian calendar, that is pre Gregorian Calendar, when the Roman emperor Constantine got fed up with all the various interpretations being applied to what was by then the official religion of the Roman Empire. He demandedall the church leaders attend aconference he funded and demanded theysort out their differences and settle on one interpreatation for the good of the Empire.Till that time most interpretations were hand me down stories from priest to priest and differed significantly through out the empire.

Approx27 Gospels were in existence at the time and all were reviewed for inclusion in the official book with the earliest writings being done approx 60 years after the death of Christ. None of the Gospel writershad actually lived in Christ's time nor had any of them everseen Christ.After much debate the church settled on the inclusion ofthe old Jewish testament, the 4 gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John as the new testament because while there are still differences between these 4 gospels there were much less contradictory than any of the others.The book of Revelations was just added on the end as a reminder of the way things were and is WAS NOT recognised as a book of prophecy by theChurch. It has only achieved that status since the breakaway groups formed in the 17th century. The John who wrote Revelations is not the John who wrote one of the Gospels.

It is also worth noting that the concept of the holy trinityonly came into existence at the aforementioned conference. It was agreed upon by the Bishops of the day as a way tosolve the theological problems which exist in Jesusbeing the son of God yet born of woman.All this occured some 350 years after Jesus death and all written gospels are second generation hear say. For those that doubt the Church openly acknowledges this and the original manuscripts of that first convention are still held by the Vatican with copies avalable to the public. The bible came into existence 100's of years after Jesus walked this earth and none of the writings were done by anyone who actually witnessed any of the events.

BTW, the church does not portray the world to be 6,000 years old at all, well not in years as we measure them anyway. Each day of the 7 days of creation relate to 1,000 years ofthe old jewish calendar which does not measure years as we do.It is in the book of numerology.

 

[imported_Rasputin]

I to don't remember the section where cloning is talked about, or where the end of world occurs as a result of humans trying to emulate God.
Of course it does not mention cloning per se, how could it, it refers to man believing he can be God like and emulate the work of God's creation. See Genises

I always recall that the last days would come in a time of 'lawlessness', when God would come down again, to judge the good from the bad and create a new heaven and earth.Im pretty sure words to that effect are said somewhere in revelations.
You are mixing two seperate beliefs together. The Catholic Church, the original Universal church, believes in Judgement day but does not support such things as the Apocolypse, "lawlessness", etc of Revelations. It does not accept Revelations as a book of prophecy. That is the belief of the sects which came out ofthe original 18th century millerites, the 7th day adventist andMormons etc, the evangelicasts as they are referred to. It is they whobelieve in the coming of the son of Satan, the 7 year reign of terror, mark of the beast and the finalApocolypseetc. This type of belief and ending is not supported by the main stream Churches at all.

It is purely the stuff for scary movies which you obviously watch too many ofMoff

As I said earlier, the "how" of creation will be irrefutably proven within our lifetimes, the why of it will never be known. Cheers.

 

[Cronulla_Mania]

See, this is where i get somewhat confused. OK, so the gospels according to mark, matthew etc etc, were accounts told to them by.....whom? Members of the 12 apostles? I was always taught that these sections of the bible were written 70-80 ACE, which makes that possibility plausable.

Anyways, on the age thing, i got this exerpt out of Matthew. "So then, there were fourteen generations from Abraham to David, and fourteen from David to the exile in Babylon, and fourteen from then to the birth of the Messiah"

So that makes 42 generations. Each generation, say 25 years apart (on average?) That makes 1050 years. So Abraham was around 'roughly' 1000 years before Jesus. The question is, where do we go before Abraham?

Moffo

 

[Cronulla_Mania]

" I to don't remember the section where cloning is talked about, or where the end of world occurs as a result of humans trying to emulate God. Of course it does not mention cloning per se, how could it, it refers to man believing he can be God like and emulate the work of God's creation. See Genises"

U wouldn't have adirect reference, would u? Id like to readit without searching through all of Genesis. Cheers

"I always recall that the last days would come in a time of 'lawlessness', when God would come down again, to judge the good from the bad and create a new heaven and earth.Im pretty sure words to that effect are said somewhere in revelations. You are mixing two seperate beliefs together. The Catholic Church, the original Universal church, believes in Judgement day but does not support such things as the Apocolypse, "lawlessness", etc of Revelations. It does not accept Revelations as a book of prophecy. That is the belief of the sects which came out ofthe original 18th century millerites, the 7th day adventist andMormons etc, the evangelicasts as they are referred to. It is they whobelieve in the coming of the son of Satan, the 7 year reign of terror, mark of the beast and the finalApocolypseetc. This type of belief and ending is not supported by the main stream Churches at all."

Mate, in my good news bible, it has the revelations chapter. It also leaves it in the new testament section. So, correct me if im wrong, the church acknowledges revelations but doesn't see it as a book of prophecy? Or does it not recognise it at all?

Moffo

 

[Willow]

Moffo: "The question is, where do we go before Abraham?"
Before Abraham there was other peoples, legends and distinctive beliefs.

I believe you and have discussed this before, Moffo.
Digs have revealed ceremonial burial sites in the Middle East whichare 100,000 years old.Its accepted that this is the earliest signs of religion.
Because ofthe age of these sites (and other burial sites throughout the world), we can speculate that many systems of belief have come and gone.... somelasted for tens of thousands of years.

Compartively speaking, Christianity is a brand new system of belief.