In your opinion, would this be a pretext for unilateral action against despots worldwide, even military, in order to begin to be better "keepers"?

 

No!! If the president arbitriarly decides to invade a country because the indigious army is killing all who oppose the dictator within that country, AND the military is somewhat well trained the ensuing battle(s) between US forces and the other Army , may, result in considerably more civilian casualties than if we had pursued a Diplomatic approach over a more protracted period of time. The , military approach, should , BE the method of Last Resort. The perfect example is North Korea. If we started a land war with Kim L. Dung we would suffer tremendous casualties that ultimately wouldn't justify the final outcome. This is why we invaded Iraq instead of NK. NK is a Prima Facia example of The reasons (WMD's) Bush gave for Invading Iraq. A north korean winter can create more casualties than bullets. I hope we have learned our lesson over there. s.kuteman

 

I find it increasingly amusing to see people posting "Why think about such things when we have so much more to deal with?". This is the prime nature of Man,,, to question. We have most of these other world and social problems because of the lack of questioning or seeking of the "truthes". To discount deeper thought because of the inability to derive a plausible conclusion,,, is ludicrous to the nth degree. An answer is never found without actually searching for one. The question of the meaning of existence becomes the most important foundation block to building any type of solution for the world's ills. For, if we subscribe to evolution solely,, then the weak and unable will be eventually culled from the competition. To subscribe wholely to creation means we have no direct control over these ills,,, "It is God's Will". It was heartening to see someone say the possibilty of both the spiritual realm and the physical one being intertwined at the "beginning". There is no doubt in my mind of a higher plane of being,, whatever the name. There is still much to be learned of energy and all it's various forms, some that I believe have yet to be discovered or recognized. Indeed,, our respective Realities is what We make of them,, and only We can do that. Individually, I mean. I need more coffee,, I'm done ,,,for now,,

 

Creation provided an answer to the big question back before science provided evolution.

The big question being, "where did we come from?"

Of coarse what created the big bang that got the ball rolling?

 

you make some great points. look at how much we know about everything around us today compared to 200 years ago.we all do things now that would have gotten us burned as witches then.I can't even imagine what we'll be able to do 200 years from now.

 

[QUOTE]If every human on earth is a descendant of Adam and Eve, shouldn't we all look the same? Why are there different races? If for example, Adam and Eve were Caucasian, then every human on earth should be like them. by Borderman

Don't forget Noah. If that story is true, we are all descendents of his family, and that makes every person on Earth (mathematically) at least a fifteenth cousin of EVERY other person, alive or dead, born since then.

 

And , finally , the Most logical Conclusion of ALL......We're ALL JEWISH........but we ain't all rich. I'll bet a Kosher Pickle and 2 Pounds of Mattzaa(sp) ***** that the Catholics aren't going to like having their Rabbi's carrying Uzzi's into confession. They better tell the Truth or it's off to salt mine they Go!!!!!....s;kuteman

 

HuH?

 

Adam\Eve obviously were Jewish as well as Noah . I don't think there were any Baptists or Luthern's loading animals on the Ark so if we are all decended from God's origional creations then we ALL must be decended from Jewish Origions. ....s.kuteman

 

I skipped pages two and three but I think I'll throw in my opinion. Nobody can prove evolution, no one cna prove creation. However, it is unlikely that they are both right. Many Christians combine the two soley because they cannot debate evolutionists. However, the learned creationists can go head to head with any evolutionist. Fact is, BOTH require faith. Does it take faith to believe is God and a "magical" creation, of course. However, it alos takes faith to believe it evolution. In it's experimentation and nature it is not a solid theory, it is mainly excepted because there aren't many alternatives for anyone who doesn't believe in creation. Consider the basic concept of how it started. Over a hundred years ago an experiment was done that "proved it possible". This experiment used electricity to stimulate matter into forming carbon. Carbon is a building block of life. This experiements condition, mathmatically, were nearly impossible. At best the universe expanded and collasped ten billion time until the one time the reaction occured, forming carbon. Now, how doesn carbon move from inatimate matter to life? As of yet, we don't really know (aka faith). Let alone to follow in series forming symetrical beings of extreme complexity. On top of that we have no missing links between apes and men. Not one, everyone they dig up is later disproven, not a single solid link. Now, over millions of years, assuming that things can be preserved that far (evidenced in dinosaurs), that is a problem in the theory. There should be an immense number of links. These links should be present in other species too, but are not. Adaptation is present, no doubt. But that is the result of certain types dying out and majoriy changes (mostly white moths, few black moths, later the leaves grow back creating dark enviroment, predators now see the white moths, they die out, moths now see to be black). I would have to research it but their is strong evidence of evolution in insects. However, this more clearly resembles mutation, the changing of genetic code, rarely, which can permenantly effect a species.
These are significant holes in the theory, requiring faith just as strong as some have in God to believe. If it were logically provable that their is a God, then it wouldn't take faith. I think the argument for a God is strong, evidenced in the things like conscience (which is NOT instinct, and non-existant in animals), grafity (deifies the laws of physics), even the orbiting of the plants ("also defies the laws of physics). I have personally seen medical miracles. I have seen a woman scanned for a tumor one day, told she wold die, and at a expert's office a week later it is non-existant with no traces, astounding the doctors. I have seen my mother open a suitcase with 999,999 combinations on the dials, because I was hiding dirty mags as a kid, she said she prayed about it. (Scared the crap out of me). Yes, the farmers pray for rain while others pray for sun, but the point is that it is hard to argue complete atheism.
As the creation, one often over looked theory is the things were created as mentioned in Genesis, but created "as they were". For example, the light from starts that takes a million years to reach earth (allegedly disproving the Bible's timeline) was already there. Some of the great canyons, were already there. Maybe the dinosaurs were already in the ground. Perhaps planted as an enigma or to help us better look at the world around us. Think, what if everything was created 7,000 years ago in the state that i was, with the process of nature already in cycle? It that so far fetched? Inevitably you would have to argue the legitimacy of the Bible, and inevitably that would lead to the nature of Jesus Christ, as that is a issue some say is pure truth, and others a story with many holes. I don't know of any twelve men who would go out and (documented historically in Roman writings) get killed in the name of someone who suffered a "fake" death and\or resurrection. Also, that takes faith, it can be argued against, it cannot be proven, only evidenced, and at that to a certain extent.
In conclusion, everyone has faith, even atheists. They have faith there is no God, the cannot prove it. Philosophically it is far harder to prove the non-existance of something than the existance. They have faith that they will have nothing to answer for when they die, they don't know for sure, just as those who believe in eternity cannot prove it. However, given what we have, and given the concepts we cannot fathom (omnipresence,omnipotence, the none-existance of time) that are present in most people's view of God, we must accept that we cannot know nor understand all or even certain concepts. We cannot think outside of time. And evolution, while a theory, is only that, a theory, accepted because without such a theory people are forces to have no theory (ignorance of their very being) or believe creation. Everyone believes something, and sometimes that something is nothing, but then they put their faith in the belief of nothing, which is believing none-the-less. I say theat people should pursue truth, and try to answer, and they will get closer to the answer. Examine the holes in your own beliefs, try to patch them, and find the truth. I believe in creation, not evolution, and one cannot claim inerrancy of the Bible and believe both, for believing both would make abstract concrete phrases and events, spoken of not in a figurative fashion. Seek the truth, don't accept what you are taught at face value, and you will get cloer to it. But be content that you cannot prove matters beyond our comprehension.
Sorry that was long as crap.

 

Great post.....I couldn't agree more. We all have a problem acknowledging the facets of our particular faith that are Hard to comprehend and\or accept , .... s.kuteman

 

If one can believe the dinosaurs never lived but were created as fossils I don't know what common ground of discussion on evolution or science we could have. That is beyond faith to me but simply denial.

 

I have to agree with you on this one Sinjin.

To deny that dinosaurs actually roamed the earth, with all the evidense that now exists, is bordering on blind faith.

 

Had to happen eventually. Good morning.

 

Agreed.

Quote:

Think, what if everything was created 7,000 years ago in the state that i was, with the process of nature already in cycle? It that so far fetched?

Yes.

Quote:

Philosophically it is far harder to prove the non-existance of something than the existance.

Actually, it's IMPOSSIBLE to prove a negative. Check the "God is An Impossibility" thread if you need proof.

Waxy