Definately a good read... but now the post has turned into a religious post from a science one.. too bad religion and philosophy isn't my expertice...

I'll see what I can do to keep it up top...

<br>

What for? This subject has been beaten to death already. I haven't participated in this thread in some time, and I've never really given a closing statement on what we have accomplished in this thread. Here's my attempt at such a thing

Science is at a dead end when trying to explain how life came from nothing. Science was clearly shown that the random chance hypothesis is scientifically impossible. I've never debated anyone who simply says "God did it". It's interesting how SPITfire among othes have bridged the camp between the two camps of evolution vs. creationism. It's as if you've come up with a compromise. Creationists are out to prove that God created the universe while evolutionists are bent on proving that the universe was created through natural causes.

You could call yourselves evolutionist creationists. Since that's the case, it's no longer an issue of evolution vs. creation, but rather evolution vs. instant creation, old earth vs. young earth, and theism vs. atheism. Well we all seem to agree that a god created the universe, however he did it. This is rational since science proves more and more each day how complex life is, and how it couldn't have possibly happened based on random acts of nature alone. This is really the most important issue, which is not even an issue in this thread. So why do we spend so much debating over unimportant matters? Let's reveal what we have been wasting time on

As far as the age of the earth, I won't hold onto either side on this one. You're all convinced that the earth and universe are old. Many people are, from Bible believing christians to atheistic evolutionists. This is not an extremely important issue, only for atheistic evolutionists who need vast times periods to make the evolution of life more believable, and for those who believe God created the universe in 7 literal days 6,000 years ago. Since I'm willing to be open on this issue, there's no longer a debate here about this.

However I urge you all not to use the evolutionist argument that random chance could have created life over billions of years. That's ignorant and very unscientific. You have to have some kind of idea as to <i>how</i> life could have arisen from dead matter. Right now origin science is in a state of great frustration over this. There are no solid ideas, and the more they look into it, the more outragous the idea of spontanious life becomes. This is scientific fact, not an opinion. Saying that "God did it" is completely different from saying that it's possible for natural causes to create life. SPITfire needs to get his arguments straight on this one.

As far as evolution vs. instant creation goes, we have spent a lot of time on this one without coming to any real decisive conclusions. That it because this one is open to interpretation and presupposition. Evidence is fuzzy and only arises through a belief set. Creatures appear suddenly in the fossil record. Evolutionists have their reasons as to why this can be, while others simply state what this shows, that creatures appeared suddenly But since evolutionists have their reasons for why this is, it becomes undecisive, as does all evidence for either side. This issue isn't terribly important either, unless you're an atheist trying to disprove God.

A point worth making here is that evolution theory is not disproving God. As long as we're on the same page with that, everything else becomes less important. This is the bottom line. Believe what you want about these fuzzy issues. Can we all agree on the logistics of this post?

P.S: I haven't had time to read the past handful of pages in this thread. <br>



<img src="http://www.j-body.org/registry/lancer/sunsetsig.jpg">
<font size="1">Jesus said, "In the world you will have tribulation,
but cheer up, I have overcome the world (John 16:33).</font>

Lancer: You're back! I guess you wait for the post to die down for the bash weekend....

I really have said all I want to say in this argument... no need to repeat myself because I'm sure you know what I'll say.

Yes, matter didnt come from nothing... that's why I believe God created the Big Bang and all the laws in the "beginning". As far as life arising from inorganic matter, it is still possible for that to have happened. The primordial soup of organic molecules plus the volatile nature of our planet back then were ideal for spontaneous formation of organic life. I'm not saying a cell will appear at once... the parts will all form and they all will come together to form one cell (membrane structure, enzymes, organelles, RNA->DNA). You have no proof this did not happen do you? This doesnt happen anymore since the Earth is FAR different from what it was like 4 billion years ago... also, entertain the idea that meteorites could have seeded the Earth with organic matter or even bacteria... I mean bacteria survive in the harshest environments imaginable.

I think God and evolution can work together... I mean whats wrong with God creating the Big Bang, an old universe, an old Earth, and God creating evolution. I doubt God was actively involved until we arrived on the planet but whos to say he wasn't. Same thing with evolution.... you just don't know what happened, it's all speculation based on evidence.

You believe that God created everything in the beginning... then it ALSO would be unexplainable for creationists to explain a creature appearing later in the fossil record. I mean if He created it all in the beginning all creatures would be in the same layer. There would be nothing to appear later since God didnt create multiple times according to the Bible...

Also, you say that things are too "perfect" to not be created. Mimicry, false eyespots, animals looking like flowers, anglerfishes... etc with features to trick their prey/predators. You look at a mimic octopus that imitates flounder, anemones, seasnakes, lionfish and you say "God had to have created that". But if he did, then wouldnt it be more perfect? I mean the eyespots could look more like eyes, the anglerfish lure could actually look like a worm, and the animal could behave more like the object it imitates. Things are not perfect, and seem like they were inherited over time and evolution hasn't perfected them yet.

Thats all for now...

<br>

or blind animals with eyes, how is that perfect, i think god created things and slowly, tries to make better the things he realized wen't too great, a trial and error of sorts, hence evolution.

but im sure if he made one species completely perfect it would completely disrupt the eco system that the perfect organism lives in, so maybe he likes everything to be flawed and effed up? <br>


----the only differance is now i trust even less of what you say.

Here we go again.

To say God created everything in the beginning means that all the matter was created, and the plan put in motion, not that all life as we know it appeared suddenly.

The idea of a seeded planet is not outrageous, but, it does nothing to explain the origin of life, only the origin of life on Earth.

The biggest issue today is once agin people putting their idea of perfect on creation. Perhaps if (eyespot example) the mimic was identicle then the mimicing animal would have too much advantage. The system is perfect, not the individual pieces. The ecosystems work, even when we mess with them (to a point). Planets don't fall out of orbit. Earth is exactly the correct distance from the Sun, the moon is exactly the right size to not only cause the correct amount of tital motion but also to cover the Sun when viewed from the Earth, leaving only the corona exposed. Perhaps this was a mechanism to get the attention of primative man. God's idea of perfection is not the same as ours. We can observe however that the universe as a whole system is incredibly complex, and it hasn't fallen to bits, it is in balance. You can take a look at almost any whole system and see the same. All reflections of God's work. All in motion, all in balance, all cyclical, repeatable, and complete unto themselves, yet making up parts of other whole systems. Nesting systems in the way we see in nature is almost inconcievable to us, we stuggle to fathom the depth of understanding it takes to mimic natural systems. Maintenece free water purification systems for example are common in nature and near impossible for us, then try to make that system part of hundreds of other systems... Good luck. That is an example God's perfection as I see it.

The moon itself is an interesting dilema. It is too big to have been captured by Earth's gravity. If it spun off a molten Earth, it would have kept going... hmmmm.. To me that leaves the idea that it was once where the Pacific ocean is, and it had to have split off a cool Earth due to a collision... Or God put it there, I'm open to either, and I lean to the impact theory. Sure is different when compaired to any other planet/satelite combination.

hahaha: You make good points...

I too believe in the impact theory... the Earthwas struck in semi-molten form by a large planetoid object (the solar system was full of these objects when it was formed) and a large part of the Earth was sheared off. Since it as semi-molten the large part of the matter recondensed into the Earth while a small part condensed into the Moon. This is supported by the compositions of the Earth and Moon being similar. The Earth could not have been solid when this happened since the impact would have shattered the Earth into pieces or in the best case wformed a ring around the Earth. There is a limit to how big an imapct can be and not destroy the solid body (i.e the Saturnian moon Mimas looks like the Death Star with a huge crater and fracture marks radiating from it).

About the mimicry thing: Yes, if the defense was too perfect the predators would be at a disadvantage... but some are more perfect than others. The flower orchid mantis looks just like a flower and is almost undetectable to prey. On the other hand, certain large moths have the image of what looks like the head of a snake on their wingtips... this may help to scare off predators that would fear a snake. But some species have incomplete "heads" or eyespots while others have striking ones. And why wouldnt a dark stripe go from the head through the wing itself to complete the ruse? Same with anglerfish, there is no set design. There are chin barbels, nose barbels, dorsal barbels, even tail barbels. The position of the lure depends on the hunting style of the predator. The predator/vs prey are in an evolutional arms race in which each adaption by the prey is countered by the predator and vice versa...

I think creation could go with evolution if creationists an evolutionists could coe up with a compromise. Created evolution seems like a good compromise. What I believe and hahaha believes seems more of a compromise than say Jive or Lancer, who refuse to believe anything other than the Bible. Sure some parts of evolution are unproven, but so are parts of the Bible. One can be used to complete the other...

How bout that?

<br>

I don't believe anything that contradicts the Bible, mostly because I haven't seen anything that contradicts the Bible.

The Bible gives a very general, open description of creation, that is why so many people have so many ideas about what it says. They add to it, like the 6000 years thing, that is not in there anywhere.

We shouldn't get caught up in how God did it anyway. The wonder is that we exist at all.

My interests wander, which is why I've gone away for a while.

"The primordial soup of organic molecules plus the volatile nature of our planet back then were ideal for spontaneous formation of organic life. I'm not saying a cell will appear at once... the parts will all form and they all will come together to form one cell (membrane structure, enzymes, organelles, RNA->DNA). You have no proof this did not happen do you?"

Why do you refuse to accept the fact that it is scientifically impossible for cells to form spontaneously? It takes the right set of amino acids to create a protein molecule. the chances of this happening randomly have been calculated to be 10 to the 60th power. In other words, it's impossible. This is just to create a protein molecule! You need the right set of protein molecules to make a "simple" cell. There's even less of a chance that this will happen.

But wait, there's more. You need the right set of DNA and RNA to run the cell. This is even more complex than cells, proteins or amino acids. Scientists can't even synthesize DNA. Klaus Dose of the Institute for Biochemistry in Mainz, Germany said that the difficulties in synthesizing DNA and RNA are at present beyond our imagination. You're saying that all this can happen by random chance? This process you describe is practically impossible from the get go, and gets even more unlikely as you build onto this. Perhaps this is the reason why nearly all educated scientists have rejected this idea 50 years ago, the idea that cells can form in an unguided process.

Now saying that God aided the process, that's something completely different. However, even this is unproven speculation with many problems. A system of life had to have been created instantly. A specific complexity of life is required for even the simplest cells to carry out the required functions of life, which are to process energy, store information and replicate. Each one of these requires a vast number of conditions which can only be met through instant creation.

As for scientists, they have come up with a few ideas, and they've all been rejected. This includes things like chemical affinity, vents in the ocean, seeding from space (lol), among others.

The only thing wrong with evolution is tossing out portions of the Bible in favor of a theory severely lacking in fundamental evidence. Science points to creation. The burden of proof is on evolutionists which is why they need to come up with crazy ideas (like seeding from space) to support their theory. Why hold onto a theory with the motive of disproving God and promoting the idea that we are perfect supreme beings? Evolutionists even go as far as to say that we will evolve into spiritual beings and become gods. This is rediculous. I feel that this theory is wrong for these reasons.

As far as what's perfect, do you really think that this is a perfect world? What does the Bible tell us in Genesis? Just like everything imperfect, these things help us learn. That's why it's perfect. <br>



<img src="http://www.j-body.org/registry/lancer/sunsetsig.jpg">
<font size="1">Jesus said, "In the world you will have tribulation,
but cheer up, I have overcome the world (John 16:33).</font>

First off I would like to say, "Really good post"

Second off, "I could only read the first two pages"

Now. This is something that I have thought about. Talked about and then rethought about.

I grew up in a home with a mother that was a Roman Catholic. But she believed in other opinions as well. But she still believed in the creation thoery.

Growing up I think the majority of us believed in the Creation by God, etc etc.

I think when we all hit our teens and started to form our own opinions we opened up to a whole new world of ideas and thoughts.

As a 30 year old adult now with children I have found comfort in believing that once again there is a God that loves us all. (I am not some Holy roller, just to set you all straight)

My son asked me if there was a God one day. I replied to him, "Yes son there most definatly is." He then went on to ask me a million and one "Q's" about him and for the most part I faked it a bit.

Thinking about what I did. I started to wonder. Is this something my Mother did to me? And did her mother do it to her and so on and so on. Get my point here yet? We all need to believe in something.

Now as for creation. I am a bit of a mixed bag here.

I think that something must have started creation, so why not GOD?

I also believe in the BIG BANG, and the spontaneous creation of life etc etc.

The evolution of life on Earth, from single celled organizims to current life today.

I do believe that the Universe follows a cycle. BANG - EXPANSION - COLLAPSE- BANG- EXPANSION Etc etc..

So here is what I say. Why can we all not be right? GOD is omnipresent. He is everywhere and sees all. He has been with us in the beggining and he will be there until the end.

What if he is LIFE ITSELF. I mean what if we, Humans, Animals, Plants, Planets, Stars, etc etc are just a part of GOD. What if the Big Bang is his way of trying to find Perfection and Order. Thats why it keeps happening over and over again.

The universe is ORDER with a little bit of Chaos. What if he keeps trying to get rid of the chaos with the Cycle.

This is something else. So many people with near Death Experiences say they see a tunnel. Hell once when I was in a bad acident, I cut my hand all to @!#$ (body starting to go into shock) so I ran home (got the heart Pumping) and I ran into the house and as MY mother was trying to bandage my hand up I passed out and went head first into our $2000.00 fish tank. I then went into convulsions. While I was knocked out or what ever was happening, I saw a tunnel of Darkness with a bright light at the end. As I traveled down this tunnel I saw faces of people that I knew and didnt know. What did that mean. well maybe nothing, or maybe something. What if your life essence apon death goes back to creation and finds your NEW starting point. We all know that our bodies are cases for energy right. And we can use the theory of a Tackion (energy that moves faster then light, thereby causing it to go backwards in time). So just maybe when we all die God gives us a new starting point to help stop the chaos. Just a theory here guys dont flame me on this one. It is all mine.

Well I hope that I gave you some ideas to think about. Or to laugh about either way I am glad to have entertained you all for about 5 mins of your life.

May the sun shine on you all and the wind be ever at your back.

TTFN
Shawn <br>

What we do in life Echoes in Eternity

Hmmm.... Signifigant flaws in your theory...

God does not "try" to achieve something, and then have to try again. That would imply weakness in God's ability to achieve, and that cannot be.

To Quote Roger Waters "What God wants, God gets"

God is also omnipotent. There is no thing untouchable to God, no place he cannot function, no thing he cannot affect. Chaos is part of God's plan. If there was no chaos, the order would no longer be special. Perhaps if you read the last couple pages of the debate, you will see my argument more clearly.

Remember God created all things, seen and unseen.

Lancer: To you there are many flaws in evolutionary theory, like the origin of life. But as I was saying last post, can't there be a compromise between the two? In the 22 pages of this post I have learned alot from both sides and I agree with some of the creationists points and disagree with others... I have believed in the so-called created evolution from the beginning but the literal interpretation of Genesis and the Flood is still impossible IMO.

As hahaha says you can believe in what the Bible says but you can also interpret it broadly. You can take it literal or interpret it abstractly and still stay within what the Bible says Some parts may even be false... we don't know...

You ramble on on the odds of spontaneous formation of organic matter but wouldn't the "seeding" of the planet by God solve this problem? Say God placed the simple cells in our oceans billions of years ago and He let evolution carry on. Once cells were formed, it takes far less chance for the cells to organize and become multi-cellular. Life then evolved and had to time to evolve from then to now.

About the vent and space theories... they have not been rejected... chemosynthetic life violated all the laws of life back when they were discovered. They did not use sunlight to support life like all other life known up till then. This opens another possible habitat for life in one of the harshest places on Earth. The Earth was much more active in the beginning so the earliest cells could have existed at vents and not in the poisonous and volatile surface areas. About the space thing, bacteria can survive months in space (i.e. the Space Shuttle) with no harm. Who says that it couldnt be carried in by meteors vaporizing in th atmosphere?

If they find life on the watery moom Europa, I'd love to see how you respond to that... that would be the thing that would disprove literal creation if we found life on another world.

About the whole science supports creation: Science in no way supports the literal version of creation... no 6000 years old Earth, no 6 days of creation, no Adam and Eve, none of the sequences of animal and plant creation said in the Bible... it can support creation in a different manner in the areas where evolution fails to explain (like the first cells and the Big Bang). Science supports the evolutionary view of the world in most respects (geology and fossils). you cannot question physical evidence right before your eyes set in stone (literally).

After these 22 pages, havent you considered a compromising view of creation/evolution that would fit best with the evidence?

<br>

cool this is almost a 3 month long discussion. <br>

<a href="http://hometown.aol.com/lowchevy00/Exterior.html"><img src="http://members.aol.com/lowchevy00/images/w-typesig.jpg"><a>

<a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3034580639">400+W Premier amp up for bid $49.99 Bid now!

"About the whole science supports creation: Science in no way supports the literal version of creation... no 6000 years old Earth, no 6 days of creation, no Adam and Eve, none of the sequences of animal and plant creation said in the Bible... it can support creation in a different manner in the areas where evolution fails to explain (like the first cells and the Big Bang). Science supports the evolutionary view of the world in most respects (geology and fossils). you cannot question physical evidence right before your eyes set in stone (literally).:"

The Bible does NOT say 6000 years, period. No contradiction in science there.

The six "days" of creation are light and dark periods. A Biblical "day" is not 24 hours, the time frame is not defined, only the fact that a "day" is a period of light preceeded by dark, and followed by dark. No contradiction in science there.

There is genetic evidence that supports the idea of a single original female, and I heard recently that there is now genetic support for the idea of a single original male... hmmm, scientific support of the "adam" and "eve" of the Bible... hmmm

As far as the support of the sequence of events, there is no real contradiction there either. God planted the seeds of life, not the life itself, and so, he very well may have planted them in a different order than the appear in the fossil record. Plant an acorn one day, and a grass seed the next... I promise the grass seed will sprout first. Thing happen at different rates... No contradiction there...

Seriously, this was delt with by the Fathers of the Catholic church (St, Athanasius in particular) over 1600 years ago, and their interpretation of Genesis has not been refuted by science in any respect. They had great enough vision and understanding of God and of nature to see that the story of creation is showing that God started a process, and did not creat things as we see them.

Water existing on other planets doe not disprove creation, nor would life on other planets. Day one and 2 deal with the universe, saying only that God created it all. The rest deals only with Earth. There is no part that says God created life on Earth exclusively, nor does it say that he put life anywhere else. Just because it's not in there doesn't mean it didn't happen, only that we weren't told about it.

hahaha: That post is more directed at the people who interpret the Bible literally, that is 6000 real years, 6 real days, and animals and plants appeared just as God mentions them.

You have a broader interpretation of Genesis so of course you can find examples in science to support yourself. This is what I am getting at, I don't understand why literal creationists cannot modify their beliefs to a more plausible story.

On the other planet thing: If life (most lilkely uni-cellular or simple) occurs on Europa or even Mars, most likely this life arose at different times. If God created it all at once, then life on all planets would be at the same state as the Earth. I mean life on Europa would be just as complex as Earth's if it had the same amount of time to evolve. What happens if we find intelligent life with far superior technology and bodies? Would this destroy religion as we know it? Is this why people think the government is hiding things from us on that subject?

On the Eve thing: If the genetic evidence supports us being related to one ancestral female... couldn't you make the statement that that female was the first female of Homo sapiens evolved from an earlier ancestor? A species evolves when a mutation changes an attribute of a species. This may cause the species to be more adaptable or smarter in the case of us. This female then reproduced and more H. sapiens were born. They then multiplied and scattered over Africa and Europe, outcompeting older species. So I can say this first Homo sapiens was the real "Eve"... just throwing that out to you guys...



<br>

spitfire--

it's funny how you mention europa (the moon) it was thought to be a planet yes, watery, yes and on it's own orbit. but where was it's orbit and would it be warm enough or consistant enough to support life? im interrested in that too, even though i in no way support nasa.

moving along, i think that most definately life exsists elsewhere, with every star and star system, life most certainly could, but i do doubt the visit us and play etch-a-scetch in our earth corn fields, i dont think they could ever visit us or would want to.

-im sure that God looking at this bastardized planet most likely gave up and turned his attention elsewhere, im sure he would get rather bored doing nothing, as we all would. Im also sure that he hasnt deciphered this in the bible to us because after all, it is none of our business what he does to pass the millenia.

<br>


----the only differance is now i trust even less of what you say.

Quoting SPITfire:

"I don't understand why literal creationists cannot modify their beliefs to a more plausible story."

If you're referring to me, I'm open to different interpretations that make sense. I won't buy into ideas that some stories in the Bible are fictional (except parables).

"If God created it all at once, then life on all planets would be at the same state as the Earth. I mean life on Europa would be just as complex as Earth's if it had the same amount of time to evolve."

Wow, I didn't know all planets had the same exact environment as earth! This is new to me. Heh.

"What happens if we find intelligent life with far superior technology and bodies? Would this destroy religion as we know it? Is this why people think the government is hiding things from us on that subject?"

My answer to the last quote also applies to this one. How would this destroy religion? God could create life in other worlds differently and even at different times. I don't know where you are getting your conclusions from SPITfire. Do you want religion to be destroyed? You seem to like leaning in that direction.


Another thing to add about the issue of non-perfect animals: If they evolved from the ground up, they would be perfect. They would have evolved in the optimum way for the best survival.


Quoting Rocker:

"-im sure that God looking at this bastardized planet most likely gave up and turned his attention elsewhere, im sure he would get rather bored doing nothing, as we all would."

Are you sure? God is outside of time, so He doesn't have to pass it. He doesn't get bored either. Boredom is a product of a suffering world such as ours. At the end of that quote you're basically saying that we're all like God in how we think and how we act. That's rediculous. <br>



<img src="http://www.j-body.org/registry/lancer/sunsetsig.jpg">
<font size="1">Jesus said, "In the world you will have tribulation,
but cheer up, I have overcome the world (John 16:33).</font>

If you're referring to me, I'm open to different interpretations that make sense. I won't buy into ideas that some stories in the Bible are fictional (except parables).

Really? Because you haven't seemed to be open to any of the alternate versions of creation we have brought up... you still seem to believe in the least possible version of it...

Wow, I didn't know all planets had the same exact environment as earth! This is new to me. Heh.

Nice sarcasm there...Well actually when water existed on Mars, its environment was surprisingly like Earth's. It had our climate and the same water and vulcanism as we do. On Europa, there is pure ice and H2O and also inner heat sources. It is cold, sure, but so is the bottom of our ocean... and who's to say the conditions on Earth are the only ones where life is possible. But we do know that the places we find life on Earth we could very well find on another world.

My answer to the last quote also applies to this one. How would this destroy religion? God could create life in other worlds differently and even at different times. I don't know where you are getting your conclusions from SPITfire. Do you want religion to be destroyed? You seem to like leaning in that direction.

Assumptions from a person who hates assumptions... no I don't want religion to be destroyed, since I believe in God TOO... I was just throwing out something for you to ponder. I thought God created it all in the "beginning" ? This immediately throws out your assumption that He creates at different times... according to the Bible He created the Universe and Earth in those 6 days. What I meant for the "destroy religion" comment was if we met up with an alien people. Since man was created in God's image, where would these aliens fit? Say they didnt believe in our God? This would also put religion in question...

Another thing to add about the issue of non-perfect animals: If they evolved from the ground up, they would be perfect. They would have evolved in the optimum way for the best survival.

No, evolution never stops... organisms are far from perfect... some have more perfect adaptions than others but not perfect... Including us, there is not one "perfect" organism on Earth. Conditions are always changing on this planet and things must evolve to keep up. That is why we had mass extinctions, organisms could not survive or were outcompeted for the same resource by another species. Notice that in the most stable environements (like the deepsea) some of the most mighly evolved and specialized species are present...


<br>

Rocker: Europa was never a planet but just a Moon of Jupiter... it is about the size of our own Moon... It is exceptionally cold out there but Europa has a thin ice crust with a liquid sea beneath it. The water is pure water and ice and not dry ice(CO2) like on other worlds. About the heat... look at the Moon one in from Europa, Io. Io has volcanoes on it and looks like a big pizza... the thing is more active than Earth. The heat is due to Jupiter's gravity. It flexes and stretches the moon so much that heat is generated in the moon's interior... Europa, a littlke further out, experiences less stress but still enough to liquify Europa's ice under the crust. We have no idea how deep the crust is but it is cracked from water oozing through cracks in the ice... it also has no craters, indicating resurfacing by water upwelling onto the surface. Most likely hydrothermal vents exist under the surface to drive this... since life can exist 4 miles under the sea at these vents... we can assume that life very well may exist in the ocean of Europa... even if NASA is wrong, it would be pretty damn exciting when they eventually send a probe to explore Europa (and there are plans to do so).

<br>

But Spitfire, I am a literal Creationist.. I will take from the book only what it says. I will not put my own spin on it, I will not try to assign timeframes when there are none, I will not state that the Bible says something which it clearly does not. The Bible makes no reference to other planets at all, therefore life on other planets is not an issue. It mentions the Moon, the Sun, other stars, and the Earth, that is all. The flood story says the "world" was flooded. This presents a problem as "world" has to be put in context. If it said the Earth was flooded, or all of the Earth was flooded, I would not have any question, but "world" has a broader interpretaion... As in, "I live in my world, and you in yours" even though there is only one Earth, there are many "worlds". I cannot pretend to know if that means there was a global flood, or a worldly flood (being the "known world"). The evidence supports the idea that it was regional in scope, but other's arguements cannot be shot down in a Biblical sense, so I will reserve judgement on that one.

If it were up to me, there would not be any interpretation, only literal context when dealing with the Bible. There is a big catch though... A very literal look at the Bible must be done in a way that takes into account the times in history, and the entire book must be dealt with chronologically as a whole entity. Otherwise people would take one verse and run with it forgetting everything before and after that put that verse in its proper context.

"If it were up to me, there would not be any interpretation, only literal context when dealing with the Bible. There is a big catch though... A very literal look at the Bible must be done in a way that takes into account the times in history, and the entire book must be dealt with chronologically as a whole entity. Otherwise people would take one verse and run with it forgetting everything before and after that put that verse in its proper context."

So I am assuming that you are reading the original texts in the original languages, seeing as how there are different versions of the Bible all originating from the same original text... <br>

hmmm lancer,

im rediculous for thinking god might get bored with people and this little petty planet, infinate power and only this, i think he would turn his attention elsewhere.'

what is truely rediculous is how persumptous you are with god's contentness with us and this planet. Plus i think it's rather "convienent" how you seem to know god's state of concousness, im sure he can feel a whole complex array of emotions and feelings including boredom, and frustration, like for example frustration with people who claim they know exactly hwo he thinks and feels and how his attention would never turn elsewhere.

but im the rediculous one becuase i suggested he might do something else then earth with his time. man you can be ignorant. <br>


----the only differance is now i trust even less of what you say.

hahaha: I never thought you were a literal creationist... you have argued that the 6 days are not really days, that the global flood was not really global, and that created evolution is a possibility...

What exactly is your belief? Because literal creation in my mind means you take every word to be true... that is 1 day=24 hours and world=globe. This is what Lancer seems to believe.

I think your interpretation of the Flood is true in that it was regional... there is evidence for this... there is no evidence for a truly global flood and plenty against it...

<br>

rocker, wouldn't you agree that in a perfect world there would be no boredom? A perfect God wouldn't have boredom. There is no time in heaven, so why would He need to "pass time"? It seems "convienent" for you to say "I'm sure" about this and "I'm sure" about that. Despite this you're calling me presumptuous? Take a look in the mirror.

Back to SPITfire:

<b>Really? Because you haven't seemed to be open to any of the alternate versions of creation we have brought up... you still seem to believe in the least possible version of it...</b>

Yeah, it would be better for me to believe that we came from microscopic particles that went through hundreds of non-functional transitional phases to become humans... all based on evidence that can fit in a garbage can. You have NO right to say my belief is the least possible.

<b>Nice sarcasm there...Well actually when water existed on Mars, its environment was surprisingly like Earth's. It had our climate and the same water and vulcanism as we do. On Europa, there is pure ice and H2O and also inner heat sources. It is cold, sure, but so is the bottom of our ocean... and who's to say the conditions on Earth are the only ones where life is possible. But we do know that the places we find life on Earth we could very well find on another world.</b>

So you back up a strong statement like "If God created it all at once, then life on all planets would be at the same state as the Earth" with this. ALL planets? Well I'm glad you admitted that environments on other planets are different. You have to resort to arguments about life being possible on planets with different environments. The funny thing is, that had nothing to do with the conversation. Unless maybe you're trying to tell me that even though environments are variable, life arises at the same rate anyway. That sounds bogus. I'm glad you were there when Mars was just like Earth so that you could tell me about it. I never would have guessed.

<b>Assumptions from a person who hates assumptions... no I don't want religion to be destroyed, since I believe in God TOO... I was just throwing out something for you to ponder. I thought God created it all in the "beginning" ? This immediately throws out your assumption that He creates at different times... according to the Bible He created the Universe and Earth in those 6 days. What I meant for the "destroy religion" comment was if we met up with an alien people. Since man was created in God's image, where would these aliens fit? Say they didnt believe in our God? This would also put religion in question...</b>

I didn't assume anything, I asked a question. If I wanted to assume something, I'd do it in the form of a statement. You said this: "What happens if we find intelligent life with far superior technology and bodies? Would this destroy religion as we know it?" What a rediculous question to ask. How did you get to this? Oh yeah, life arises at the same rate on any planet despite the environment, and it's impossible for God to have created life differently on different planets. To me it seems that you would have to want religion to die to make such a connection. That's why I asked the question. The answer is no. Ok then, let's move on. God's image was passed onto man, not apes, not birds, not cows, not aliens. If alien's didn't believe in God, yes maybe that would hurt religion a little bit. But, what if they were all satan's messengers? Hey I can speculate and make stuff up too. Satan has been hurting religion for centuries, but fortunately the grace of God overcomes.

Your last paragraph makes sense. <br>



<img src="http://www.j-body.org/registry/lancer/sunsetsig.jpg">
<font size="1">Jesus said, "In the world you will have tribulation,
but cheer up, I have overcome the world (John 16:33).</font>

Lancer: You are giving off a increasingly hostile vibe now... I don't know why...

The alternate versions of creation comment was not meant as "Lancer, believe in evolution". Evolution was not even mentioned in that sentence. My "least plausible" comment was aimed at the literal interpretation of the Bible, as opposed to a "Created Evolution" or a creation story that keeps with the evidence better like we have discussed before... I NEVER told you what to believe...

About Mars: Although I wasnt there... duh!... life may have existed on Mars in the distant past. But Mars did have seas and rivers.. look at the physical evidence on the surface. It did have volcanoes... the largest in the solar system in fact. It used to have a thicker atmosphere and weather... it still has clouds and dust storms presently. An explanation may have been a hotter Sun in the distant past (1billion years??) which made the Martian climate more mild... take into account during the Martian summer TODAY the temperature can get slightly above freezing... so a slight increase in the Sun's energy could raise the Martian temperature to acceptable levels for life and liquid water. Certainly it only reached the point of very simple life if it existed at all but it is not a stretch to assume that it could have or maybe still does...

I don't know what's with all the sarcasm and hostility but I think my arguments are just as valid as yours... you are not all-knowing just because you are more religious.

Maybe it was the way I worded it, but I do not wish for the destruction of religion... it was just to add to the debate... ok????????

<br>

Brett, If its canon then the meaning has stayed true.

Spitfire. I am even more literal, I guess. I will not put my meanings into the text, or at least I will strive not to. The Bible does not say that a day is 24 hours. It says a day is a period of light divided by dark.

"001:003 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

001:004 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the
light from the darkness.

001:005 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called
Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."

The bit about the "world", I tried to explain above. The word "world" has a flexable meaning. The bible does not say global flood, or the all of the Earth was flooded (more Biblical style to say something like "All of the dry land was covered by waters", or "All of the Earth was covered by waters" (dry land was called "Earth" in Genesis)). The "world" could be relative, if it meant all of the globe, I think it would say. Also, if God wanted all of the evil people dead on the entire planet, he could have just zapped them. This act appears to be an example for others to see, and hear about. To show God's displeasure in their wickedness. God preserved Noah, and talked with Noah, Noah did not need to suffer through the ordeal if he and his family were to be the only survivors in the entire world. I think it was a demonstration of power for a bigger audience the Noah and his family. The text is unclear at best, it does not state global or regional.

Besides, the Egyptians make no mention of a flood, and the ancient pyramids were build in the time of Noah.