The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

rockbeer

wolfsbane wrote: »

Not so. Originally man was perfect.

If we had been perfect we would have been incapable of sin. We were designed with the flaw - the imperfection - that made this sin of which you speak possible.

We can't have been both perfect and imperfect. You can't (edit: or rather, it would be illogical to) say sin changed us - we were obviously capable of the sin before the sin happened otherwise it wouldn't have happened at all.

So god designed us to be capable of sin and now punishes us for expressing the nature he designed us with.

And you call that merciful, kind and righteous

J C

rockbeer wrote: »

Unfortunately the bible doesn't seem to make that clear. It just tells us we have dominion. I looked that up in my dictionary and it translates as 'supreme authority'. No mention there of responsible stewardship, just domination.

You are of course right about all the things we shouldn't do, but sadly the bible and christianity offer us no guidance on such matters, being totally preoccupied with how much more important we are than everything else in the overall scheme of things.

With great power and authority (Dominion) comes great responsibility for God's wonderful, but fallen, Creation!!!:D
......unlike Evolutionism......whose doctrine of 'survival of the fittest' and 'progress' through death and extinction ......doesn't exactly encourage regrets over any individual that dies or any species that becomes extinct......it's what Evolution is all about, after all!!!!:)

BTW, I fully accept that individual Evolutionists are often deeply concerned about protecting endangered species and the death of individuals......but they are doing so in contravention of their belief that DEATH and EXTINCTION are ESSENTIAL ingredients in facilitating Natural Selection and Evolution......and the supposed mechanism for their OWN emergence from 'goo via the zoo'!!!!:):eek:

J C

wrote:

rockbeer
I would gladly take my chances in hell rather than swear allegiance to such a petty, vindictive and malicious being (God).

MooseJam
We'll he's in for a surprise if he (God) tries to judge me, I'd lay the smack down on him big time

...........you know not what you say.....this is the Creator God of the Universe that you are talking about!!!!!
........please, please I beg you, for your own sake, harden not your heart.....and turn away from sin and be saved......before it is too late!!!!!!

......if you are not saved, when you die, God WILL judge you.......and you will be the one that will be surprised.......and 'smacked down big time'!!!!l

J C

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Give me some examples of how someone deserves to be killed?

.......in God's eyes....ALL of us, at any time.....please remember that God demands our physical lives......because we are ALL sinners.......and that is why we ALL die.

Our salvation is from eternal perdition and NOT from physical death which Adam and Eve incurred for themselves and their descendents!!!

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Wicknight said:

The Bible says so. How's that for honesty?

The Bible says so but we haven't been able to support what the Bible says with a scientific basis yet would be being honest

wolfsbane wrote: »

So you think sparrows are spiders are sharks?

"Sparrow", "spider" and "shark" are human classifications for biological organisms (and quite inexact ones at that)

Nature has no obligation to divide itself up into the classifications biologists would find convenient.

wolfsbane wrote: »

It is all just a human method of classification, not something that actually exists in biology.

Yes

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, there are real divisions in lifeforms. The human efforts to distinguish are not perfect, but they are meant to convey real differences.

Of course there are real differences. :rolleyes:

You are completely missing the point. It is how we group the differences that determines species. It is a human decision. And it only makes sense when one factors in evolution.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The division is marked by the inability to reproduce.

That is nonsense because you have already admitted that species within a kind can be unable to reproduce.

Considering the vast vast majority of species cannot mate with each other (even the ones that can the vast majority of them produce offspring that cannot reproduce), such a classification is meaningless.

You classification is like saying you can identify a Ford car because they are blue, except for the ones that aren't blue :rolleyes:

Again how is this being "honest"?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Other factors also produce an inablity to reproduce, but kind is characterised by this: if two creatures can reproduce, they are of the same kind. We see lots of kinds: horse and zebras and donkeys all of one kind. Lions and tigers of one kind, etc.

That is two "kinds" Wolfsbane, and apparently each kind has only two species in it

That shows the nonsense of your claim at classification.

For example, a house cat (Felis catus) cannot genetically mate with the lion (Panthera leo), though I imagine you would say they are the same "kind", the cat kind (which has been mentioned before).

So how do you classify them as the same kind?

On the other hand proper biology groups them in the family Felidae, containing two genus Felis and Panthera. Lions and house cats are separated by approx 10 million years of evolution.

The proper biology make sense. It explains why they share some features and not others.

You can't even say that "kinds" don't make sense in classification because you can't actually classify a house cat or a lion as either the same kind or different kind.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Never have I asserted infinite diversity within a kind. They have a finite diversity - the sort that produces lions and tigers, for example, but not lions and humans.

Lions and tigers and all the millions of other species, alive today or in the fossil record, from 8,000 original animals. That seems pretty much infinite diversity to me.

In fact how do you even say that humans and lions are not the same kind? Describe the classification process that allowed you to come to that conclusion?

Its all nonsense, nonsense, nonsense. Its just a group of religious extremists sitting around guessing at biology. Guessing in such an abstract and undefined way that you can't even test any of their claims, like your claim that humans and lions are not the same kind.

How is any of this "honest" Wolfsbane?

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, I think the Bible is the source for this insight into biology. Without it one could speculate about the origins of all the species: all from an original self-replicating cell; from several/many self-replicating cells; from original kinds put here by some intelligence.

So is that an admission that you don't have any science here, you just have your particular religions particular holy book.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

......unlike Evolutionism......whose doctrine of 'survival of the fittest' and 'progress' through death and extinction ......doesn't exactly encourage regrets over any individual that dies or any species that becomes extinct......it's what Evolution is all about, after all!!!!:)

It isn't a doctrine- it's not some directive we are asked to actively follow. It's just what happened to get us to this point. Whether one takes on such notions as a way of life is entirely separate to Darwinian Evolution. Darwinian Evolution does not justify the extinction of a species at human hands any more than it justifies eugenics. People just use the name of Evolution to do what they want, just as many use the name of Christianity to wage wars. It's an abuse of a concept.

J C wrote: »

BTW, I fully accept that individual Evolutionists are often deeply concerned about protecting endangered species and the death of individuals......but they are doing so in contravention of their belief that DEATH and EXTINCTION are ESSENTIAL ingredients in facilitating Natural Selection and Evolution

Death and extinction are two means by which evolution occurs. There's also mutation, reproduction, gene flow, speciation, adaptation, survival, society, altruism, science, religion, conservation, fascism, democracy and ice cream... countless influences. Most importantly, our understanding of evolution does not deprive us of choice. We can still choose to save species from extinction, to punish murder, to help the weak or even to do quite the opposite. The impulses which drive us to do these acts are born of evolution itself. Ultimately, what we choose will become part of evolution. Nothing we do or fail to do is dictated by the theory, assuming we believe that free will is real.

J C wrote: »

......and the supposed mechanism for their OWN emergence from 'goo via the zoo'!!!!:):eek:

That isn't a part of the theory of evolution.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

...........you know not what you say.....this is the Creator God of the Universe that you are talking about!!!!!
........please, please I beg you, for your own sake, harden not your heart.....and turn away from sin and be saved......before it is too late!!!!!!

......if you are not saved, when you die, God WILL judge you.......and you will be the one that will be surprised.......and 'smacked down big time'!!!!l

Literally speaking, taking all the evidence that I have observed into account, I wouldn't bet on it. The odds of your God existing exactly as you believe are vanishingly small. To bet your entire way of life upon such odds is irrational. It is enough to try one's best to be a good person. If some improbable multidimensional being wishes to take issue with that simple life philosophy then there is little I can reasonably do about it.

Galvasean

rockbeer wrote: »

You see, it's all this carry-on that's the reason why, even if you could prove to me unequivocally that your god exists and that every word of the bible were true, I still wouldn't bend the knee to him. I would gladly take my chances in hell rather than swear allegiance to such a petty, vindictive and malicious being.

You say that now, but I bet you cave in pretty quickly. Once he starts torturing you.

Galvasean

MooseJam wrote: »

We'll he's in for a surprise if he tries to judge me, I'd lay the smack down on him big time

God can't be surprised. Hence why its so strange that your sinning upsets him. Surely he saw it coming when he created the universe?

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

'goo via the zoo'!!!!:)

I just taught I'd quote that. It's a great little phrase.

rockbeer

Galvasean wrote: »

You say that now, but I bet you cave in pretty quickly. Once he starts torturing you.

It's true. I can't stand the sight of blood. Especially my own

AtomicHorror

Galvasean wrote: »

God can't be surprised. Hence why its so strange that your sinning upsets him. Surely he saw it coming when he created the universe?

The mystery of free-will. God is omnipotent but not... entirely.

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

The mystery of free-will. God is omnipotent but not... entirely.

......there is no mystery about free will......... God has VOLUNTARILY granted us free will......and thereby VOLUNTARILY limited His omnipotence......when it comes to people.....and the exercise of their free will.

......so God has VOLUNTARILY decided NOT to use His omnipotence to force us to love Him.....or to prevent us from doing evil!!!!!

....He lays before us life and death and asks us to (freely) choose life!!!!!:)

.......the actions of any Human Being can therefore have vast far-reaching consequence for good or ill......Adam is a prime example of the latter.....and Jesus Christ of the former!!!!!

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

......there is no mystery about free will......... God has VOLUNTARILY granted us free will......and thereby VOLUNTARILY limited His omnipotence......when it comes to people.....and the exercise of their free will.

......so God has VOLUNTARILY decided NOT to use His omnipotence to force us to love Him.....or to prevent us from doing evil!!!!!

....He lays before us life and death and asks us to (freely) choose life!!!!!:)

.......the actions of any Human Being can therefore have vast far-reaching consequence for good or ill......Adam is a prime example of the latter.....and Jesus Christ of the former!!!!!

By your definition, God now has no idea what's going to happen to Earth or any part of the universe that humans can interact with. Our actions cannot be predicted by him, and so the actions of 6.5 billion humans represent chaotic uncertainty for him. That's pretty far from omnipotent. He's effectively given up his power entirely. If that's what you believe, fair enough. But what I described as the "mystery" is just how many christians see it. It appears paradoxical in many respects.

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

It isn't a doctrine- it's not some directive we are asked to actively follow. It's just what happened to get us to this point. Whether one takes on such notions as a way of life is entirely separate to Darwinian Evolution. Darwinian Evolution does not justify the extinction of a species at human hands any more than it justifies eugenics. People just use the name of Evolution to do what they want, just as many use the name of Christianity to wage wars. It's an abuse of a concept.

.....there is one important DIFFERENCE......fighting wars is completely inconsistent with the CORE Christian philosophy of LOVING your enemy ......while eugenics and the direct extinction of other species in completley consistent with the Evolutionary concept of 'the genetic survival of the fittest'.
As I have said many Evolutionists don't engage in eugenics or the extinction of endangered species........but they do so because they have a God-given moral aversion to such behaviour....
.......and DESPITE their belief that DEATH and EXTINCTION are ESSENTIAL ingredients in facilitating Natural Selection and Evolution......and the supposed mechanism for their OWN emergence from 'goo via the zoo'!!!!

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Death and extinction are two means by which evolution occurs. There's also mutation, reproduction, gene flow, speciation, adaptation, survival, society, altruism, science, religion, conservation, fascism, democracy and ice cream... countless influences. Most importantly, our understanding of evolution does not deprive us of choice. We can still choose to save species from extinction, to punish murder, to help the weak or even to do quite the opposite. The impulses which drive us to do these acts are born of evolution itself. Ultimately, what we choose will become part of evolution. Nothing we do or fail to do is dictated by the theory, assuming we believe that free will is real.

......you choose to act in a morally upright way because your God-given conscience prompts you to do so.....and you use your free will to respond positively to this prompting.
However, Evolutionists DO believe that the PRIMARY mechanism by which evolution from 'goo via the zoo' supposedly occurred was via death and extinction.....and all of the other items like gene flow, speciation, adaptation, survival, society, altruism, science, religion, conservation, fascism, democracy and ice cream.....are secondary or tertiary factors.....that ONLY come into play when you are NOT dead and your species ISN'T extinct!!!!!:D
It is no accidental co-incidence that ALL of the infamous Eugenecists of the early 20th Century were Evolutionists.....apparently, one female Eugenecist was so much into 'survival of the fittest' that she disowned her own daughter for marrying a myopic man.....because, in her warped opinion, her daughter had married a 'genetically defective' man!!!!!!!

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
......and the supposed mechanism for their OWN emergence from 'goo via the zoo'!!!!

AtomicHorror
That isn't a part of the theory of evolution.

......death and extinction are indeed very much part of the theory of the evolution of Mankind from 'goo' (or proto-cell life) via the 'zoo' (or all of the missing links)......that are still MISSING!!!!:D

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
......there is no mystery about free will......... God has VOLUNTARILY granted us free will......and thereby VOLUNTARILY limited His omnipotence......when it comes to people.....and the exercise of their free will.

......so God has VOLUNTARILY decided NOT to use His omnipotence to force us to love Him.....or to prevent us from doing evil!!!!!

....He lays before us life and death and asks us to (freely) choose life!!!!!

.......the actions of any Human Being can therefore have vast far-reaching consequence for good or ill......Adam is a prime example of the latter.....and Jesus Christ of the former!!!!!

AtomicHorror
By your definition, God now has no idea what's going to happen to Earth or any part of the universe that humans can interact with. Our actions cannot be predicted by him, and so the actions of 6.5 billion humans represent chaotic uncertainty for him. That's pretty far from omnipotent. He's effectively given up his power entirely. If that's what you believe, fair enough. But what I described as the "mystery" is just how many christians see it. It appears paradoxical in many respects.

......God voluntarily limited His Omnipotence......but NOT His Omniscience!!!
.......so God KNOWS EVERYTHING that is going to be done by every Human during their lifetime.
You are correct that the immoral use of free will......will lead to chaos.....and ultimately the Bible predicts that things will become so chaotically evil that God will end it all by His triumphant return......and He will remove the free will of everyone who isn't saved.....and will consign them to eternal perdition along with the Devil and his angels.

Could I also point out that even though we now have total free will....our abilities to exercise it are limited by our physical Human condition.....and our free will is also circumscribed by our fellow Human Beings exercising THEIR free will........
......so, for example, if I was to use my free will to beat somebody up .....I could expect other people to use their free will to throw me in jail!!!!:)

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

.....there is one important DIFFERENCE......fighting wars is completely inconsistent with the CORE Christian philosophy of LOVING your enemy ......while eugenics and the direct extinction of other species in completley consistent with the Evolutionary concept of 'the genetic survival of the fittest'.

"Survival of the fittest" does not mean "might is right". It means that things which are well adapted/evolved to a given environment will tend to survive at a higher rate than those which are not. Nothing more.

It's been misinterpreted before and I'm sure that will continue. As I said, people invoke and misunderstand concepts so they can do as they please.

J C wrote: »

As I have said many Evolutionists don't engage in eugenics or the extinction of endangered species........but they do so because they have a God-given moral aversion to such behaviour....

And why can it not be an evolution-given aversion? Altruism and empathy enhance the survival of a species. Further, interspecies extensions of this enhance the survival of sets of interdependant species. These are advantageous traits for survival, therefore natural selection will favour them. There is nothing at all in evolution that demands any particular behaviour of a human. Whatever we do will simply become a factor in our survival.

J C wrote: »

......you choose to act in a morally upright way because your God-given conscience prompts you to do so.....and you use your free will to respond positively to this prompting.
However, Evolutionists DO believe that the PRIMARY mechanism by which evolution from 'goo via the zoo' supposedly occurred was via death and extinction.....and all of the other items like gene flow, speciation, adaptation, survival, society, altruism, science, religion, conservation, fascism, democracy and ice cream.....are secondary or tertiary factors.....that ONLY come into play when you are NOT dead and your species ISN'T extinct!!!!!:D

No, the primary mechanisms and survival and selection. Life and death. We could use evolution to justify conservation (against what we might perhaps term unnatural selection) as easily as mass-culling. Quite the contrary though, in truth evolution says nothing about what we "should" do. It only speaks of what happened and is occuring, with or without our choices. None of it compels a human to act in any particular manner, despite your efforts to suggest that evolution is or should be a life philosophy advocating selfishness.

J C wrote: »

AtomicHorror:
That isn't a part of the theory of evolution.

......death and extinction are indeed very much part of the theory of the evolution of Mankind from 'goo' (or proto-cell life) via the 'zoo' (or all of the missing links)......that are still MISSING!!!!:D

"That" refers to "goo via the zoo" which sounded to me to be "muck to man" again. Since you've qualified "goo" to mean proto-cell life, I'm satisfied.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

[/B]......God voluntarily limited His Omnipotence......but NOT His Omniscience!!!
.......so God KNOWS EVERYTHING that is going to be done by every Human during their lifetime.
You are correct that the immoral use of free will......will lead to chaos.....and ultimately the Bible predicts that things will become so chaotically evil that God will end it all by His triumphant return......and He will remove the free will of everyone who isn't saved.....and will consign them to eternal perdition along with the Devil and his angels.

Could I also point out that even though we now have total free will....our abilities to exercise it are limited by our physical Human condition.....and our free will is also circumscribed by our fellow Human Beings exercising THEIR free will........
......so, for example, if I was to use my free will to beat somebody up .....I could expect other people to use their free will to throw me in jail!!!!:)

I get it, I just think it sounds astoundingly unlikely.

J C

Wicknight wrote:

On the other hand proper biology groups them in the family Felidae, containing two genus Felis and Panthera. Lions and house cats are separated by approx 10 million years of evolution.

The proper biology make sense. It explains why they share some features and not others.

You can't even say that "kinds" don't make sense in classification because you can't actually classify a house cat or a lion as either the same kind or different kind.

Lions are members of the Big Cat or Panthera Kind.....while House Cats are members of the Small Cat or Feline Kind!!!

......could I also gently remind you that your "proper biology groups" STILL LARGELY follow the original taxonomic system devised by a Creation Scientist, Carol Linnaeus.....and it is was originally (and continues to be largely) based on the Created Kind as well as common physical attributes.....for the higher orders of classification!!!!!:)
For example Panthera Leo belongs to the Created Kind Panthera and the species Leo!!!!:)

.....evolutionists have long seized on the Linnean system of nomenclature and have tried (largely in vain) to accommodate it to an Evolutionist Worldview....but it still largely retains the original Created Kind basis of nomenclature!!!!:)

.....and BTW the scientific definition of a Kind is a group of organisms that are descended from a Specially Created Common Ancestor.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

......could I also gently remind you that your "proper biology groups" STILL LARGELY follow the original taxonomic system devised by a Creation Scientist, Carol Linnaeus.....

Your gentle reminders are quite patronising. We follow Linnean taxonomy because it is a well-established naming system. In that regard you yourself could stand to learn something. As we learn more, it is becoming increasingly apparent that it is an inadequate system. This is not Linnaeus's fault- he constructed a system that stood (albeit modified extensively) for over 200 years. As to Linneaus being a "Creation Scientist"... who wasn't back then? The man died 81 years before the publication of The Origin of Species.

J C wrote: »

...and it is was originally (and continues to be largely) based on the Created Kind...

Then why does the classification "Kind" not appear at any level in the system?

J C wrote: »

.....evolutionist have long seized on the Linnean system of nomenclature and have tried (largely in vain) to accommodate it to an Evolutionist Worldview!!!!:)

The system was created based on the knowledge available at the time. In that respect it was perfectly sound. It has been modified many times, not because of evolution's shortcomings but because we have found that the data contradicts it. There are, for example, not three kingdoms of life, but at least five (which cross over). Species is inadequately defined since some species may interbreed while others may not. The system does not allow us to properly categorise many single-celled life forms due to such traits as asexuality and horizontal gene transfer... these are all simple observable facts. The system will continue to be modified. If some have their way it will be scrapped. That's science.

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Then why does the classification "Kind" not appear at any level in the system?

The terms 'Kind' and 'Family' are interchangable.....for example the Big Cat Family and the Big Cat Kind......but for some reason Evolutionists have an aversion to the word 'Kind'......I wonder WHY that should be??????:D

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

"Survival of the fittest" does not mean "might is right". It means that things which are well adapted/evolved to a given environment will tend to survive at a higher rate than those which are not. Nothing more.

......but some people who considered themselves to be 'high and mighty' and well adapted/evolved.......have acted as if 'might is right'.......especially if they believed that they could 'improve' the Human Race as a result!!!!!

.....Christians believe that every Human is a unique and wonderful child of God ........and the concept of being 'well adapted to the environment' is a meaningless concept that has been used to provided an excuse for great evil to be perpetrated in the not too distant past!!!:eek:

AtomicHorror wrote: »

"And why can it not be an evolution-given aversion? Altruism and empathy enhance the survival of a species. Further, interspecies extensions of this enhance the survival of sets of interdependant species. These are advantageous traits for survival, therefore natural selection will favour them. There is nothing at all in evolution that demands any particular behaviour of a human. Whatever we do will simply become a factor in our survival.

…..Natural Selection may favour altruism and empathy amongst close relatives and between symbiotic organisms…….but objective morality and our God-given conscience IS REQUIRED for altruism towards other people and species that DON’T help our genetics to survive!!!!!:D

AtomicHorror wrote: »

"No, the primary mechanisms and survival and selection. Life and death. We could use evolution to justify conservation (against what we might perhaps term unnatural selection) as easily as mass-culling. Quite the contrary though, in truth evolution says nothing about what we "should" do. It only speaks of what happened and is occuring, with or without our choices. None of it compels a human to act in any particular manner, despite your efforts to suggest that evolution is or should be a life philosophy advocating selfishness.

……many Evolutionists DO rise above their beliefs in the ‘genetic survival of the fittest’ to be exemplary Humanitarians, and champions of the 'under-dog'…….by the prompting of their conscience!!!

AtomicHorror wrote: »

""That" refers to "goo via the zoo" which sounded to me to be "muck to man" again. Since you've qualified "goo" to mean proto-cell life, I'm satisfied.

…..BTW “muck” ALSO means proto-cell life…..so are you now satisfied with ‘Muck To Man Evolution’ as well???:)

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
......God voluntarily limited His Omnipotence......but NOT His Omniscience!!!
.......so God KNOWS EVERYTHING that is going to be done by every Human during their lifetime.
You are correct that the immoral use of free will......will lead to chaos.....and ultimately the Bible predicts that things will become so chaotically evil that God will end it all by His triumphant return......and He will remove the free will of everyone who isn't saved.....and will consign them to eternal perdition along with the Devil and his angels.

AtomicHorror
I get it, I just think it sounds astoundingly unlikely.

....If I were you, I wouldn't bet my Eternal Life on it NOT happening!!!:eek::):):D

Flamed Diving

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MXTBGcyNuc

This video is rather well timed for this discussion.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

......but some people who considered themselves to be 'high and mighty' and well adapted/evolved.......have acted as if 'might is right'.......especially if they believed that they could 'improve' the Human Race as a result!!!!!

That is not the fault of a theory. It is the fault of human selfishness.

J C wrote: »

.....Christians believe that every Human is a unique and wonderful child of God ........and the concept of being 'well adapted to the environment' is a meaningless concept that has been used to provided an excuse for great evil to be perpetrated in the not too distant past!!!:eek:

It is a concept that has been abused to do great evil but it is very far from being meaningless. I happen to consider every extant organism to be a unique and wonderful product of evolution. Except beetles- they kinda creep me out a bit.

J C wrote: »

…..Natural Selection may favour altruism and empathy amongst close relatives and between symbiotic organisms…….but objective morality and our God-given conscience IS REQUIRED for altruism towards other people and species that DON’T help our genetics to survive!!!!!:D

Cross-species empathy is displayed by species other than humans and outside of the immediate bounds of symbiosis. Since you consider non-humans to lack morality and conscience, this leaves only something in their innate nature.

J C wrote: »

……many Evolutionists DO rise above their beliefs in the ‘genetic survival of the fittest’ to be exemplary Humanitarians, and champions of the 'under-dog'…….

There's nothing to rise above. What you're describing- human philosophies- are not a part of the theory of evolution. That's why it's a theory and not a philosophy.

J C wrote: »

but phenomena like the selective abortion of so-called ‘imperfect’ babies does still sometimes occur…..and it is approved of by some people!!!

And that is a moral question. Morals must certainly take science into account, but science alone does not dictate morals or philosophy. We could as easily invoke natural selection to ban all forms of human-mediated selection. It would still not be part of the theory of evolution if we did so. You are attempting to paint evolution as some manner of philosophy which would defy the core tenets of Christianity. Is that really all you have left?

J C wrote: »

…..BTW “muck” ALSO means proto-cell life…..so are you now satisfied with ‘Muck To Man Evolution’ as well???:)

No. I was satisfied with "goo" once you'd qualified it fully. Having worked with bacterial cultures I can confirm that they can look like goo. Muck is an inaccurate description of such cultures. It is also not at all what you were originally implying when you were using the term.

Galvasean

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/muck

No reference to bacteria there.

Flamed Diving

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/

Tee hee!

wolfsbane

Galvasean wrote: »

God can't be surprised. Hence why its so strange that your sinning upsets him. Surely he saw it coming when he created the universe?

You are correct in saying nothing suprises God. He not only forsees all events, but permits only those to occur, good and bad, that further His plan.

Why does He get upset at sin if He knows it is coming? Because it is sin and He is holy - that is, He hates sin. Permiting it to happen does not mean He has anything but hatred for it.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

You are correct in saying nothing suprises God. He not only forsees all events, but permits only those to occur, good and bad, that further His plan.

Why does He get upset at sin if He knows it is coming? Because it is sin and He is holy - that is, He hates sin. Permiting it to happen does not mean He has anything but hatred for it.

Firstly "holy" means divine. We have been over this, you haven't given a reason why anyone should automatically accept that a divine being would hate sin.

Secondly, sin is simply us disobeying a commandment from God. Why would a perfect omniscient being hate or get angry when we disobey him?

* the "when" is interesting. God exists outside time. The idea that he isn't angry with you up to the point that you commit a sin, then he gets angry with you is nonsensical. So is he constantly in a state of anger towards you. Again that makes no sense.

God would have got over being angry with you millions of years before you where born.

Flamed Diving

Why does a god need emotions anyway?