"you were planned for god's pleasure" So we are just slaves?? And our only purpose is to serve god?! Does that make any sense?? *** The chief end of man is to glorify God and (in turn) ENJOY HIM FOREVER". We were made to enjoy fellowship with God. Let me tell you from experience that you can have everything else...and my relationship with Christ more than makes up for all of it! Paul said "I count all things as loss that I may gain Christ". I know what he meant! ------- "If and just if everything that happens around us is planned what's the meaning of life? If I can't decide what to do whay should I live?" ***God doesn't == determinism. You do have a choice. God says "I set before you life and death...choose life". You can either be the thief on the left side of Christ who cursed him or you can be the thief on the right who recognized Him for who he was (is). ----------- "Another very relevant question. What has all the starving people in for example Africa done wrong to deserve that fate? Cause everything that happens is gods will and he/she has this pre-made plan, right?" ***God is HOLY. He is also Just. He would be perfectly in his rights to blow us all away and send us to Hell immediately. THAT, my friend, is what we deserve. It is his mercy that keeps him from doing that. There are many CHristian organizations that seek to feed those people in Africa. Have you done anything? In any event, the real issue is not the here and now, but eternity. This life is no more significant than a dot in the middle of the pacific ocean by comparison. The question is, what will you do with Christ? -------- "Darwin was a wise man. " ****The proverbs say that "The fool has said in his heart that there is no God." And even Darwin recognized in his "origin of the species" that his ideas were full of problems. --------- And by the way the earth is not a pancake! *** I'm glad you found that out! Tim

*** The chief end of man is to glorify God and (in turn) ENJOY HIM FOREVER". --------- I don't enjoy the thought of some almighty i-know-what-you-will-do-next-summer big brother guy. I don't believe that a god exists, but if it does, that's not a good thing. ***God doesn't == determinism. You do have a choice. God says "I set before you life and death...choose life". --------- Wait, wait, wait. That doesn't fit into christian mythology, does it? If I recall correctly, god is considered to be omniscient. So...if I can choose freely, how can god be omniscient? I mean, if god knows what I'll choose, I don't have an actual choice. If he doesn't, god isn't omniscient, which casts some serious doubt about his godliness. (...) who recognized Him for who he was (is). ------- Such as an executed criminal? Traitor to the Roman Empire, if I recall correctly. That is, in case he actually existed, as that's not proven either. ***God is HOLY. He is also Just. He would be perfectly in his rights to blow us all away and send us to Hell immediately. -------- I already told you what I thought of that big brother guy. There are many CHristian organizations that seek to feed those people in Africa. Have you done anything? -------- I'm a member of amnesty international. In any event, the real issue is not the here and now, but eternity. -------- I've read Descartes, so I don't ask you for actual proof. But do you have some evidence (some that is not based on scripture of some kind) that an eternity actually exists? As experience teaches that nothing is eternal, your claims seem pretty...implausible...to me. The question is, what will you do with Christ? -------- <sarcasm>The Romans did a pretty good job, so I don't think I will have to bother.</sarcasm> ****The proverbs say that "The fool has said in his heart that there is no God." And even Darwin recognized in his "origin of the species" that his ideas were full of problems. --------- The problems you're talking about mainly were that his theory didn't fit into Darwins (christan) beliefs. There are, however, no inconsistencies in the theory itself that I am aware of. Evolution is, as a matter of fact, a pretty obvious mathematical necessity wherever mutation and election exist. Once you understand that the term 'fittest' doesn't equal strongest, but 'most likely to survive the election process for a long time', this becomes clearer. The survival usually implies spreading as widely as possible. The mutation is needed to introduce an element of innovation. This does not only apply to genes, but to a lot of other things as well. Ideas, for example. Fire was obviously a pretty 'fit' idea, as was religion, the wheel and suicide (which shows that a 'fit' idea does not have to be commonly considered 'good'). And by the way the earth is not a pancake! *** I'm glad you found that out! ----- The funny thing is, even the ancient Greek found that out, and it was the catholic church that 'undiscovered' it, because an earth-centered universe fitted their theory that we were the only reason the universe actually existed better. Talk about hypocrisy. That's my 2¢ on the matter. If you find this offending - think about how offending I may find your postings once you write the next one. Thank you.

The fact that GOd is omnicient is a very comforting thing to the believer. It means that nothing we do surprises Him...and no matter what, he provides for us. *** The chief end of man is to glorify God and (in turn) ENJOY HIM FOREVER". --------- I don't enjoy the thought of some almighty i-know-what-you-will-do-next-summer big brother guy. I don't believe that a god exists, but if it does, that's not a good thing. ***God doesn't == determinism. You do have a choice. God says "I set before you life and death...choose life". --------- Wait, wait, wait. That doesn't fit into christian mythology, does it? If I recall correctly, god is considered to be omniscient. So...if I can choose freely, how can god be omniscient? I mean, if god knows what I'll choose, I don't have an actual choice. If he doesn't, god isn't omniscient, which casts some serious doubt about his godliness. ****** No, you are presenting a false dilemma. Knowing everyting ahead of time doesn't necessitate determinism, just foreknowlege. Again, this is a comfort to us believers. ****** (...) who recognized Him for who he was (is). ------- Such as an executed criminal? Traitor to the Roman Empire, if I recall correctly. That is, in case he actually existed, as that's not proven either. **** Wrong on both counts. SECULAR historians have verified the fact that He lived...such as Josephus and Tertullian among others. Secondly, he was "set up" by the Jewish leaders of His day because he was a threat to their system. Even Herod said "I find no fault in this man." **** ***God is HOLY. He is also Just. He would be perfectly in his rights to blow us all away and send us to Hell immediately. -------- I already told you what I thought of that big brother guy. ***WE'll get to that...*** In any event, the real issue is not the here and now, but eternity. -------- I've read Descartes, so I don't ask you for actual proof. But do you have some evidence (some that is not based on scripture of some kind) that an eternity actually exists? As experience teaches that nothing is eternal, your claims seem pretty...implausible...to me. **** Well, in American courts, we allow the defense to speak on it's own behalf. That's not circular. Besides, the Bible has been demonstrated accurate....parts of it by the very people who sought to destroy it...Sir WIllam Ramsay became a believer while trying to destry the Gospel of Luke. He pronounced that Luke was "an historian of the first order" and that Luke is totally reliable. Read it. The question is, what will you do with Christ? -------- The Romans did a pretty good job, so I don't think I will have to bother. **** No, it was your sin and mine that put Christ on the cross. I wish you understood and appreciated what that meant for you. **** ****The proverbs say that "The fool has said in his heart that there is no God." And even Darwin recognized in his "origin of the species" that his ideas were full of problems. --------- The problems you're talking about mainly were that his theory didn't fit into Darwins (christan) beliefs. There are, however, no inconsistencies in the theory itself that I am aware of. Evolution is, as a matter of fact, a pretty obvious mathematical necessity wherever mutation and election exist. Once you understand that the term 'fittest' doesn't equal strongest, but 'most likely to survive the election process for a long time', this becomes clearer. The survival usually implies spreading as widely as possible. The mutation is needed to introduce an element of innovation. This does not only apply to genes, but to a lot of other things as well. Ideas, for example. Fire was obviously a pretty 'fit' idea, as was religion, the wheel and suicide (which shows that a 'fit' idea does not have to be commonly considered 'good'). *** No, I'm referring to Darwin having a problem with the lack of fossils and other problems such as the absurdity (as he called it) of thinking the eye could have evolved. Mutations? No, mutations lead to a LOSS of information, not an addition of information. We call these "informities". **** And by the way the earth is not a pancake! *** I'm glad you found that out! ----- The funny thing is, even the ancient Greek found that out, and it was the catholic church that 'undiscovered' it, because an earth-centered universe fitted their theory that we were the only reason the universe actually existed better. Talk about hypocrisy. *** Be careful not to confuse the Catholic institution with biblical Christianity. Not the same. Christianity = a personal relationship with God through Christ. Roman Catholicism is a religion based on works salvation. That's not biblical Chrisianity. *** That's my 2¢ on the matter. If you find this offending - think about how offending I may find your postings once you write the next one. Thank you. *** On the contrary, I don't find it offensive. No offense, but I don't get offended when a blind person steps on my toes and this is the same kind of thing. THe scriptures teach that the things of God are spiritually discerned. No one can understand them save they have the Spirit's assistance. So, I don't take offense. You just haven't yet had the experience of God opening your eyes, which is what the Spirit had to do with me. When I came to Christ, I was alone, no radio, no TV, just maybe some rock music in the background. I was browsing the net, looking at nothing having to do with religion, when suddenly I became vividly aware that I was a sinner before a holy God...and that I needed forgiveness. I was compelled to get on my knees and ask for forgiveness. It wasn't till later that I found out what I was experiencing is in the Bible. AFter that, the Scriptures took on new meaning. They literally 'speak' at times. It is no longer just "a book". It's a living document though which God speaks to His people. Since my conversion, I have seen countless times when God has intervened on my behalf. When my wife and I have been short on cash (and other types of things), God has provided...in ways that cannot be explained by 'coincidence'. It's simply happened too many times. I can't convince you of anything against your will...all I can do is try to answer your questions the best I can. May the Lord help you see what He has shown countless others... Praying for you... TIm

Excuse me....in the above, change "informities" to "Deformities". I have no idea why I said that! Tim

The fact that GOd is omnicient is a very comforting thing to the believer. ------ Well, it isn't to me. And honestly, I don't understand how it can be to you. No, you are presenting a false dilemma. Knowing everyting ahead of time doesn't necessitate determinism, just foreknowlege. ------ Foreknowledge requires determinism. Something that's not for sure yet cannot be known. So, if the future can be known, it is already determined. Wrong on both counts. SECULAR historians have verified the fact that He lived...such as Josephus and Tertullian among others. ------ Actually, that's not exactly true. The earliest texts that name Jesus were written about 40 years after he allegedly died. I'm talking about the first gospel here. Josephus, who wrote the oldest non-religous text that names Jesus, was born about that time, so his texts were written even later. Until then, the legend of Jesus was only told from mouth to ear. We have a child game here, called "Stille Post". One thinks up a word, then whispers it to his neighbor, who whispers it to the next etc. In the end, the original word is compared to the word that reached the last one, and it NEVER is the same. Now imagine this going on for 70 years. Plus, Josephus is not very specific, he actually writes about the execution of Jakobus, the brother of Jesus, the so-called christ. There are other texts that were attributed to Josephus, in which he praises Jesus as the great Messiah and stuff, but as the oldest copies of these were made by christian monks in the 5th century and Josephus was jewish, not christian, it's rather improbable he wrote that himself. Secondly, he was "set up" by the Jewish leaders of His day because he was a threat to their system. Even Herod said "I find no fault in this man." ------ According to the bible, that is. The gospel is trying to promote a religion. Now, I don't think a criminal would make a good Messiah. Make him innocent, say he was set up because he told the truth, and you've got great legend material. This may be just the same load of crap as a virgin bearing a child or this zombie stuff. Well, in American courts, we allow the defense to speak on it's own behalf. ------ We're not in court, nobody is accused of a crime. If you talk about me doubting the innocence of Jesus - the evidence of the case is long lost. I am not saying Jesus was guilty (as I doubt his existence, that would be rather dumb of me, wouldn't it?), I only say that it might have been other than your set-up story. Besides, the Bible has been demonstrated accurate....parts of it by the very people who sought to destroy it...Sir WIllam Ramsay became a believer while trying to destry the Gospel of Luke. He pronounced that Luke was "an historian of the first order" and that Luke is totally reliable. Read it. ------ This does not convince me as well. It takes a lot to convince me that someone can feed 5000 people with 7 breads and two fishes. Unless the fishes were whales, that is, but those are pretty uncommon in the area. Sir William Ramsay argues that Luke (I know that Luke's gospel was not written by an actual Luke, but for the sake of simplicity I'll just call him that) must be accurate in the gospel because he is accurate in another text, the book of Acts. This assumes several things, namely: 1. The book of Acts is accurate 2. The gospel and the book of acts were written by the same person. 3. Someone who is accurate in one text is accurate in all others he writes. Let us assume 1 is true, although this can also be doubted. 2 may be half-true, as the oldest copies of the gospels were also made by middle age monks, and they are known to have tailored scripture to the needs of the church. 3, however, is definitely false. I myself have written accurate texts as well as complete gibberish. No, it was your sin and mine that put Christ on the cross. I wish you understood and appreciated what that meant for you. ------ This is rich. I wasn't even born 2000 years ago, how could I have commited any sins by that time? No, I'm referring to Darwin having a problem with the lack of fossils and other problems such as the absurdity (as he called it) of thinking the eye could have evolved. ------ Well, a lot of fossils have been found by now, the evolution of the eye and even more complex organs (such as the kidney and the ear) is known, so I don't see an actual problem there anymore. Mutations? No, mutations lead to a LOSS of information, not an addition of information. We call these "informities". ------ Mutation is a change of information. It does not necessarily have to be a 'loss' (where 'loss' is yet to be defined in biological terms). Depending on the circumstances, the same thing may be a loss or a gain. Take for example sickle cell anemia. It is usually a bad thing, as the blood can transport less oxygen. However, it is an advantage in large areas of africa, as SCA also immunizes the body against malaria. Be careful not to confuse the Catholic institution with biblical Christianity. Not the same. Christianity = a personal relationship with God through Christ. Roman Catholicism is a religion based on works salvation. That's not biblical Chrisianity. ------ OK, I'll be more careful at that. However, the churches are a pretty good example of how religion (or ideology, to be fair. Atheism is not immune to that as well) can become dangerous. No offense, but I don't get offended when a blind person steps on my toes and this is the same kind of thing. ------ Just so you know: I do think the same thing about you. Only I'm not sure whether you're really blind or just don't want to see. (...) in ways that cannot be explained by 'coincidence'. It's simply happened too many times. ------ People tend to see things they want to see. People also tend not to see things they don't want to see. I think that someone whacked out on religion will easily attribute anything good that happens to god while finding excuses for anything bad that happens. Sometimes I find myself doing the same thing - well, not attributing stuff to god, but to other things. That's when I try to get some distance and take a neutral (as neutral as possible, that is) view. Have you ever tried to find a different explantion than 'god did it' for this sort of stuff? Praying for you... ------ Don't waste your time like that. Do something useful, like joining a human rights organisation or something.

Your answers demonstrate a demand that IF God exists, he be man-sized. Not the GOD of the Bible. Having created a God with such limitations, you attack that straw man and then act as if you've dealt with the real thing. You haven't. You mock at the idea of God, while you swallow the idea of things popping into existence on their own (from what?). That's certainly your choice. That being the case, I pray that God will somehow wake your heart as He did mine. Blessings to you, Tim

Actually, what I was trying to say was that the world is very well explainable without some god thingy, and that IF a god exists, I'm not happy with it - no matter what size or form or whatever it would be. If you don't want to think about your beliefs, just say so. I won't force you to. But if that is the case, don't ever pull that blind person analogy on me again.

Nope. I don't buy that. We just don't even live that way. Whenever we see things, we assume they were made. Oh, wait a minute...was that a humvee that popped into my drive? No, they are made...same with everything else. When is the last time anything like this was observed? Things don't just pop into existence. We expect things to have a maker. Somehow, when it comes to the origin of life, we get mystical about how matter created itself out of nothing. No, it makes more sense to believe it was *made*. Take 50 oranges. put them in a box. I'll give you as many chances as you want to see if you can dump them out and they arrange themselves in 5 rows of 10. Go ahead. TRY IT! That's order out of disorder. Where did the space for the universe come from? How can life come from dead matter? How does this fit with the laws of Biogenesis and Thermodynamics? Do we just *toss them out*? A number of *top* evolutionary scientists have openly admitted that they believe what they do *in spite of the evidence* not *because* of it. Evolution, in fact, goes back to at least Epicurius in the third century who believed so by choice...he wanted to justify his hedonism. So, it didn't start based on *science*. *and by science I mean the BACONIAN scientific method. One "find" after another is debunked as fraud...Nebraska man turns out to be an artwork based on a *PIGS TOOTH*. Another is found to be based on an animal's jawbone. Is this science? It takes more faith to believe that "noone + nothing = everything" than it does to believe that "someone * nothing = everything". Again, it is God's Word that says that the things of God are spiritually discerned...It takes a work of God's Spirit to open the eyes of those who can't see. Sorry...but that is God's appraisal of those who don't know Him...especially those who choose the path you are on. I used to be that way too! It was God's grace that made the difference. Tim

I think the following pretty much sums up what I keep seeing out there regarding mutation... "Mutation can't create the immense amounts of useful information required for creative evolution. Even the exceptional mutations that have beneficial effects (like the human sickle-cell gene) do not involve the creation of new organs or capabilities. The developmental mutations on which you [Kenneth Miller, whom he is debating] rely are no exception. Most are harmful, and the few that are not only explain the loss of a structure, or its replacement by a pre-existing one in the same organism, never the emergence of a new complex organ. Adding natural selection to the mechanism doesn't help, because selective death only preserves what mutation has already created." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/odyssey/debate/deb08joh1209.html ) The mechanism of obtaining "truth" in science has already been defined by Bacon. Sadly, this mechanism is all but ignored in the name of modern "science". As Lewontin has stated in the New York Review, "...we have a prior commitment to materialism." So, belief in this stuff is maintained regardless of the evidence, not because of it. Again, the whole evolutionary lie started at least as far back as Epicurius in the 3rd century a.d., not because of any discovery, but by preference for a hedonistic lifestyle. Tim Tim

I think the following pretty much sums up what I keep seeing out there regarding mutation... "Mutation can't create the immense amounts of useful information required for creative evolution. Even the exceptional mutations that have beneficial effects (like the human sickle-cell gene) do not involve the creation of new organs or capabilities. The developmental mutations on which you [Kenneth Miller, whom he is debating] rely are no exception. Most are harmful, and the few that are not only explain the loss of a structure, or its replacement by a pre-existing one in the same organism, never the emergence of a new complex organ. Adding natural selection to the mechanism doesn't help, because selective death only preserves what mutation has already created." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/odyssey/debate/deb08joh1209.html ) The mechanism of obtaining "truth" in science has already been defined by Bacon. Sadly, this mechanism is all but ignored in the name of modern "science". As Lewontin has stated in the New York Review, "...we have a prior commitment to materialism." So, belief in this stuff is maintained regardless of the evidence, not because of it. Again, the whole evolutionary lie started at least as far back as Epicurius in the 3rd century a.d., not because of any discovery, but by preference for a hedonistic lifestyle. Tim Tim

I think the following pretty much sums up what I keep seeing out there regarding mutation... "Mutation can't create the immense amounts of useful information required for creative evolution. Even the exceptional mutations that have beneficial effects (like the human sickle-cell gene) do not involve the creation of new organs or capabilities. The developmental mutations on which you [Kenneth Miller, whom he is debating] rely are no exception. Most are harmful, and the few that are not only explain the loss of a structure, or its replacement by a pre-existing one in the same organism, never the emergence of a new complex organ. Adding natural selection to the mechanism doesn't help, because selective death only preserves what mutation has already created." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/odyssey/debate/deb08joh1209.html ) The mechanism of obtaining "truth" in science has already been defined by Bacon. Sadly, this mechanism is all but ignored in the name of modern "science". As Lewontin has stated in the New York Review, "...we have a prior commitment to materialism." So, belief in this stuff is maintained regardless of the evidence, not because of it. Again, the whole evolutionary lie started at least as far back as Epicurius in the 3rd century a.d., not because of any discovery, but by preference for a hedonistic lifestyle. Tim Tim

Amen!

reply to the man up above.. Yea and they say perverted thoughts are related to that scary "dark" side... sheesh. 'nuff missionary stuff already, Ive got nothing against god but a SPAM of religious sorry to say this... bullshit, someone make some arcane stuff, I need something to bring it all back to balance with... Really, this is plain annoying, and as somebody else said "I dont want wallpapers about the stuff that makes 80% of the world fight" Which is more true than most care to imagine..

"you were planned for god's pleasure" So we are just slaves?? And our only purpose is to serve god?! Does that make any sense?? No, that's one of 5 Purposes according to the Purpose Driven Life (Week 2 of the 40 Days journey). But yes, it does make sense. If and just if everything that happens around us is planned what's the meaning of life? If I can't decide what to do whay should I live? Because you might not know what the plan for you is, but you do have an important meaning for your life. Another very relevant question. What has all the starving people in for example Africa done wrong to deserve that fate? Cause everything that happens is gods will and he/she has this pre-made plan, right? No. Man has the choice to disobey God. And we do. Our disobedience (sin) leads to the situations like we face in Africa. We deserve what they are suffering. This was the whole point of the Book of Job -- even the worst we could possibly experience is less than what we deserve. But God doesn't do all of that to us -- he gives us an opportunity to accept Him. Darwin was a wise man. And by the way the earth is not a pancake! If you are trying to imply that the Bible says the earth is flat, you would be mistaken. Some of the language in the Bible actually suggests a round earth (and the rest can be interpreted as neutral on the subject).

Thanks!

Your evidence is overwhelming!

That's ok; God doesn't believe in atheists! Tim

So, I suppose that you've got some amazing inside knowledge that tells you that "most" people agree? Or are you just being narcissistic?