Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

Proverbs is the book you are looking for most probably, Proverbs 2, 4, or 10. All speak of searching for wisdom.



:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

PeterS

What chaos? So is it the extinction of the dinosaurs that brought froth the era of the mammal the chaos you refer to? Isn't it a matter of perspective as to whether this is a improvement? Certainly the dinosaurs don't think so but for man and that tiny little mouse not survived then the genetics for man wouldn't exist.



And you would accept examples of evolution if you were given them?

1) Goose Bumps--animals get goose bumps when freighted that causes the hair to stand up on their bodies and make an animal appear larger. Man still gets goose bumps when frightened but without hair they are useless.

2) Milk--Historically, the gene that regulated a human's ability to digest lactose shut down as they were weaned off of their mother's breast milk. But when we began domesticating cows, sheep and goats, being able to drink milk became a nutritionally advantageous quality, and people with the genetic mutation that allowed them to digest lactose were better able to propagate their genes.

A 2006 study suggests this tolerance for lactose was still developing as early as 3,000 years ago in East Africa. That genetic mutation for digesting milk is now carried by more than 95 percent of Northern European descendants.

3) Our ancestors had much bigger jaws than we do, which helped them chew a tough diet of roots, nuts and leaves. And what meat they ate they tore apart with their teeth, all of which led to worn down choppers that needed replacing. Enter the wisdom teeth: A third set of molars is believed to be the evolutionary answer to accommodate our ancestors' eating habits.

Today, we have utensils to cut our food. Our meals are softer and easier to chew, and our jaws are much smaller as a result, which is why wisdom teeth are often impacted when they come in — there just isn't room for them. Like the appendix, wisdom teeth have become vestigial organs. One estimate says 35 percent of the population is born without wisdom teeth, and some say they will disappear altogether.

4) in 2007, a group of researchers looking for signs of recent evolution uncovered 1,800 genes that have only become prevalent in humans in the last 40,000 years, many of which are devoted to fighting infectious diseases like malaria. More than a dozen new genetic variants for fighting malaria are spreading rapidly among Africans. Another study found that natural selection has favored city-dwellers. Living in cities has produced a genetic variant that allows us to be more resistant to diseases like tuberculosis and leprosy. "This seems to be an elegant example of evolution in action," says Dr. Ian Barnes from the School of Biological Sciences at Royal Holloway. "It flags up the importance of a very recent aspect of our evolution as a species, the development of cities as a selective force."

5) Peppered Moth--Many times a species is forced to make changes as a direct result of human progress. Such is the case with the peppered moth (Biston betularia). Up until the Industrial Revolution, these moths were typically whitish in color with black spots, although they were found in a variety of shades. As the Industrial Revolution reached its peak, the air in London became full of soot, and the once-white trees and buildings that moths used for camouflage became stained black. The birds began to eat more of the lighter-colored moths because they were more easily spotted than the darker ones. Over the course of a few months, dark moths started appearing in the area and lighter moths became scarce. Once the Industrial Revolution peak passed, lighter moths made a comeback.

6)Drug resistant bacteria

7) Pesticide resistant insects

8) There are 13 types of finches on the Galapagos that all have different beaks and can be traced back to a common ancestor in S. American

9) Nylon-eating Bacteria--Since nylon wasn't invented until the 1940s, bacteria that can eat nylon can be nothing but new. The bacterium Pseudomonas is able to metabolize nylon thanks to certain enzymes it has. However, a surprising thing happens when you take a non-nylon eating variety of this bacterium and place it in an environment where the only type of food available is nylon. Every single time the experiment was tried, the bacteria would evolve until it was able to consume nylon [source: Michigan State University]. This is a very simple example of natural selection, where the most basic forms of life can adapt to whatever food the environment offers.

And of course there are many, many more example but I have a feeling that no amount of evidence will convince you that evolution is true...
http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/curiosity/topics/10-examples-natural-selection.htm
http://listverse.com/2009/01/05/top-10-signs-of-evolution-in-modern-man/



Why are you assigning the fallibility of man to the fallibility of nature? Nature can only give man the opportunity to exist--that Man blows that opportunity is purely to fault of Man. And if Man does destroy himself nature goes on as does evolution--the earth will heal itself and life will go on just as it has done dozens of times in the past. You are assuming that Man somehow deserves to be here. Nature doesn't care whether a man or a mouse exists, it's all the same. Both are a success but unlike a mouse only Man is stupid enough to turn his existence into a failure...

PeterS

Huh? How is Darwinism an Extreme?


This is pure nonsense: I can observe a fart over time but that has nothing to do with the "evolution" of gas.
Why is it you always seem to need to redefine that which doesn't need to be redefined.

ev·o·lu·tion
?ev?'lo?oSH(?)n/
noun
1. the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
synonyms: Darwinism, natural selection

2.the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.

It isn't the "science of observation over time" but the change over time of living organisms and how that change leads to more complex life forms. Evolution occurs whether we observe it or not. It's Darwin's theory of Natural Selection that is dependent on observation not evolution. You really shouldn't try to explain that which you clearly do not understand!


Has anyone argued anything differently?


The discussion was on why CC' Fundamentalists couldn't accept that god used evolution to create man. In that discussion I stated: "As for there being a reason for evolution if you are a supernatural being capable of spontaneous creation...." Spontaneous Creation is the beginning whether you believe in Creationism or Darwinism. If you go back and read Larry's explanation it was much more concise than yours...

hungry freaks2.0 Loc: vermont

******************

the answer fundamentalists will give is that there's evolution within species but no proof trans-species evolution (hence this thread's name EVILution)

Evolution is inarguably present within species, the finch beaks being one indication. And the fossil record does show, or at least shows signs of, trans-species evolution. but fun dies don't want to admit to it because it goes against the "God created earth and humans in seven 24-hour days." routine. I've had fun dies tell me that the earth is about 6,000 years old and that God put fossils here to test my faith. Well, he got me on that one. Small minded people telling me how God thinks. As finite beings, we cannot comprehend much at all of the infinite being.

Who knows how or why the earth evoked as it did? A great intellectual exercise , but of little actual importance to my life today. We are evolving into a species with thin necks, fat wallets and weak eyes. Humans just a hundred years ago had more dense bones and deeper bone groove due to hard, physical labor being more common. This in a second of historical time.

Another hundred years an dour necks won't be able to support our oversized heads. Or artificial intelligence will wipe out the human race is 75 years-or at least make the human race irrelevant.

Ranger7374 Loc: Arizona, 40 miles from the border in the DMZ

So when it doesn't work for you, you change the definition I see. For the noun evolution comes from the verb to evolve which means to change through time. When applied to a species it means the change a species goes through in time. Plain and simple. Darwinism is a belief of how that change takes place.

That is like saying the Roman Catholics are not Christians, or the Greek Orthodox Catholics are not Christians. For the Catholics and the Orthodox Catholics are both Christians. What is a Christian? One who follows the teachings of Christ. What is a Roman Catholic, a universal Christian who follows the teachings of Christ in accordance with the Roman Cannon. What is a Greek Orthodox Catholic? A universal Christian who follows the Greek Cannon? Both are Christians and both are Catholics however their traditions are different. That is all. But they are both Christian.

Like wise Evolution is an observation of the changes a species makes over time, Darwinism is a possible explanation of that observation. To believe differently is stupid. For it is not said that Darwinists have the fact of evolution but believe that evolution is........(fill in the blank).

kush

Bunk!!!!!
Evolution is science. Scientists takes observed FACTS and make USEFUL models so that we can understand the natural world in which we live.

Religion is FAITH. Religious zealots have the ability to IGNORE the world in which we live and to cling to ignorant , preconceived falsehoods. The idiots that flew planes into buildings KNEW that they would be rewarded in heaven, just as you know your Christianity will also reward you in the afterlife. Your faith allows you to take refuge in a fantasy world; PLEASE try to not mess up this world!

Ranger7374 Loc: Arizona, 40 miles from the border in the DMZ

Evolution is observation. And it is through this observation that the sciences are born. For example, meteorology, archaeology, historians, physics both traditional and quantum mechanics, all come from observation.

Religion too comes from a trial and error based upon observation. Now Science uses an organized logical formulae based upon the senses, Religion uses faith based upon the interaction of God. Both are justified, both work.

But Darwinism does not work. For it is impossible for Man to be related to animal. It is here that the confusion sets in and Darwin in all his study, fell into the trap. For the Nephilim is what he found, for the description of the Giants he called Cro Magnon and Neanderthal were the Nephilim by the description based upon his study.

The conversation is becoming ignorant for no one is truly listening to the other. But if you take the truth from Peter for example and combine it with the truth of Larry, the true truth comes to light.

I have explained the truth, which is backed up by both Faith and Science and I have been attacked all over the place. On two topics, and the ignorance of these attacks prevent us from moving forward.

We cannot be stuck in the age old battle against either science or religion especially when for the first time in history science and religion are agreeing with each other.

I don't understand why man in general has a hard time understanding that a God who is all powerful and all forgiving, and creator of all could not create, nor give delegated power to create, all the wonderful things around us. I don't understand why many people debunk the wisdom of God in our fellow man, while the ignorance of science, which has not gone through the test of time, they accept, ignoring the wisdom until it is too late, if ever.

Wisdom is required to interpret the data that is found through observation. It is this observation that the imagination changes and it doesn't work. For years there are flaws that we live with. Then one day someone fights against the grain and says, "What if?" and if free to expand upon this knowledge one finds that the What if may work. Then it is tried and the "World is found to be round, not flat. " Did not our satellite prove this unconditionally?

So just like the argument between science and the Roman Catholic Church was proven authentic, the reverse must also be recognized, maybe the Church is correct and Darwinism is incorrect. And since I believe this is true, then we must evaluate the fact that Man is not always correct by using one form or another of Observation. For the political beliefs are always wrong, but the principles are always right.

This brings me to the head scientist who led the expedition in 1978 on the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin. For he was careful and forced his team to be careful. They recently within the past 10-15 years were authorized to do the carbon-14 dating. The carbon-14 dating said the Shroud was not authentic. So we can end the argument here right?

Wrong, and this is what upset the head scientist, for the samples that were taken had flaws. And these flaws had flaws, therefore the dating is flawed. But before he could review the data, and before he could make a statement to the press, politics took over, and said the Shroud was a fake.

Then he was able to comment and showed that the experiments were flawed this flaw made the question come up again, is it a fake. This has been going on time and time again throughout history.

So we must refine our science, in order to better understand the data. This is what I have done with the theory of the Nephilim. For in both Religious record and in Historical record in the bible and the other collected books of biblical times, we see the interaction of Man and the Angels.

Knowing that there are both good and evil angels such as there are both good and evil men, so were the acts of the evil angels that are now imprisoned in Hell. For beginning in the New testament, it is written that there are evil angels, these are called satans or Satan. It is also written that there are demons.

From here we can work backwards to the old testament, when we do we find the story of Genesis 6. That Jude compliments and also shows a tradition of another story. A story of pre-flood times. Which brings us to another collection of books that were not canonized in the bible.

Now, I will list as a scholar all the books of the collection of the bible from all sides of Christianity and Jewish canon. Now mind you many people attempt to debunk some of these books, but you must understand that man has prayed and used great faith to include these books, therefore I must in the investigation include all the books to. For each book inspired or not, contains knowledge of the past. This knowledge must be studied. Mind you as a believer I accept the Roman Catholic Cannon and the King James version. However as a sholar I must include all the evidence that was left behind by the ancients. These are their books.

Here are all the books of Biblical times:

The complete and total Old Testament:

It is agreed that these books are parts of the Bible. For one Church may agree where another disagree. Fact is if any agree then it must be included otherwise knowledge is lost and Faith suffers.

Genesis; Exodus; Leviticus; Numbers; Deuteronomy; Joshua; judges; Ruth; I Samuel; II Samuel; I Kings; II Kings; I Chronicles; II Chronicles; I Esdras; Tobit or Tobias; Judith; Esther with additions; 1 Maccabees; 2 Maccabees; 3 Maccabees, Psalms including Psalm 151; Prayer of Manasseh, Job; Proverbs, Ecclesiastes; Song of Solomon or Canticles; Wisdom; Sirach or Ecclesiasticus; Psalms of Solomon; Hosea; Amos; Micah; Joel; Obadiah; Jonah; Nathum; Habakkuk; Zephaniah; Haggai; Zechariah; Malachi; Isaiah; Jeremiah; Baruch; Lamentations; Letter of Jeremiah; Ezekiel; Daniel with additions; 4 Maccabees.; Esdras; Psalms 151-155; The Apocalypse of Baruch; The Letter of Baruch; Jubilees; Enoch; 1-3 Meqabyan; Assumption of Moses; Book of Enoch 1; Book of Enoch 2; Book of Jubilees; Greek Apocalypse of Baruch; Letter of Aristeas (Letter to Philocrates regarding the translating of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek); Life of Adam and Eve; Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah; Psalms of Solomon; Sibylline Oracles; Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch(2 Baruch); Testaments of the Twelve patriarchs.

The New Testament:

Gospel According to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; Acts of the Apostles;
Letters of Paul to: Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews;

Epistle of James
Epistle of 1 Peter, 2 Peter
Epistle of 1 John, 2 John, 3 John
Epistle of Jude
Revelation

Now I have established the knowledge of the Faithful side. We must also in this venture, bringing all our guns to battle, we must also look at how Darwin came up with his theory and follow the evidence as he has done. This is to see if Darwin made an error. Remember the missing link controversy in the 80s, I do. Who's to say that it was a link but rather a parallel? Is this possible? Without the possibility of the Nephilim it is possible. With the theory of the Nephilim it is confirmed.

Now Angels have a body, for the books listed above tell of a being that is immortal and has a physical body. This body allows the being to interact with the physical world, or change it as they perform their work.

So let's start there.

larry

You do not think that elimination of species is degradation? Of course this is degradation. What purpose did it have, and don't continue to say it allowed mammals to flourish. They would have anyway, but we are losing species all the time because of degradation of habitat. What does annihilation of Dinosaurs have to do with survival of man an mouse?

larry

The incident you refer to, was a minor factor in the life of Moses. Circumcision was only necessary for those that accepted the covenant of Abraham. And was not, and is still not a condition of acceptance by God. Moses still did not perform the ceremony. So how was it being done by Zipporah valid?

Ranger7374 Loc: Arizona, 40 miles from the border in the DMZ

Thank you larry thank you. How is this being done by Zipporah valid? I think it is valid under a woman trying to save a son. But other than that you are correct, how is this valid to our subject?

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

larry

And you would accept examples of evolution if you were given them?

1) Goose Bumps--animals get goose bumps when freighted that causes the hair to stand up on their bodies and make an animal appear larger. Man still gets goose bumps when frightened but without hair they are useless.

How does this register as evolution? The hair raising thing is still with us. It has not gone away? I you believe goose bumps only come from freight, you are mistaken, you also get them from a change in skin temperature. And they are usually hair cells that produce them, shaven or not, the roots are still there.

2) Milk--Historically, the gene that regulated a human's ability to digest lactose shut down as they were weaned off of their mother's breast milk. But when we began domesticating cows, sheep and goats, being able to drink milk became a nutritionally advantageous quality, and people with the genetic mutation that allowed them to digest lactose were better able to propagate their genes.

Now this is not likely to prove anything, people have been drinking mile from goats, horses, cows, etc. for a long time just because it was available and easy to get. There still Eskimos that do not drink cow milk. This has nothing to do with evolution, it is just normal living. What makes you think people cannot digest things without evolving into something else? It may take a while for the body to accept it, and the results may not be entirely beneficial, but I point out the influx of Genetically modified food that is killing us off rather readily because we are not able to adapt to it.

A 2006 study suggests this tolerance for lactose was still developing as early as 3,000 years ago in East Africa. That genetic mutation for digesting milk is now carried by more than 95 percent of Northern European descendants.

This is not evolution either, this is also adaption. We can adapt to situations, but that doesn't change our basic structure and design.

3) Our ancestors had much bigger jaws than we do, which helped them chew a tough diet of roots, nuts and leaves. And what meat they ate they tore apart with their teeth, all of which led to worn down choppers that needed replacing. Enter the wisdom teeth: A third set of molars is believed to be the evolutionary answer to accommodate our ancestors' eating habits.
Where did you get this cock and bull story about wisdom teeth? We still have wisdom teeth, they were not added or subtracted yet except by Dentists. And people are smaller than they used to be, because they don't eat as well. So what there are still big people around. It has nothing to do with evolution. They didn't have have tools then either, but they invented them.

Today, we have utensils to cut our food. Our meals are softer and easier to chew, and our jaws are much smaller as a result, which is why wisdom teeth are often impacted when they come in — there just isn't room for them. Like the appendix, wisdom teeth have become vestigial organs. One estimate says 35 percent of the population is born without wisdom teeth, and some say they will disappear altogether.

The appendix is not a vestigial organ, it has a immunity purpose. A built in place to develop antibodies for foreign invaders. The latest medical research has confirmed this, so taking it out for no reason is foolish and destroys a persons ability to fend off some diseases.


4) in 2007, a group of researchers looking for signs of recent evolution uncovered 1,800 genes that have only become prevalent in humans in the last 40,000 years, many of which are devoted to fighting infectious diseases like malaria. More than a dozen new genetic variants for fighting malaria are spreading rapidly among Africans. Another study found that natural selection has favored city-dwellers. Living in cities has produced a genetic variant that allows us to be more resistant to diseases like tuberculosis and leprosy. "This seems to be an elegant example of evolution in action," says Dr. Ian Barnes from the School of Biological Sciences at Royal Holloway. "It flags up the importance of a very recent aspect of our evolution as a species, the development of cities as a selective force."

Another misnomer of adaptability. We do adapt to conditions, that is built into the system, but 40,000 years, how would anyone know that time span? Can you see the craziness in these claims yet?
l
5) Peppered Moth--Many times a species is forced to make changes as a direct result of human progress. Such is the case with the peppered moth (Biston betularia). Up until the Industrial Revolution, these moths were typically whitish in color with black spots, although they were found in a variety of shades. As the Industrial Revolution reached its peak, the air in London became full of soot, and the once-white trees and buildings that moths used for camouflage became stained black. The birds began to eat more of the lighter-colored moths because they were more easily spotted than the darker ones. Over the course of a few months, dark moths started appearing in the area and lighter moths became scarce. Once the Industrial Revolution peak passed, lighter moths made a comeback.
Again adaptability, no evolution involved. if it was evolution, why did they turn back again? Evolution is a one way street according to your group of believers. It only improves conditions, so what happened here?

6)Drug resistant bacteria adaption again

7) Pesticide resistant insects more adaption not evolution

8) There are 13 types of finches on the Galapagos that all have different beaks and can be traced back to a common ancestor in S. American why are they different? Why not all the same if evolution is the impetus? What conditions were they adapting too?

9) Nylon-eating Bacteria--Since nylon wasn't invented until the 1940s, bacteria that can eat nylon can be nothing but new. The bacterium Pseudomonas is able to metabolize nylon thanks to certain enzymes it has. However, a surprising thing happens when you take a non-nylon eating variety of this bacterium and place it in an environment where the only type of food available is nylon. Every single time the experiment was tried, the bacteria would evolve until it was able to consume nylon [source: Michigan State University]. This is a very simple example of natural selection, where the most basic forms of life can adapt to whatever food the environment offers. adaption is not evolution, it is either adapt of die, but no new form is evolved. They are still the same creature.

And of course there are many, many more example but I have a feeling that no amount of evidence will convince you that evolution is true...
Everything you have put here is not an example of evolution. you have given me examples of adaption, but evolution is a change in species, not an improvement in species. If you believe these things are evolution, you are mistaken, it is not.

http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/curiosity/topics/10-examples-natural-selection.htm
http://listverse.com/2009/01/05/top-10-signs-of-evolution-in-modern-man/

Now since there have been no change in species, we are holding on to adaption as evolution, this is still nonsense. Adaption does not require a change over generations. it can occur within a single generation. Evolution requires that somehow, the desire to change structure is incorporated into the next generation of a species, and it naturally knows how to make the change. Where does it get it's creative knowledge? From the environment? In what language is it conveyed.

By your reasoning, if man wanted to fly, all he had to do was think about it and eventually he would evolve into a person with wings and feathers. Somehow, that knowledge would transmit to the next generation, and after thousands of years our goose bumps would become feathers and we would be able to fly and instinctively know how to do it. Evil Knievel thought he could fly on a motorcycle. did he? Sure did, to his doom.


You are right, I am not convinced, I am surprised that you are since there is no evidence of it after all this time of trying to find it. I concede adaptability, but evolution not.

Ranger7374 Loc: Arizona, 40 miles from the border in the DMZ

I don't remember writing this, this statement has problems, for example the extinction of the dinosaurs occurred in the manner in which you described the great flood scientifically and it makes sense. I talk in contradiction sometimes, but I am sorry larry, I don't think I wrote this statement.



As far as chaos to be the cause, I don't believe it to be so. I believe that it was man's sin against God, and the Angels sin against God that made this come to be. And yes it is a degradation of the species at this point. With the fact that the filament of the waters fell to the earth, is an example of 1. the earth slowing down, and 2. the limiting of the life span on earth 3. the result of sin of the angels.

See I think science describes the how, and not the cause, therefore the why. I believe the why is encased within faith. Now there is one fact that is confirmed by the bible, the rebellious angels, specifically Satan, did corrupt the creation of mankind. This is self evident in Genesis Chapter 3. So this part we all can agree on.

Now here's something interesting, it describes maybe in metaphor, that Eve was tempted by the serpent to eat of the "fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."

Now, I am not sure what that truly means, is it a physical fruit, magical fruit, metaphorical fruit, symbolic fruit, what does this phrase mean?

For didn't Christ use the same metaphor in saying the "fruits of labor" so what is the "fruit" this is the mystery. Now I suggested it was an angelic rape that brought forth Cain. But I don't know. It is covered in mystery the birth of Cain when compared to the birth of his two brothers Abel and Seth. How is it that Cain is so different from both Abel the Just and Seth?

Even in some of the Demonic possessions that have taken place, the demon claims their father is Cain. How can this be? Christ called their father Satan. What does this mean?

Does it mean that Satan taught Cain to be evil? And thus created as a metaphor Cain, therefore Satan is Cain's father or is there more? Then we move forward using Genesis as a third person, Egyptian viewpoint, and we find a story of the Nephilim. And how five hundred years before the flood the giants appeared on the earth. Then as punishment God slowed down the earth for the sake of Mankind, by shortening his life span for God knew that if man continued in their wickedness in the manner before the flood there would be no saving them. So after the flood the animals tongue was also silenced. For Adam and Eve, Cain, Abel and Seth, all the way to Noah could speak with the animals. But because of the sin of serpent, who was an Angel, and because of the "fallen ones" the tongues of the animals were silenced.

See there is a lot more to the story then we know. Angels have also too changed because of the Judgement or if you will permit me, the Apocalypse of the Angels. For while man was running for survival, and hiding, a war broke out among the Angels, where God punished both the Nephilim and the 200 rebellious Angels. The purpose as you said, Larry of these Angels was to make creation however they failed, and the Word or Jesus created the world at that point, thus slowing down the lifespan on earth.

Now I hope I am right on this for I do have some Biblical backing on this which was used against me a lot, is because of the Angel's sin and the intercession of Enoch, the Angels no longer desire sexual contact with human beings, for this sexual contact happened only once in history. There is no other record of such an abomination. For this was the greatest wickedness in an effort to destroy man.

But it has been rumored that the demons and these rebellious angels have attempted to perform these same experiments, by artificial means to humans.

Let me place some commentary here,

Folks I am stuck in my theories. This is why I present this knowledge to you in hopes together we can find a solution. Yes Larry it is true that I am attempting to find the origin. For it is my hope, that finding the orgin and by use of this knowledge through faith, we as a race of humans can better fend off the devil and his demons, and find a more mature way to live to defeat the devil, on the same token Peter, during this investigation I have found ways to advance science to leaps of knowledge that is so profound that when implemented is better for humanity and solves many mysteries that science cannot explain. But to the present, I am stuck and there is much more research to do.

There are only to tools I bring to the table to conduct this investigation, that is Faith in God, Roman Catholic sided; and faith in Science, mainstream sided. I also look for the points where Faith and Science agree. And I believe on the Nephilim they do. But since they do, more clues and questions are born and come forth. I need help. Either with the Science or with Faith, (or mentally cause I feel like I'm going crazy, lolol) but the questions are coming forth too quickly to be answered simply. The simple answer is God created Nature and Nature does God's bidding, therefore, God created everything good. And the good does God's bidding, but through the good, which is given free will an evil develops, this evil is contrary to Nature and God's will, therefore God because of free will, allows evil to go so far, but if evil were to go too far God stops it. That's the short and sweet of it.

So our study of Nature and the nature of everything, we call science. As science has guidelines to follow, so do I when I embark upon these complex mysteries. Taking with me my knowledge of Science and my Knowledge of how God works with man and His Eternal Love for man. By using this as a guideline, I have come thus, far however, there is a long, long road to go.

But you must break the limitations of faith and science in order to reaffirm both. This is a very hard process but it makes your thinking more objective. By using Faith as an example of God's love, and Science as the how, you can view these stories and point out, "No that's not from God" or "Yes, that is from God". Be Careful though and you might need to do the same that I have had to do many times and reread the Bible, to hear the Word of God, for you may begin to be deceived, and then have to put the evidence back into perspective and change your thesis you once thought was true. Continuing upon this line of thought, you may also find that not only is the truth you believed in in that bible is true but there is more to it then what was once believed this is what has happened to me.

Now what once was thought of as a contradiction like, "How can a man be born again?", in time you find that it isn't a contradiction but a change in perception. Therefore all things are possible. See what I mean?

larry

I don't think you want me to go through this point by point since it would be too redundant, but over all, I think I need to make one observation that you might have misunderstood from my last comments.
1. Science is the attempt to discover what God has done. Science cannot and does not create anything. We humans are limited to dealing with what we have that God has already created. If we stick to that we will be allowed to complete our discoveries. But when we start to go along another path of pure speculation without any evidence we have crossed over to the dark side. Satan wants us to challenge God's construct because he is doing so. He wants to acquire dominion over the creation as if he were the author of it. He unfortunately can only operate within the parameters of design that God has already established. He is an alter scientist so to speak, trying to convince us culpable people that he is the originator of the whole scheme. Chaos is the result of Lucifer's disobedience, and only the re-creative power of God can stop it. Once we connect to the source of power, we then get new sight and hopefully wisdom. .

We that know God are not buying it. The basis of the creation is LOVE, as soon as you deviate from that construct you lose connection. If there is no love in the discovery there is a good chance that it is false. Of course, we must be certain that we connect with God to determine how much love is in the thing, If there is any trace of non-love, we must think harder.

America Only Loc: From the right hand of God

Yep...you should know...Pole Dancer and knob polisher as you are....and from what I hear, you have a journeyman's card in being a real...."hose monster"......

Pop corn...grab some and watch you do your work,....Pop corn...

hungry freaks2.0 Loc: vermont

*************************************

Religion is based on faith, not observation. There is no clear "evidence" of God. That's the beauty of it. All I need do is look at the stars to believe in God although some would look at the stars and claim they are evidence that there is no God.

did evolution create today's creatures? I believe scientific observation has proved that/ Was evolution guided by an "intelligent design" or "random selection"?

Could be either. And neither one disproves the existence of God. At least in my view-because I have faith. I don's need observable fact. We have finite minds and can't understand the workings of a infinite entity. That probably makes the exact nature of creation far beyond our mindset.