Halleluyah!!! You have proved, without a shred of doubt, that arguing CAN be done with absoulutely no regards to facts, to knowledge, to logic, even to spelling.

This is the greatest breakthrough in philosophical conventions since Plato's "Republic", in which the "Socratic method" was shown as it developed. Your way of putting down words is a new paradigm of Biblical proportions. Well done, lad.

how is that something new? politicians have been doing it for years. Have you not seen "thank you for smoking?" If not i so recommend you go out and rent it. basic principle of the movie. you do not have to be right. you just have to make the other guy look wrong.

I want to appologize to anyone that I have offended by posting some rather scientific based studies refuting the possibilities of life starting by some random events, but a special thanks goes out to my new friend (you know you and who you are...)

THANK YOU SO MUCH - and I anticiipate your entegrity in that matter with even more great and wonderful THANKS ! ! !

I can only add the following



Eph 2:14 For he is our peace...

The point of focus I would like to bring to mind will be on the verb 'is'.

When we read the Bible in the English, we are apt to read somewhat with blinders on; much is out of our mind's eye.

In the Greek we have a more exacting language, and here, we should first note that the order of the words differ. We read it thus:

He for IS THE PEACE of-us...

I like the way Paul always puts Christ first. This is His rightful position, and His position in my life.


In the Greek we have the 'case' being the 3rd person Singular Present Indicative Active form of the verb.

The importance of this cannot be overstated. This verb in this particular form has only forty two occurrences in the NT.

The Singular directing us immediately back to the noun, HE is placed FIRST. The Present being emphatic that right now He IS our peace. The Indicative being the action is presented finished in time, right now. Active being that the verb remains active of the subject in perpetuity. The subject is Him, Christ.

He is not only our peace right now but the idea of using this particular grammatical form means that He is our peace, not just a one time event, but always in an ongoing outpouring of ever present continuance, AND that only He is.



The word 'peace', eire¯ne¯, taken from Ephesians chapter two, For He is our peace... While there is not much agreement among lexicographers and etymologists concerning this word eire¯ne¯, we should find light shed on from the Hebrew, so that we may be able to appreciate more fully the Lord's legacy of love.

Shalom, the Hebrew word "peace", is derived from shalam, "to make whole, complete, perfect". In Exod. 21 and 22, Moses sets before the people in connection with the settling of disputes. In chapter 21 we have the case of a man who opens a pit, and fails to cover it, and so causes the loss of an ox or an ***. The judgment is that "the owner of the pit shall make it good (shalam)" (Exod. 21:34). Another case is that of an ox, hurt so badly by another man's ox that it dies. If it was known that the ox was dangerous and the owner had neglected to keep it in, the judgment is that "he shall surely pay (shalam) ox for ox" (Exod. 21:36). Again in Exod. 22:1, "He shall restore"; 22:3, "He shall make full restitution"; and, further on in the chapter: "restore", "pay", "make good" (Exod. 22:4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15).

>From the OT renderings we find that Peace is impossible without "making amends". "The work of righteousness shall be peace." In Lev. 51:6 we read: "He shall make amends for the harm that he hath done." Here again the word is shalam. We also find it translated "requite" in Judges 1:7, "finish" in I Kings 9:25, "recompense" in Isa. 45:6, and "perfect" in Isa. 42:19. As an adjective shalem is translated "full" (Gen. 15:16), "whole" (Deut. 27:6), and "just" (Prov. 11:1).

It was the custom of the world to include the word "peace" in its salutations. Heathen kings used this form of salutation, as we find in Ezra and Daniel (Ezra 4:17; 5:7; Dan. 4:1; 6:25), but it was not in their power to establish true peace either among men, or with God. In contrast is John 16, where we find that the Saviour adds to His bequest the words:
"Not as the world giveth, give I unto you" (John 16:27).

True peace is the result of satisfactory settlement, and when used in connection with God and man necessitates the sacrificial work of Christ.

We find "peace" is naturally contrasted with "war":

"I am for peace; but when I speak, they are for war" (Psa. 120:7).
"I came not to send peace, but a sword" (Matt. 10:34).

It is also contrasted with evil, and compared with good:

"Depart from evil and do good: seek peace and pursue it" (Psa. 34:14).
"Thoughts of peace, and not of evil" (Jer. 39:11).
"Peace" is also placed in contrast with "anxiety":
"Be anxious for nothing . . . . . and the peace of God . . . . . shall keep your hearts and
minds through Christ Jesus" (Phil. 4:6, 7).

Moreover, "peace" enables the believer to endure without being offended
(Matt. 11:2-6):

"Great peace have they which love Thy law, and nothing shall offend them"
(Psa. 119:165).

Hear hear!!

Agreed!

The book was far better...

Basically, you've had 2 arguments against evolution.
1. evolution is an impossibilty and can never work.
2. evolution works to adapt life to new a conditions but never fundamentally changes an organism.

Both are wrong. We know for a fact that species do indeed change. We've seen animals change in nature. We've caused species to change on purpose. If you don't know specific examples of this, I don't know what to tell you.
So, number 1 is definatly wrong.
Now, if you conceed that species can and do change, at least a little bit, you must also conceed that with enough time, a bunch of little changes will indeed add up to a big change.
So, number 2 is definatly wrong.

Simple logic.

Of course, if you believe the Earth is flat, less than 7000 yrs old, ect, this won't work for you. If that be the case, why bother arguing anything having to do evolution?

The Introduction to Genesis (and to the whole Bible) Gen. 1:1-2:3, ascribes everything to the living God, creating, making, acting, moving, and speaking. There is no room for evolution without a flat denial of Divine revelation. One must be true, the other false. All God's works were pronounced "good" seven times, viz. Gen. 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31. They are "great," Ps. 111:2. Rev. 15:3. They are "wondrous," Job 37:14. They are "perfect," Deut. 32:4.

Man starts from nothing. He begins in helplessness, ignorance, and inexperience. All his works, therefore, proceed on the principle of evolution. This principle is seen only in human affairs: from the hut to the palace; from the canoe to the ocean liner; from the spade and ploughshare to machines for drilling, reaping, and binding, &c. But the birds build their nests to-day as at the beginning. The moment we pass the boundary line, and enter the Divine sphere, no trace or vestige of evolution is seen. There is growth and development within, but no passing, change, or evolution out from one into another. On the other hand, all God's works are perfect.

In the Introduction to Genesis (ch. 1:1-2:3) forty-six times everything is ascribed to direct acts and volitions on the part of God as the Creator:--


God (or He) created
6 times
1:1, 21, 27, 27, 27; 2:3

God moved
1 once
1:2

God said
10 times
1:3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, 26, 28, 29

God saw
7 times
1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31

God divided
2 twice
1:4, 7

God (or He) called
5 times
1:5, 5, 8, 10, 10

God (or He) made
7 times
1:7, 16, 25, 31; 2:2, 2, 3

God set
1 once
1:17

God blessed
3 times
1:22, 28; 2:3

God ended
1 once
2:2

God rested
2 twice
2:2, 3

He sanctified
1 once
2:3

Evolution is only one of several theories invented to explain the phenomena of created things. It is admitted by all scientists that no one of these theories covers all the ground; and the greatest claim made for Evolution, or Darwinism, is that "it covers more ground than any of the others."

The Word of God claims to cover all the ground: and the only way in which this claim is met, is by a denial of the inspiration of the Scriptures, in order to weaken it. This is the special work undertaken by the so-called "Higher Criticism", which bases its conclusions on human assumptions and reasoning, instead of on the documentary evidence of manuscripts and Textual Criticism does.

Both of the following are wrong:



There are no other 'scientific' theories for how life began on Earth. Science is based on actually observing the universe and arriving at conclusions based on what has been observed. Using this scientitfic method of observating the real world there are no other theories of how life could have possiblity been started.

Moreover, even though it was indeed an theory based on observation for Dawrin, his observations were limited and therefore his conclusions were weak with other explanations being possible. It might even be better to say that Dawin's theory was so weak at the time that he came up with it that it would have been better called a 'conjecture'.

However, since the time of Darwin scientists from all disciplines have been examining the real world for any evidence they could find, including looking for evidence that could potentially refute Darwin's conjecture.

Scientists are individuals who have absolutely no stake in supporting Darwin. On the contrary if they could find conflicting evidence that would support a whole new scientitic theory for the origins of life they would jump at the chance. By doing so they would gain great fame for having disproved Darwin's conjecture and they would then become the "New Darwin" in scientific history.

So every scientist who ever worked on studying evolution would have been utterly thrilled to make a discovery that could show that evolution must be wrong. In all the research no scientist has ever found any such compelling evidence. And yes, in science evidence must be 'compelling' enough to convince other scientists that it is valid. No such compelling evidence has ever been found that even remotely suggests that anything other than evolution could explain life on earth.

So there are no other 'theories' of how life got started on earth. There may be other totally unsupported conjectures (like aliens came here and dropped us off). But no one has been able to find compelling evidence to support such an invented conjecture.

On the other hand all of the sciences have found evidence that supports evolutions. It's not just a theory, the fossil record proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that life on Earth began very simple and became quite complexed over billions of years. That may not prove that the more complicated species arose from the previous ones, but it certainly supports that overall picture. And that isn't just a 'theory' that's hardcore observed evidence that has been discovered on Earth.

All of the observational sciences have found evidence that supports the concept of evolution. Chemistry shows how molecules can do it, Biology shows how the molecules actually DO do it, geology has shown that the plant truly is 4.5 billion years old and there was more than enough time for it to happen. Astrophysics also confirms that the world is 4.5 billion years old because they have shown that our sun is precisely this age and they have established evidence that strongly suggests that planets are born at the same time their star forms.

To call evolution a mere 'theory' at this point is silly. It's been as well established by observational evidence as anything we know.

To reject evolution would be as silly as rejecting that the Earth is a sphere that goes around the sun.





The documentary evidence of the manuscripts actually shoots itself in the foot continually.

In Job, we have a man who is totally dedicated to worshiping Yahweh. Yet Yahweh is not satified with this. This conflicts with the very notion that Yahweh is a loving God that can be trusted. It just tells us that we cannot trust God even if we are his devoted loyal servants.

Another thing that happens in Job is that Satan comes to God and askes permission to screw over Job to test his loyaly claiming that he believes he can turn Job away from God. This supposedly all-wise all-knowing God takes Satan up on his challenge.

Well,... BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! The document just shot itself in the foot several times right here.

1. Satan is asking God permission to do his dirty work?

If Satan has to ask God permission to scew over people all the time then Satan isn't God's enemy but instead his nothing more than a very obedient and loyal servant who only acts with God's permission and blessings.

So the document shoots itself in its own foot by suggesting that the Devil can only act with God's Blessings.

2. God is taking Satan up on his bet?

If God is all-knowing then why not just tell Satan to go jump in a lake. God would already know where Job's heart and alliance is. There would be no need for an all-knowing God to test Job. That very act would imply that God is not all-knowing and cannot know what is in Job's heart.

So the document shoots itself in its own foot by suggesting that the a supposedly all-knowing God truly doesn't know what's in the hearts of men.

The document also shoots itself in it's own foot by suggesting that God would take Satan up on a bet, or that God has somethign to prove to Satan.

If God just wanted to test Job why even bring Satan into the picture? This just implies that Satan is actually God's very own hit man. Satan would be nothing more than a very obediently and loyal servant to God.

The story makes absoltuely no sense at all with respect to what God is supposed to be like.

And this document that you refer to as the 'Word of God' is chuck full of these kinds of absurdities and contradictions of the very nature and characteristics that God is supposed to represent.

The whole mythology of Yahweh was just a take-off of the mythology of Zeus. The only difference is that the authors who invented Yahweh would like to believe that he's all-loving, all-merciful, all-knowing, etc. But their stories all conflict with those ideologies.

Zeus was allowed to have these Human failings, but Yahweh is not. Yet all the way through the Bible Yahweh isn't any better than Zeus. In fact, he's even worse in many ways.

They both were appeased by blood sacrfices, but Yahweh was also a male-chauvinist where Zeus wasn't male-chauvinistic.

Zeus actually stands on higher moral ground than Yahweh.

If you're going to buy into a mediterranean mythology you should worship Zeus instead of Yahweh. Zeus represents higher morals.

The Bible is so full of self-contradictions of what God is supposed to be like that it has proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that it can't possibly be true. And you don't even need to go outside of the Bible to see that this is clearly the case all the way through from the beginning to the end.

This is utterly silly.

You can go into any religious doctrine all over the world and their doctrines will say similar things about their Gods.

All mythologies are going to worship and praise their own deities within their own mythologies.

ya gotta admit, you-know-who's got cognative dissonance to an art...

Great posts, Abra!

I have no problem with the spelling - it's my typing that's atrocious. Speaking of "facts" - found any yet? I asked you for - well, just one. You're having a hard time coming up with it though.
Who's got the problem with facts and knowledge - eh Einstein?



Lad?... okey docky junior. Please - enlighten me with some "facts".
Since your presuming that I'm unaware, could you condescend to share some of your vast knowledge with us less informed "lads". Oh please oh please, Sir - can you share your wisdom of the ages with us.

there are still people who believe the earth is flat.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/

wow,this debate will never end

yep. delusional comes in lots o' flavors.

BIOCOSM is just one of several alternative scientific theories.



My posts are really not for me to engage in arguing with either believers in The One Lord or non believers. I can merely submit Biblical statements in hope that some might look them up in hopes that The Lord might open the eyes of their understanding.

Specifically for non believers though, I would add that only one book in The Bible is written to non believers, and that, so that they might have life in His Name. The Gospel of John is the only Biblical book written for non believers.

The carnal mind cannot understand that which is spiritual, it must be imparted.

I would like you to tell me first what it is that you consider a fact. Not an instance of it, but a general definition.

I'm not going to give you facts for you to reply that those are not facts. If you can say that it's evolution that's holding up DNA research then you can say anything and I can't hold you to it.

Please define "fact", as it applies to all facts, and then I'll see what I can do for you. I would like you to give it your best, and if I say something that corresponds to all aspects of what you say is a type of thing that is a fact, AND it has to do with DNA research and linking it to evolution, will you surrender in the debate? Will you agree that evolution is a valid theory?

If you can give me a general definition of "fact" and if you promise NOW to admit to defeat in the debate in the case that I use your definition of "fact" and apply it to the evolutionary model successfully, then I'll try. Otherwise it's words words words.

Let's go for a real challenge here.

know this is slightly off topic but an interesting question none the less. may have even been covered already. why is there sexual reproduction still when asexual reproduction is more efficient? i am no way equipped to answer that. wouldnt know where to start? any ideas from anyone else? All I have found is the ability to weed out some diseases but yet there are other species who thrive with asexual reproduction so is an interesting question.

The Bible does not say that Adam was the first man. It says he was the first one in the Garden of Eden. Every Pastor/Preacher i have spoken with on the subject says there were other people outside of the Garden of Eden. That way when his children started reproducing it wasnt with their mother.

Very true, grammatically we can pin certain things down, in ch.1 we have no article for God creating 'man'. This is significant, it's like asking for a glass without the article, meaning a glass out of more than one, just any old generic glass. However, when we add the grammatical article, we would ask for that glass, or my glass, or the glass. Without the article, we have, God created mankind, not just man.

So in ch.1 we find God made mankind male and female. Chapter 2:1 we find that all the hosts were created, that is, all the different races from chapter 1 were created. Gen.2:7, in the Hebrew gives us the definate article as well as the particle, eth ha adam, or, the man adam.

Now when Cain was being banished he was worried about other people harming or killing him.

Gen 4:14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.

Then he left and married.

Gen 4:15 And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.
Gen 4:16 And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.
Gen 4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived

Cain married one of the other created peoples from some other race, one of the 6th day creations. The significance of the man adam is that it was through this particular bloodline of whom Christ, the Hebrew Messiah, would be born.