"Thinking that man has "Evolved" from a lower animal means one has to edit the original story line.

You simply can't mix evolution with creation because they do not mesh."

why?

When one builds a house one must first create a foundaton, cut trees or mix concrete, place plumbing, and stockpile tools and materials...

Creation and Evolution must be coincidental to one another for either to be true...

which would make both true.

and I would be willing to bet the 'orginal' story line was edited... Most likely about the time of Abraham. Or perhaps Noah since it mentions he put animals and such in his 'Ark' but never states if he included a current (for his time) library.

One religion states that a bunch of evolutionary processes took place. Most of which make very little sense.

The other states that a being outside space and time made everything. I find this makes slightly more sense. Then again I'm not a scientist.

Both of these religions have different thoughts on mans origin. They can't both be right.

About noah, I don't think they had a bible back then. It was not till some time later that the law was written. You have to notice that at this time the earth was still young. Dinosaurs were around,The earth never got any rain, It was tropical all the time, and due to some outside recources there was an increased amount of oxygen which accounted for longer life spans. Like that of Methousala. Things were way different in the beginning. I doubt they even had books or paper much less stone tablets.

Someone gave me that advice, and look at me now: 220 lbs, going to the washroom every half hour like clockwork. (Water clock, an invention in the renaissance. Cinquecento.) I am definitely not merry.

Whether one is 'outside' space or time would make no diference... Once you 'place' something within space and time that 'something' must conform to the laws of that space and time... Else exist not within it.

for a 'civilization' to have existed in the time of Noah (so that it could be 'flooded' into oblivion) that civilization would have needed methods of communication (paper, stone, clay, i.e. written works).

He he he... show many ANY proof that human bones existed during dino time...

two theroies... One actually hase evidence to back up portions of it.

the other has but the constant yammering of many voices.

About noah, I don't think they had a bible back then. It was not till some time later that the law was written. You have to notice that at this time the earth was still young. Dinosaurs were around,The earth never got any rain, It was tropical all the time, and due to some outside recources there was an increased amount of oxygen which accounted for longer life spans. Like that of Methousala. Things were way different in the beginning. I doubt they even had books or paper much less stone tablets.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Are you saying that dinosaurs existed in the time of Noah? Is the earth only 6,000 years old?

Shinning Armour wrote:

Thinking that man has "Evolved" from a lower animal means one has to edit the original story line.

You simply can't mix evolution with creation because they do not mesh.

Evolution is in itself a religion. As is Christianity. You must take one or the other. Not both.

Further more you constantly go about eastern mystical whatever but you never explain your thinking. Perhaps if you go on to explain you could get further?

What "original story"?

If you think the Bible represents some sort of "original story" you've been brainwashed brother.

There is nothing "original" about the Bible. In fact the bulk of it is just a rehash of previous mythologies. It contains all the same sort of superstitions that are associated with all the manmade mythologies that where being spread around the Mediterranean region.



That depends on who's "Creation myths" you're talking about. Evolution is perfectly compatible with Easter Mysticism.



Evolution is not a "religion" by any stretch of the imagination. That rumor is being propagated by Christian proselytizers who will quickly lie about things in an effort to support their religious myths.

Evolution is a scientific observation of reality. True, when Dawin first proposed this based on his observations of reality, it was highly controversial. And of course it would be because clashes with the Christian myth just as you suggest. However, as time passed and more and more scientists began to look at the observational evidence, the fact that life on Earth evolved from lower life forms into higher ones became clear.

In fact, today, with our knowledge and understanding of DNA and genetics we even now understand how it actually works.

So to say that evolution is a 'religion' is truly nothing more than outright lies being spread around by Christian zealots who are in denial of the failings of their own mythology.



It's not my job to educated people. What do you think I am? A FREE university?

There are many books and video lectures on Eastern Mysticism. If you're interested in learning about it I'll suggest Deepak Chopra as a name you can look up. He's written many books on it and also have quite a view videos out as well.

Your ignorance of world philosophies is not my problem.

Moreover, the bulk of Christian proselytizers that I speak with refuse to even consider anything outside of the biblical story. They have already made up their mind that they simply aren't interested in considering anything beyond that. And then hypocritically they accuse other people of having "closed minds" because they won't BLINDLY accept the Christian myths.

Here's the FACTS ShiningArmour.

1. Evolution is an observed truth of reality, it's not a religion.
2. Christian proselytizers have absolutely no problem lying to support their religious convictions.
3. The Biblical stories contain a myriad of self-contradictions.
4. As you have pointed out, the biblical stories and the observed truths of the universe cannot possibly both be true.
5. The Bible is not the "original story". Not by any stretch of the imagination.
6. There exist other spiritual philosophies and creation myths that are indeed compatible with what is actually observed to be true of this universe.
7. Eastern Mysticism does not conflict with any known science or observations of the real world.
8. The Abrahamic picture of "god" is convoluted and twisted, and clearly in opposition to itself. This is why we currently have Judaism, Islam, Catholicism, and the myriad of confused and conflicting sects of Protestantism.
9. No two Christians can even agree on what their doctrine is saying in the details.
10. The biblical male-chauvinistic jealous god figure of the Bible necessarily has all the normal human frailties that we associate with mortal men.

Finally, why support this picture?

Just like I asked Cowboy.

Why support a picture of God that has us basically in the doghouse with our creator?

Especially why support this picture on pure faith?

Who wouldn't be utterly thrilled to discover that the biblical picture if wrong?

We shouldn't be bending over backwards to try to justify these absurd myths. Instead we should indeed reject them until they can be proven to be true.

Otherwise, what's the point in placing 'faith' in them?

Just out of fear that if they might be true some God might be angry with us for not believing them?

That very notion right there is a contradiction to the idea that God is all-wise. Any all-wise entity would know that to not believe in something does not constitute rejection of it.

You don't believe that Zeus is God. Are you rejecting Zeus?

Of course, not. All you are doing is saying that you don't believe that the Greek myths have anything to do with God.

Well, it the same way with the Hebrew myth. To recognize them as myths is in no way 'rejecting' their content. Yet, these very myths claim that to not believe in them is indeed to reject their content. But that, my friend, is a clear and obvious lie.

So the whole thing is based on a lie. It totally sits on a big fat lie. And this is precisely why these stories cannot be from any all-wise God.

I dint bother reading the block at the bottom of your post. I'm not here to argue simply to make clear what others have attempted to tell you.

And yes evolution is in fact a collection of beliefs. NOT FACTS there's no solid proof. You can't see things evolve today. There's no rocks turning into goop and then animals, there's no monsters coming out of the lakes and rivers, and there's no proof!
There's no proof for any religion! Even eastern mysticysm! It's all faith.
So spare us your evolution nonsense and your eastern mystical BS.

Shining Armour wrote:

That's right Gwen. You see what people try to do here is mix religions. As you can see by your own post here, it does not work :)

One must be wrong. I assume your going to say that the bible is wrong and the earth is billions of years old.

Shinning Armour wrote:

So spare us your evolution nonsense and your eastern mystical BS.

That's right Gwen. You see what people try to do here is mix religions. As you can see by your own post here, it does not work :)

One must be wrong. I assume your going to say that the bible is wrong and the earth is billions of years old.

I see. Dialogue closed--there are some things not worth debating, and the age of the earth is one.

If we take the process of evolution that happens every day all day long on this planet it is just really slow.

And we watch the evolution of a species into sub species which happens every day all day long on this planet

It is easy to understand that we have to have evolved from a species similar to us at least recently similar to us.

But this also puts into perspective the age of the planet. Which is probably still a baby planet by universe standards.

Man is so arrogant to assume that he is the center of the universe and all things revolve around him.

Talking to someone like abra is like banging your head anginst a brick wall.

exactly.. and who is there to give them promise? some form of religion... taking advantage of the down on there luck, with promises of a great afterlife...