There's a simple, unambiguous test anyone can apply to objectively determine whether a theory is scientific. That is: is the theory falsifiable? Does the theory make predictions that could potentially be proven wrong by evidence? Intelligent Design fails this test.
And so does every other scientific fact that has ever existed. Therefore, we might as well eliminate science from the K-12 curriculum. After all at one point in time it was a scientific fact that man could not fly. At one point in time, it was a scientific fact that man could not survive in space. You could go on and on with scientific facts that have been proven wrong. It is impossible to know what evidence might be discovered in the future that will prove any scientific fact to be false.
Intelligent Design is just as valid as it was. After all, Intelligent Design is based upon sound engineering principles. If you consider engineering to be a scientifically based area of study, then Intelligent Design is also a scientifically based area of study. The only real difference in engineering and ID is that ID makes the assumption that the principles were applied by a supreme being that can exceed the capabilities of mankind. Whereas engineering is performed by people with the same capabilities of those performing the analysis.
I like this idea, so prove that evolution is scientific. Science is based upon a very rigorous procedure that requires that something be reproducible. So in order to prove that evolution is scientific, you must reproduce the entire chain from the beginning to the end. I'll be generous and allow you to start with a single celled organism, you don't have to go find some primordial soup to start. When you get to man, let me know so that we can review your documentation on every step thoroughly.
I would ask the same of creationist, but I (being a creationist) do not believe that creationism is a science. Since creation requires a supreme being, I (being a man) can not recreate the process of creating the world. I acknowledge that fact, but it no way interferes with my faith that the supreme being did it. However, given that it does reflect the beginning of what we call the world/universe it does have a scientific bearing in certain aspects.
I await the results of your scientific process so that I can believe (or not) that evolution is scientific. In the mean time, quit teaching as science that which you can't prove is science.
And this is exactly the case with DynDNS and their MailHop service. They will receive email for many folks that are behind and ISP that blocks all incoming traffic on port 25. Then they will relay it to the server on a different TCP port, such as 52525. So if I were a customer of DynDNS and someone sent me an email but misspelled my username (gitux instead of gi-tux), then a problem is going to happen. DynDNS accepts the email which was intended for me (but the wrong username). DynDNS then forwards the msssage to my correctly configured server, which tells them that this user does not exist. They drop the message and do not return and NDR. Now someone believes that I have received the email that was sent to me because they did not get an NDR. However I didn't see the message nor is there any indication to me that anyone tried to send me a message.
I see this as causing more people to be sending messages with delivery/read receipts so that they will know that the message was properly delivered and/or read. I am afraid that this will lead to an increase in traffic due to these receipts being requested more. But then I guess that servers will start dropping the receipts as well and then sending an email will be no more reliable than sending a snail mail. It is supposed to be a guaranteed system of delivery, but there is a huge dead letter barrel that gets way too many things.
And not only will it not deter professional thieves, but how can expect a clerk at a cash register (not really many of those left with self check-out even) to activate the DVD, when they can't deal with the external theft detection system that they presently use. It seems that about 30% of the time the little anti-theft device that they currently package with DVD's and other small items doesn't get deactivated and I have to go back inside and let someone look through my bags, etc.
Now, I am going to have to wait until I get home to find that the DVD doesn't work. Then drive back to the store and argue that it should be activated as I have a receipt while they argue that I bought one and stole several and am trying to get them illegally activated. Come on, let's put some criminals in jail and make them work (busting rocks, etc) for a change so that some of the desire to be a criminal will be erased. We have laws, we just need to enforce them and not be afraid to accuse someone.
Well, mankind is a social creature. We prefer to around other people rather than being in solitude. If you are a worker, you spend a larger precentage of your time with people in the workplace than any where else, even you family generally gets a smaller percentage than co-workers. Thus it becomes natural for co-workers to become friends. Co-workers have somethings in common, and will naturually share experiences and thoughts with each other. However, it does take time for a new co-worker to fit into the mesh.
In an ideal world, separating work and personal life would be easy. But with work occupying such a large amount of our time, it is difficult. Certainly separating work and home can be done. But that is not the original question here. Home and friends, friends being the original question, are not the same thing. I have plenty of friends that don't follow me home. Not that I object to having them into my home, but they are not there every day. I also have friends from other activities (church, scouts, school organizations, etc) but life can't be completely compartmentalized.
My point is that I have the right to pick my friends, be they from work or where ever. Just because you work with me, doesn't mean that I accept you into my group of friends. There is little that you can do to accelerate my acceptance of you into my group of friends, but by being pushy you certainly can eliminate my desire to bring you into that circle.
Some guys often feel that they are in a no win situation. Many guys have been burned or know someone who has been burned by the "Sexual Harassment" talk in HR. This makes them a bit uneasy about becoming too close (friends) to ladies in the work place. It is especially true if there is only one lady in the group and it gets even worse if she is young and good looking. The other side of that is that if they don't accept her into their personal life (friends) then they get the "women are just as good as men" speech.
I certainly don't try to leave a lady co-worker out of work. However, I am careful of becoming too close to lady co-workers. I am also careful of what male co-workers become friends as well. Becoming a member of a group of friends is not guaranteed just because you work with the group. You usually have to earn that privilege in some way. You need to show the group that you have somethings in common with them. Some of those things are interests and values. I have many friends that are ladies, but it is because of common interests and values, not because they work with me. One of those values is a knowledge that we won't go running off to HR or management when we get our feelings hurt. We will go to each other and work out the problem. Once that value is recognized, a person (male or female) stands a better chance of getting into my circle of friends. I think that most people feel that way in life as well.
we could have a space-based population consisting of hundreds of thousands of CxOs, lawyers, accountants, and their support staff.
And the world would be a better place to live:-) We might actually get some work done down here without all those bean counters and legal eagles keeping us busy accomplishing nothing.
From the point of view of your number 1, I can only do what I believe to be correct by what I can see and read. While there are a large number of people in the world that don't believe that God is the one true God. But that isn't what I see and read in the Bible. The things in the Bible as well as what I see in the universe point to God and that is who I worship.
From the point of view of your number 2, again I can only do what I believe to be correct. The Jews don't believe in Christ, but everything in the Old Testament (Jewish Bible) points to the coming of a Messiah. The Jews happen to believe that he hasn't come yet. However, I would contend that if he hasn't come, then he won't come. Because it is prophesied that he will be a descendant of David and the Hebrew people of today can't prove that heritage. He will be of the tribe of Judah, and the Hebrew people of today can't prove to which tribe they belong. The Bible tells us that there will be no other prophets and yet Mohammad came about 600-700 years later, so that can't be right either. Obviously one or the other must be right, yet the Muslims believe that Jesus was a prophet just as Mohammad was a prophet. But if the New Testament says that there will be no others, then Jesus can't be from God and that would eliminate both Jesus and Mohammad. If the New Testament is correct, then it eliminates Mohammad only.
As to point number 3, MY interpretation of the Bible is my interpretation and no one elses. I really don't care what any other men say because I am commanded to work out my own salvation with fear and trembling. Nothing is said about trusting how someone else interprets anything. Joseph Smith and the "prophets and apostles" of the Church of Christ of Latter Day Saints are only men. They are not special people that have any access greater than I have to God. The same goes for the Pope and all the cardinals, bishops, and priests of the Catholic Church. The same goes for all the "religious organizations" with their earthly bodies of governance. These are not what are commanded in the Bible, so therefore they do not matter in my interpretation of God's word.
As for "odds are, you are wrong", again I would disagree strongly. Quoting from the King James Version of the Bible in Matthew 7:14, "strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." And in the verse just before that, "wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat". So the odds appearing to be against me, seems to point to the fact that I probably am on the right track. I would be worried if most people agreed with me.
A God that hates man doesn't match what I can read about God in his word, the Bible. When I look at the books of the Old Testament (the Jewish Bible), it points to the coming Messiah and Jesus matches that description. Thus I can eliminate Muhammed, because Galatians 1:8 says "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."
Therefore, I can eliminate your "third choice" as it isn't in the nature of God. We are constantly shown the love of God toward his people through-out the Bible. Look at the Old Testament stories of the Israelites, they continually turned from God, yet he would bring them back. Like a father, he would punish them for their mis-deeds and then give them a hug. The Old Testament is given to us today as a school master, one that will bring us to a state of knowledge. In the days of the Old Testament, God spoke to his people through the prophets, but in these days he speaks through the words of of Son as recorded in the New Testament (Hebrews 1:1-4). In 2nd Peter 3:9, we learn that "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." This is not a God that hates man.
No where did I say that I wanted to say "I told you so". I agree with you on this point, just believing in God so that you can say "I told you so" would not be pleasing and I certainly do not live my life that way. What I did say was that people who don't believe in God will never have the opportunity to say "I told you so". If there is a God, they will be proven wrong and if there is no God, then when we die everything is finished.
And if God were so eager for us to believe in him, don't you think he would have made himself a little more obvious?
How much more obvious do you want? Just look around you at all the laws of nature and how perfect everything is for our existance. And God is concerned about us because he created us. He compares himself to a father, a father "creates" his children and he loves his children. He doesn't want his children to hate him, he wants them to love him. He cares for them and provides for them. It is the same with God, he created us and he loves us, he wants us to love him back. In John 14:15, Jesus says "If ye love me, keep my commandments." Isn't that what we, as fathers, say to our children here on earth?
I am not sure how you arrive at your last statement Your conviction that he does is just one more sign that you've created him in your own image. If God truly created us in his image, we should have a basic understanding of him as we are somewhat like him. He gave us our lives, he gave us his word through the Bible, and we must live our lifes by the map provided. I can understand ways that I could lose my life through my belief in God, there have been many martyrs in religious history, however I am not sure how it could cost the lives of everyone on the planet. We are told that one day God will destroy the earth and everything in it, but he will do that whether anyone believes in him or not.
As for ancient myths, that is your determination. The Bible is full of facts that can be proven. There is also much evidence that it has been transported through time without modification and there are many very old copies of it in existance to verify this. While there are certainly no manuscripts that go back to the time of Moses much less Noah, there are manuscripts that are 2000+ years old.
I agree that a lot of cultures live near water, however the need to put the animals on a boat which is common through-out those many stories in the many different cultures does not seem to point to a localized flood. If that were the case, then the animal population would have just come back from the surrounding areas. Not having a complete written history of the world does leave questions to which we don't know the answers. You asked how the Koala got to Australia, well I don't know the answer to that question. As for how it was fed, I don't have a problem. There are several theories (notice I did say theories since none of them can be proven), certainly if God had the ability to get all the animals to the ark, he could provide for them. This could have been by miraculously providing food, it could have been by seeing the Noah packed the right food, or it could have been by temporarily ceasing the need for food during the ark ride. Obviously a flood that covers the entire world would be miraculous, so providing for the creatures (man included) in the ark would have been just another part.
No one knows how many planets there are in the universe. No one knows how many combinations could produce life of some soft either. However, there is one combination that will produce life as we know it. While I understand your point about the puddle, personally the odds of life happening by accident are just too great for me to have any faith in that. It is much less of a leap of faith to submit to an all knowing, all powerful creator.
I mean that we are missing the transitional creatures. I mean that many of the changes necessary to go from species to species do not make since in either the source or destination species. I actually like the fact that you brought up DNA, that is a great source of the argument for evolution in many cases. And it can be answered very easily. I just took a look at/usr/bin on one of my linux machines. On that particular machine there are 1877 programs that all are linked to libc.so.6 (there are 2088 file in/usr/bin), now does that mean that each of these programs evolved from/usr/bin/bash, which is also linked to libc.so.6? Well, certainly not, it means that the programmers that created to 1877 programs used a common building block to start working. Why would God be any different? If you were going to create a universe and everything in it, wouldn't you reuse certain building blocks?
You completely distorted what I have been saying. I do believe in micro creation. I did not say taht H5N would become something else. My statement was:
The same is true with Bird Flu, it is still H5N? when it infects a person.
Maybe the "?" threw you off, I don't know, and seriously doubt) if they will still consider it H5N1 when it infects a person, so I used a question mark to indicate that it will be some slight variant of H5N1.
I don't know why you consider Noah's flood to be one of the most hilariously improbable bit of the bible. After all look at all the cultures that have a story in the oral history of a flood and a boat. Don't you think that this could be the same story, simply modified over time as it has been passed down in the oral traditions of the culture? I certainly wouldn't call it improbably when compared to the odds for a planet being the right distance from a star and with the right mixture of atmomphere, etc so that it was possible for life to "evolve". Talk about something being hilariously improbable!
And the amount of inbreeding necessary to believe in creation is different how from the amount of inbreeding necessary for evolution to occur. In order for evolution to occur, even on the micro level), inbreeding is necessary. If you have two dogs that have a trait that you want to bring out, then inbreeding is necessary. And certainly you can't count on a mass speciation to occur to give you enough genetic material to avoid inbreeding. This is obviously another case of assuming everything always was as it is today.
You read my statement wrong. Changes in a species are obvious and will happen based on environment. But one species will not become another species. Bird flu may change slightly so that it can infect a preson rather than a bird, but it will still be the same basic flu.
As for God and the bones, no I don't believe that he put them there to throw us off. They are the remains of animals many of which are now extinct. What I have a problem with from a scientific point of view is that things are always the same. I believe in a catastrophic earth, not a slowly changing and evolving earth. I don't see any conflict in my beliefs, but then you probably don't see any in yours either. To me it takes much more faith (something that most evolutionists claim not to need) to believe that things have been the same on earth for millons of years than to believe in God.
I can't wait until the end of time! That will be the point where it all comes together. Just think about it for a minute, I am in a no lose situation for that. I love my life here on earth, I am happy and have the things that I need. Isn't that the goal of all of us here in this life?
When the end of time comes there are two possibilities from my point of view, the first is that you are right and there is no God. If that is the case, then life is over, there is no after-life and nothing past the day I die will matter anyway. I have been happy on earth and everything is grand. The second is that I am right, in which case I will be spending eternity with God and away from people like you, so everything is grand again.
The same two possibilities exist for you however the outcomes are slightly different. If there is not God, then you die and life is over. However, you don't get the possiblity of saying "I told you so!". If there is a God, then you die and since you have rejected him, he will reject you as well. I don't believe that you will enjoy that rejection as much as you think you will.
So as I see it, I am in a win-win situation. I can't lose because of my attitude here and my hope in the future. You only hope, that of being right, gains you nothing because you will never really know that you are right.
Maybe he didn't. After all in Genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image,...". So wouldn't this imply that he had a design for man first and used the design as a pattern to make lower creatures. Man and chimps would have all been created on the same day and many of the basic functions of the two creatures are similar. Sounds like good engineering to me.
The Romans used the arch to span large lengths when building their aquaducts, but they also used them for doors to homes that could easily have been built with square openings. Why, well they like the way they looked and the engineering existed. I don't see any logic to this "spare chimp parts" argument at all. We would fire an engineer today that didn't look at reusing an existing technology, but we assume there is no God because he did reuse technology.
I guess we better go fire all those NASA engineers that are looking at Apollo technology to develop the next moon ship! We surely have evolved past that in the decades since it was invented.
There is nothing genetically that would prevent a "shih tzu to breed with a Bernese mountain dog". There is a size difference and the product could be deadly depending upon which breed is the female or possibly a physical impossability to happen naturally. But the real point is that they are both just variations within the same species.
As to the geologic layers, we do get stratification, but what we don't get is a more simple to a more complex layering of fossils. Different layers may have different fossils in many cases and this accounts for many species that are now extinct, but we have complex and simple creatures at most if not all layers. Mutations as I stated in my original post are a given. Every species will have slight variations and changes. I would disagree with you on the stratigraphy, because there are examples of polystrate trees that would have (according to the old earth ideals) spanned millions of years. While I understand that trees can stand for many years after being dead and possible as much as a century (I personally know of some American Chestnuts that stood for many, many years after the blight), but I serisouly doubt them standing for millions of years to be encapulated and fossilized completely at a later time.
While it is possible that God planted the paleontological evidence to test our faith, I do not believe that to be the case. I believe that the fossils that are found are the remains of living plants and animals. They are not there to test our faith but as evidence of what was. In order to believe in the old earth and evolutionary process, one must accept that things have always been as they are now. That there is no change in anything, and I don't believe that to be the case. I believe in a catastrophic development of the earth as we have it today.
The basic tenant of speciation is that things evolve from the simple to the complex. This doesn't make sense given the geologic record, just take a look at the trilobite. It is an extremely complex creature that appears in the cambrian age (about 520 million years ago according to old earth dates) with no obvious predecessors, and with an extremely complex eye. Nothing as complex as the trilobite eye exists today, so if things evolve from simple to complex, why wasn't the trilobites eye carried forward?
Given the fact that we see catastropic changes happen today (flood, volcano, tsunami, etc) why should we assume that they didn't exist in the past? How can we know that everything is today as it was in the past? There is no record in the Bible of rain before the flood, we are told in Genesis 2:6 that "there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground." Now is it not possible that the atmosphere was slightly different at that time given this fact and that maybe modern dating methods don't work properly prior to the flood? If we don't believe in the catastrophic change to the earth, then why don't we have a complete geologic record somewhere? There are bits and pieces that get put together from different places to make a complete record. If we do believe in the catastrophic changes, then we would know that the geologic record has been distrubed over time. That would explain why there isn't a complete record at any one place.
Science has its place and purpose. Science is good at explaining how things work, however it isn't supposed to jump into the realm of why things work. The problem with evolution is that while it is a great theory, it has yet to be proven at the level to which it has been accepted. Sceintist can show that a finch will change over a period of time by growing either a larger or smaller beak depending upon is environment. From this a jump is made that simpler life forms evolve into more complex life forms and this has not been proven. Sure they can change enough (apparently) to no longer be compatible, but even that isn't documented from beginning to end, it is assumed be looking at todays evidence.
If religous zealots don't believe in Evolution, then why are they so worried about bird flu?
And science zealots clump all religious people together so that they can just ignore religion. I for one have room for science and religion. Religion tells me where I came from and my purpose for being here. Science explains to me how things, including the things that God created, work. My Bible doesn't attempt to explain why the sun is necessary for life to exist on earth, it just tells me that God created it and saw that it was good. I happen to love certain aspects of science. What I dislike is people that seem to think that there isn't room for science and religion from either extreme.
As to evolution, what you are talking about with the evolution of bird flu and the evolution of lower species to human are two different things. Certainly there are forms of evolution. After all Noah didn't carry two beagles, two German Shepherds, etc onto the ark, he carried two canines onto the ark and all the different breeds have evolved from those two canines by bringing out different traits via breeding (go forth and multiply as it is called in Genesis). The same is true with Bird Flu, it is still H5N? when it infects a person. However, there is no evidence of one species becoming another and that is what would have to happen for a lower form to evolve into a human.
Why can't you accept the fact that there is a being greater than man? A being that has the power to create the universe in which we live. A being that set up the rules that we discover via science. That being is God, and he is the one that is responsible for us being here today.
Or pickup the software from JiveSoftware. They have a client and server. The server can even tie into you Active Directory Domain if I remember correctly. I used an earlier version of their server with both Exodus and Gaim (before they had their own client).
God is a being not tied to a temporial existence, but that doesn't mean that he doesn't understand time. Why would the same word be used to define a period from sunrise to sunset in many places mean something different in this case? Even though the sun did not exist on the first day, that doesn't mean that God didn't already have the plan. On the first day of construction of my house, there wasn't a roof, a wall, or even a floor, but I could have told you where the kitchen would be, the living room, the bedrooms, etc. God had a plan and if the day was going to be 24 hours, he knew that already.
Now as to the big bang, wasn't it shown recently that the universe expanded in an extremely short period of time? Like less than a second? If that is the case, then the period of time could have easily have been 24 hours, so why eliminate it based on the big bang? And to follow your thoughts here, then we can't be sure about any word in the Bible because you are equating "water" to gases on day two.
I don't understand how you make some of your determinations concerning the creation of the universe and the earth. How do you know that the early atmosphere had no oxygen? There is no history that would tell you that for sure. Maybe that is the case for Venus, but is it the case for earth? Why would sea life have been the first to occur? Given your argument, the atmosphere would have been the first place to have the oxygen needed to support life as we know it. Thus it would seem that life would have occured there first. Doesn't saying sea life was first indicate that there is some truth in the Genesis account of creation that surpasses the assumptions of man?
If we believe modern science, then the birds came from certain dinosaurs which were land animals. This doesn't fit the Genesis account at all. How do you explain it? The Penguins you mention maybe coming from sea creatures don't count as that doesn't match modern science. I want the argument to all fit in place as one argument. How did the plants survive without the sun for photo-synthesis? It doesn't add up to life.
The "us" is easy. Haven't you heard that there is a God-head? There is God the father, God the son, and God the Holy Spirit. Isn't that "us"? Read John 1 and remember that Jesus, God the son, is often referred to as "the Word". It is stated that through him all things were created.
Not believing in the Genesis account of creation is simply limiting the power of God. If God has the power to save us from our sins and is capable of taking us to eternal life or eternal damnation, why isn't he capable of creating the entire universe in seven days?
Who cares if they pay for tech support? Then the democrats can call it a jobs program while the republicans (speaking in US terms) can call it building business and everyone will be heppy for one short minute. Then they'll be off for their next conquest.
If it really works in the long run, which I believe that it would, it probably would boost business and it probably would put people to work in the long run as well. There are already many people employed to support the software that the government uses, so what would be the difference in them supporting Linux vs. Windows, or OpenOffice.org vs. Microsoft Office, or LAMP vs. IIS?
I once worked for an organization that was a local government mandated organization. The CEO and CIO of this organization at the time felt that using Open Source software was good for them because they could hire people from the community to support the software instead of paying people from another state or another country to develop and support software. They were self sufficient (actually put money back into the community usually) so it wasn't like they were spending tax dollars, but they felt that it was easier to explain the community, when there was a large community presence within the organization.
Would you rather pay someone to support OSS with your tax dollars or pay for Bill Gates next house or Steve Ballmer's salary? Would you rather pay someone to support PostgreSQL/MySQL or pay for Larry Elison's new yacht? Don't forget that if you are paying for Bill's house, Steve's salary, or Larry's yacht, you might also be paying welfare to someone that could be doing the job of supporting OSS.
In Genesis 1:5, he called the light day and the dark night. So then how is it a period of time? Given your logic in Genesis 7, it rained for 40 periods of time (days) and 40 something else (nights)? And in Joshua chapter 6, they marched around the walls of Jericho once for each of 6 periods of time and then 7 times in some other period of time? Each of these came from the same Hebrew word, and thus have the same meaning. It actually comes from a root word meaning hot, or the time between sunrise and sunset.
I don't buy this english did not exist argument at all. English came from other languages and did not necessarily invent all new concepts when it started. The word day is used in the Bible so many times. Many of these come from the same Hebrew word and they indicate as I have mentioned the hot part of the day.
I will agree with you to some degree on the matter of "spare the rod" and I assume you are referring to Proverbs 13 but I recommend that you read it in context as well. You are correct on the point of the shepherd using the rod to guide, however, that rod was used rather abruptly at times and all this is aluded to in Proverbs 13. I have worked sheep and goats myself, like the shepherds of biblical times and believe me, occassionally it takes a firm rap with a rod to guide them in the right direction. I certainly do not believe in abuse and would quote Ephesians 6:4 "... fathers, provoide not your children to wrath..." This clearly covers abuse, however it is written much later than Solomons wisdom. I would also recommend that you read Proverbs 29.
I would disagree with you completely on the point of astrophysics and Genesis agreeing on creation. The "day age" theory doesn't hold water because the plants were created on day three and the sun wasn't created until day four. Thus the plants had to survive for some period of time without sun light which is required for photo-synthesis. Also the birds were created on day five along with the fish and other water animals but the land animals were not created until day six. Thus it would be impossible for birds to be decended from dinosaurs (land animals) which were created later.
II Timothy 2:15, "rightly dividing the word of God". Aren't you aware that there are two major parts of the Bible? There is the Old Testament (Old Law) and the New Testament (New Law). The new law did away with the old and imperfect law. Thus the laws concerning things that are unclean were done away. It doesn't change the historical fact (Galatians 3:24), "... the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ...").
Taking something literally and being subject to it are two different things. In the past, the eastern part of what is now the U.S. of A. was under British rule. However, British laws no longer apply here as we achieved our independence from the British. That doesn't change the fact that once we were colonies of the British, but it has no effect today. In the past, Africans were held as slaves in the U.S. or A., but the 13th amendment to the constitution freed all slaves in the U.S. of A. Does that amendment change the historical fact that people were once slaves? No, the historical fact holds true, but it meant that it would not legally happen in the future.
The same is true concerning the new law of God. When Christ became the perfect sacrifice, then the old law was removed. The historical facts remained in place, but the rules changed. Therefore if you claim to believe in God, then you must believe the historical facts of Genesis. You can't believe that God started some clock and let things run their own way, you must believe that in seven days God created everything that has been.
Referring to the GP of this message, have things disappeared? Yes, obviously there are species that have gone extinct. Why, well we haven't always been good stewards of what God gave us. We still aren't necessarily good stewards. But how does extinction have anything to do with evolution, especially speciation. I agree that species evolve somewhat over time to fit their environment and to fit our needs and desires for them, but I can not and will not agree with speciation.
I have no problem believing in evolution, until you start creating new species. Evolution has certainly taken place. I seriously doubt that Noah had two beagles, two labs, two collies, etc on the ark. He had two dogs and we have selectively bred and evolved all the breeds. However, they are all still dogs and no one breed has pushed the others from existence. Each breed has its traits that make it appropriate for some use. Even those (IMO) useless little fuzzy lap dogs are useful to some people.
But the dog existed, it didn't evolve from some "pre-dog" animal which evolved from some "pre-pre-dog" creature. The same is true of chickens. There are a number of varieties of chickens, each of these varities came from the chickens that were on the ark at the time of the flood. They each have their traits that make them appropriate for some particular use. Those traits have been bred into each breed selectively.
As for belief in God and belief in evolution being exclusive, I will agree that you can believe in both. However, you MUST believe that God created the heaven and the earth and all things in it. If you dismiss the first chapters of Genesis as being fiction, then you MUST dismiss the entire Bible as being fiction.
So if a non-chicken laid an egg and when it hatched it was the worlds only chicken, how did it produce any eggs? If I remember correctly from my years on the farm, if there aren't roosters around, the hens quit laying eggs and roosters never lay eggs at all.
If it were possible that the first chicken was fertilized by some other creature, then the egg was not a chicken egg at all, but some sort of hybrid. And then the offspring would not be chickens either. So maybe there isn't such a thing as chickens.
This is much harder for me to buy into than creation. I understand that it is difficult for some people to buy into some greater being, but you really have to stretch to get anywhere with evolution. You have to work on the assumption that something that has a very low likelyhood of happening (some egg laying creature laying an egg with a chicken embryo), actually happened at least twice at the same time. And then you also have to believe that there were male and female that happened to hatch at the same time.
And to think there are people out there that think that I believe in a long shot when they find out that I believe in God and that he created everything.
Slashdot Mirror
Intelligent Design is just as valid as it was. After all, Intelligent Design is based upon sound engineering principles. If you consider engineering to be a scientifically based area of study, then Intelligent Design is also a scientifically based area of study. The only real difference in engineering and ID is that ID makes the assumption that the principles were applied by a supreme being that can exceed the capabilities of mankind. Whereas engineering is performed by people with the same capabilities of those performing the analysis.
I like this idea, so prove that evolution is scientific. Science is based upon a very rigorous procedure that requires that something be reproducible. So in order to prove that evolution is scientific, you must reproduce the entire chain from the beginning to the end. I'll be generous and allow you to start with a single celled organism, you don't have to go find some primordial soup to start. When you get to man, let me know so that we can review your documentation on every step thoroughly.
I would ask the same of creationist, but I (being a creationist) do not believe that creationism is a science. Since creation requires a supreme being, I (being a man) can not recreate the process of creating the world. I acknowledge that fact, but it no way interferes with my faith that the supreme being did it. However, given that it does reflect the beginning of what we call the world/universe it does have a scientific bearing in certain aspects.
I await the results of your scientific process so that I can believe (or not) that evolution is scientific. In the mean time, quit teaching as science that which you can't prove is science.
And this is exactly the case with DynDNS and their MailHop service. They will receive email for many folks that are behind and ISP that blocks all incoming traffic on port 25. Then they will relay it to the server on a different TCP port, such as 52525. So if I were a customer of DynDNS and someone sent me an email but misspelled my username (gitux instead of gi-tux), then a problem is going to happen. DynDNS accepts the email which was intended for me (but the wrong username). DynDNS then forwards the msssage to my correctly configured server, which tells them that this user does not exist. They drop the message and do not return and NDR. Now someone believes that I have received the email that was sent to me because they did not get an NDR. However I didn't see the message nor is there any indication to me that anyone tried to send me a message.
I see this as causing more people to be sending messages with delivery/read receipts so that they will know that the message was properly delivered and/or read. I am afraid that this will lead to an increase in traffic due to these receipts being requested more. But then I guess that servers will start dropping the receipts as well and then sending an email will be no more reliable than sending a snail mail. It is supposed to be a guaranteed system of delivery, but there is a huge dead letter barrel that gets way too many things.
And not only will it not deter professional thieves, but how can expect a clerk at a cash register (not really many of those left with self check-out even) to activate the DVD, when they can't deal with the external theft detection system that they presently use. It seems that about 30% of the time the little anti-theft device that they currently package with DVD's and other small items doesn't get deactivated and I have to go back inside and let someone look through my bags, etc.
Now, I am going to have to wait until I get home to find that the DVD doesn't work. Then drive back to the store and argue that it should be activated as I have a receipt while they argue that I bought one and stole several and am trying to get them illegally activated. Come on, let's put some criminals in jail and make them work (busting rocks, etc) for a change so that some of the desire to be a criminal will be erased. We have laws, we just need to enforce them and not be afraid to accuse someone.
Well, mankind is a social creature. We prefer to around other people rather than being in solitude. If you are a worker, you spend a larger precentage of your time with people in the workplace than any where else, even you family generally gets a smaller percentage than co-workers. Thus it becomes natural for co-workers to become friends. Co-workers have somethings in common, and will naturually share experiences and thoughts with each other. However, it does take time for a new co-worker to fit into the mesh.
In an ideal world, separating work and personal life would be easy. But with work occupying such a large amount of our time, it is difficult. Certainly separating work and home can be done. But that is not the original question here. Home and friends, friends being the original question, are not the same thing. I have plenty of friends that don't follow me home. Not that I object to having them into my home, but they are not there every day. I also have friends from other activities (church, scouts, school organizations, etc) but life can't be completely compartmentalized.
My point is that I have the right to pick my friends, be they from work or where ever. Just because you work with me, doesn't mean that I accept you into my group of friends. There is little that you can do to accelerate my acceptance of you into my group of friends, but by being pushy you certainly can eliminate my desire to bring you into that circle.
Some guys often feel that they are in a no win situation. Many guys have been burned or know someone who has been burned by the "Sexual Harassment" talk in HR. This makes them a bit uneasy about becoming too close (friends) to ladies in the work place. It is especially true if there is only one lady in the group and it gets even worse if she is young and good looking. The other side of that is that if they don't accept her into their personal life (friends) then they get the "women are just as good as men" speech.
I certainly don't try to leave a lady co-worker out of work. However, I am careful of becoming too close to lady co-workers. I am also careful of what male co-workers become friends as well. Becoming a member of a group of friends is not guaranteed just because you work with the group. You usually have to earn that privilege in some way. You need to show the group that you have somethings in common with them. Some of those things are interests and values. I have many friends that are ladies, but it is because of common interests and values, not because they work with me. One of those values is a knowledge that we won't go running off to HR or management when we get our feelings hurt. We will go to each other and work out the problem. Once that value is recognized, a person (male or female) stands a better chance of getting into my circle of friends. I think that most people feel that way in life as well.
From the point of view of your number 1, I can only do what I believe to be correct by what I can see and read. While there are a large number of people in the world that don't believe that God is the one true God. But that isn't what I see and read in the Bible. The things in the Bible as well as what I see in the universe point to God and that is who I worship.
From the point of view of your number 2, again I can only do what I believe to be correct. The Jews don't believe in Christ, but everything in the Old Testament (Jewish Bible) points to the coming of a Messiah. The Jews happen to believe that he hasn't come yet. However, I would contend that if he hasn't come, then he won't come. Because it is prophesied that he will be a descendant of David and the Hebrew people of today can't prove that heritage. He will be of the tribe of Judah, and the Hebrew people of today can't prove to which tribe they belong. The Bible tells us that there will be no other prophets and yet Mohammad came about 600-700 years later, so that can't be right either. Obviously one or the other must be right, yet the Muslims believe that Jesus was a prophet just as Mohammad was a prophet. But if the New Testament says that there will be no others, then Jesus can't be from God and that would eliminate both Jesus and Mohammad. If the New Testament is correct, then it eliminates Mohammad only.
As to point number 3, MY interpretation of the Bible is my interpretation and no one elses. I really don't care what any other men say because I am commanded to work out my own salvation with fear and trembling. Nothing is said about trusting how someone else interprets anything. Joseph Smith and the "prophets and apostles" of the Church of Christ of Latter Day Saints are only men. They are not special people that have any access greater than I have to God. The same goes for the Pope and all the cardinals, bishops, and priests of the Catholic Church. The same goes for all the "religious organizations" with their earthly bodies of governance. These are not what are commanded in the Bible, so therefore they do not matter in my interpretation of God's word.
As for "odds are, you are wrong", again I would disagree strongly. Quoting from the King James Version of the Bible in Matthew 7:14, "strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." And in the verse just before that, "wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat". So the odds appearing to be against me, seems to point to the fact that I probably am on the right track. I would be worried if most people agreed with me.
A God that hates man doesn't match what I can read about God in his word, the Bible. When I look at the books of the Old Testament (the Jewish Bible), it points to the coming Messiah and Jesus matches that description. Thus I can eliminate Muhammed, because Galatians 1:8 says "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."
Therefore, I can eliminate your "third choice" as it isn't in the nature of God. We are constantly shown the love of God toward his people through-out the Bible. Look at the Old Testament stories of the Israelites, they continually turned from God, yet he would bring them back. Like a father, he would punish them for their mis-deeds and then give them a hug. The Old Testament is given to us today as a school master, one that will bring us to a state of knowledge. In the days of the Old Testament, God spoke to his people through the prophets, but in these days he speaks through the words of of Son as recorded in the New Testament (Hebrews 1:1-4). In 2nd Peter 3:9, we learn that "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." This is not a God that hates man.
How much more obvious do you want? Just look around you at all the laws of nature and how perfect everything is for our existance. And God is concerned about us because he created us. He compares himself to a father, a father "creates" his children and he loves his children. He doesn't want his children to hate him, he wants them to love him. He cares for them and provides for them. It is the same with God, he created us and he loves us, he wants us to love him back. In John 14:15, Jesus says "If ye love me, keep my commandments." Isn't that what we, as fathers, say to our children here on earth?
I am not sure how you arrive at your last statement Your conviction that he does is just one more sign that you've created him in your own image. If God truly created us in his image, we should have a basic understanding of him as we are somewhat like him. He gave us our lives, he gave us his word through the Bible, and we must live our lifes by the map provided. I can understand ways that I could lose my life through my belief in God, there have been many martyrs in religious history, however I am not sure how it could cost the lives of everyone on the planet. We are told that one day God will destroy the earth and everything in it, but he will do that whether anyone believes in him or not.
As for ancient myths, that is your determination. The Bible is full of facts that can be proven. There is also much evidence that it has been transported through time without modification and there are many very old copies of it in existance to verify this. While there are certainly no manuscripts that go back to the time of Moses much less Noah, there are manuscripts that are 2000+ years old.
I agree that a lot of cultures live near water, however the need to put the animals on a boat which is common through-out those many stories in the many different cultures does not seem to point to a localized flood. If that were the case, then the animal population would have just come back from the surrounding areas. Not having a complete written history of the world does leave questions to which we don't know the answers. You asked how the Koala got to Australia, well I don't know the answer to that question. As for how it was fed, I don't have a problem. There are several theories (notice I did say theories since none of them can be proven), certainly if God had the ability to get all the animals to the ark, he could provide for them. This could have been by miraculously providing food, it could have been by seeing the Noah packed the right food, or it could have been by temporarily ceasing the need for food during the ark ride. Obviously a flood that covers the entire world would be miraculous, so providing for the creatures (man included) in the ark would have been just another part.
No one knows how many planets there are in the universe. No one knows how many combinations could produce life of some soft either. However, there is one combination that will produce life as we know it. While I understand your point about the puddle, personally the odds of life happening by accident are just too great for me to have any faith in that. It is much less of a leap of faith to submit to an all knowing, all powerful creator.
I don't know why you consider Noah's flood to be one of the most hilariously improbable bit of the bible. After all look at all the cultures that have a story in the oral history of a flood and a boat. Don't you think that this could be the same story, simply modified over time as it has been passed down in the oral traditions of the culture? I certainly wouldn't call it improbably when compared to the odds for a planet being the right distance from a star and with the right mixture of atmomphere, etc so that it was possible for life to "evolve". Talk about something being hilariously improbable!
And the amount of inbreeding necessary to believe in creation is different how from the amount of inbreeding necessary for evolution to occur. In order for evolution to occur, even on the micro level), inbreeding is necessary. If you have two dogs that have a trait that you want to bring out, then inbreeding is necessary. And certainly you can't count on a mass speciation to occur to give you enough genetic material to avoid inbreeding. This is obviously another case of assuming everything always was as it is today.
You read my statement wrong. Changes in a species are obvious and will happen based on environment. But one species will not become another species. Bird flu may change slightly so that it can infect a preson rather than a bird, but it will still be the same basic flu.
As for God and the bones, no I don't believe that he put them there to throw us off. They are the remains of animals many of which are now extinct. What I have a problem with from a scientific point of view is that things are always the same. I believe in a catastrophic earth, not a slowly changing and evolving earth. I don't see any conflict in my beliefs, but then you probably don't see any in yours either. To me it takes much more faith (something that most evolutionists claim not to need) to believe that things have been the same on earth for millons of years than to believe in God.
I can't wait until the end of time! That will be the point where it all comes together. Just think about it for a minute, I am in a no lose situation for that. I love my life here on earth, I am happy and have the things that I need. Isn't that the goal of all of us here in this life?
When the end of time comes there are two possibilities from my point of view, the first is that you are right and there is no God. If that is the case, then life is over, there is no after-life and nothing past the day I die will matter anyway. I have been happy on earth and everything is grand. The second is that I am right, in which case I will be spending eternity with God and away from people like you, so everything is grand again.
The same two possibilities exist for you however the outcomes are slightly different. If there is not God, then you die and life is over. However, you don't get the possiblity of saying "I told you so!". If there is a God, then you die and since you have rejected him, he will reject you as well. I don't believe that you will enjoy that rejection as much as you think you will.
So as I see it, I am in a win-win situation. I can't lose because of my attitude here and my hope in the future. You only hope, that of being right, gains you nothing because you will never really know that you are right.
Maybe he didn't. After all in Genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, ...". So wouldn't this imply that he had a design for man first and used the design as a pattern to make lower creatures. Man and chimps would have all been created on the same day and many of the basic functions of the two creatures are similar. Sounds like good engineering to me.
The Romans used the arch to span large lengths when building their aquaducts, but they also used them for doors to homes that could easily have been built with square openings. Why, well they like the way they looked and the engineering existed. I don't see any logic to this "spare chimp parts" argument at all. We would fire an engineer today that didn't look at reusing an existing technology, but we assume there is no God because he did reuse technology.
I guess we better go fire all those NASA engineers that are looking at Apollo technology to develop the next moon ship! We surely have evolved past that in the decades since it was invented.
There is nothing genetically that would prevent a "shih tzu to breed with a Bernese mountain dog". There is a size difference and the product could be deadly depending upon which breed is the female or possibly a physical impossability to happen naturally. But the real point is that they are both just variations within the same species.
As to the geologic layers, we do get stratification, but what we don't get is a more simple to a more complex layering of fossils. Different layers may have different fossils in many cases and this accounts for many species that are now extinct, but we have complex and simple creatures at most if not all layers. Mutations as I stated in my original post are a given. Every species will have slight variations and changes. I would disagree with you on the stratigraphy, because there are examples of polystrate trees that would have (according to the old earth ideals) spanned millions of years. While I understand that trees can stand for many years after being dead and possible as much as a century (I personally know of some American Chestnuts that stood for many, many years after the blight), but I serisouly doubt them standing for millions of years to be encapulated and fossilized completely at a later time.
While it is possible that God planted the paleontological evidence to test our faith, I do not believe that to be the case. I believe that the fossils that are found are the remains of living plants and animals. They are not there to test our faith but as evidence of what was. In order to believe in the old earth and evolutionary process, one must accept that things have always been as they are now. That there is no change in anything, and I don't believe that to be the case. I believe in a catastrophic development of the earth as we have it today.
The basic tenant of speciation is that things evolve from the simple to the complex. This doesn't make sense given the geologic record, just take a look at the trilobite. It is an extremely complex creature that appears in the cambrian age (about 520 million years ago according to old earth dates) with no obvious predecessors, and with an extremely complex eye. Nothing as complex as the trilobite eye exists today, so if things evolve from simple to complex, why wasn't the trilobites eye carried forward?
Given the fact that we see catastropic changes happen today (flood, volcano, tsunami, etc) why should we assume that they didn't exist in the past? How can we know that everything is today as it was in the past? There is no record in the Bible of rain before the flood, we are told in Genesis 2:6 that "there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground." Now is it not possible that the atmosphere was slightly different at that time given this fact and that maybe modern dating methods don't work properly prior to the flood? If we don't believe in the catastrophic change to the earth, then why don't we have a complete geologic record somewhere? There are bits and pieces that get put together from different places to make a complete record. If we do believe in the catastrophic changes, then we would know that the geologic record has been distrubed over time. That would explain why there isn't a complete record at any one place.
Science has its place and purpose. Science is good at explaining how things work, however it isn't supposed to jump into the realm of why things work. The problem with evolution is that while it is a great theory, it has yet to be proven at the level to which it has been accepted. Sceintist can show that a finch will change over a period of time by growing either a larger or smaller beak depending upon is environment. From this a jump is made that simpler life forms evolve into more complex life forms and this has not been proven. Sure they can change enough (apparently) to no longer be compatible, but even that isn't documented from beginning to end, it is assumed be looking at todays evidence.
However, all of
As to evolution, what you are talking about with the evolution of bird flu and the evolution of lower species to human are two different things. Certainly there are forms of evolution. After all Noah didn't carry two beagles, two German Shepherds, etc onto the ark, he carried two canines onto the ark and all the different breeds have evolved from those two canines by bringing out different traits via breeding (go forth and multiply as it is called in Genesis). The same is true with Bird Flu, it is still H5N? when it infects a person. However, there is no evidence of one species becoming another and that is what would have to happen for a lower form to evolve into a human.
Why can't you accept the fact that there is a being greater than man? A being that has the power to create the universe in which we live. A being that set up the rules that we discover via science. That being is God, and he is the one that is responsible for us being here today.
Or pickup the software from JiveSoftware. They have a client and server. The server can even tie into you Active Directory Domain if I remember correctly. I used an earlier version of their server with both Exodus and Gaim (before they had their own client).
God is a being not tied to a temporial existence, but that doesn't mean that he doesn't understand time. Why would the same word be used to define a period from sunrise to sunset in many places mean something different in this case? Even though the sun did not exist on the first day, that doesn't mean that God didn't already have the plan. On the first day of construction of my house, there wasn't a roof, a wall, or even a floor, but I could have told you where the kitchen would be, the living room, the bedrooms, etc. God had a plan and if the day was going to be 24 hours, he knew that already.
Now as to the big bang, wasn't it shown recently that the universe expanded in an extremely short period of time? Like less than a second? If that is the case, then the period of time could have easily have been 24 hours, so why eliminate it based on the big bang? And to follow your thoughts here, then we can't be sure about any word in the Bible because you are equating "water" to gases on day two.
I don't understand how you make some of your determinations concerning the creation of the universe and the earth. How do you know that the early atmosphere had no oxygen? There is no history that would tell you that for sure. Maybe that is the case for Venus, but is it the case for earth? Why would sea life have been the first to occur? Given your argument, the atmosphere would have been the first place to have the oxygen needed to support life as we know it. Thus it would seem that life would have occured there first. Doesn't saying sea life was first indicate that there is some truth in the Genesis account of creation that surpasses the assumptions of man?
If we believe modern science, then the birds came from certain dinosaurs which were land animals. This doesn't fit the Genesis account at all. How do you explain it? The Penguins you mention maybe coming from sea creatures don't count as that doesn't match modern science. I want the argument to all fit in place as one argument. How did the plants survive without the sun for photo-synthesis? It doesn't add up to life.
The "us" is easy. Haven't you heard that there is a God-head? There is God the father, God the son, and God the Holy Spirit. Isn't that "us"? Read John 1 and remember that Jesus, God the son, is often referred to as "the Word". It is stated that through him all things were created.
Not believing in the Genesis account of creation is simply limiting the power of God. If God has the power to save us from our sins and is capable of taking us to eternal life or eternal damnation, why isn't he capable of creating the entire universe in seven days?
Who cares if they pay for tech support? Then the democrats can call it a jobs program while the republicans (speaking in US terms) can call it building business and everyone will be heppy for one short minute. Then they'll be off for their next conquest.
If it really works in the long run, which I believe that it would, it probably would boost business and it probably would put people to work in the long run as well. There are already many people employed to support the software that the government uses, so what would be the difference in them supporting Linux vs. Windows, or OpenOffice.org vs. Microsoft Office, or LAMP vs. IIS?
I once worked for an organization that was a local government mandated organization. The CEO and CIO of this organization at the time felt that using Open Source software was good for them because they could hire people from the community to support the software instead of paying people from another state or another country to develop and support software. They were self sufficient (actually put money back into the community usually) so it wasn't like they were spending tax dollars, but they felt that it was easier to explain the community, when there was a large community presence within the organization.
Would you rather pay someone to support OSS with your tax dollars or pay for Bill Gates next house or Steve Ballmer's salary? Would you rather pay someone to support PostgreSQL/MySQL or pay for Larry Elison's new yacht? Don't forget that if you are paying for Bill's house, Steve's salary, or Larry's yacht, you might also be paying welfare to someone that could be doing the job of supporting OSS.
In Genesis 1:5, he called the light day and the dark night. So then how is it a period of time? Given your logic in Genesis 7, it rained for 40 periods of time (days) and 40 something else (nights)? And in Joshua chapter 6, they marched around the walls of Jericho once for each of 6 periods of time and then 7 times in some other period of time? Each of these came from the same Hebrew word, and thus have the same meaning. It actually comes from a root word meaning hot, or the time between sunrise and sunset.
..." This clearly covers abuse, however it is written much later than Solomons wisdom. I would also recommend that you read Proverbs 29.
I don't buy this english did not exist argument at all. English came from other languages and did not necessarily invent all new concepts when it started. The word day is used in the Bible so many times. Many of these come from the same Hebrew word and they indicate as I have mentioned the hot part of the day.
I will agree with you to some degree on the matter of "spare the rod" and I assume you are referring to Proverbs 13 but I recommend that you read it in context as well. You are correct on the point of the shepherd using the rod to guide, however, that rod was used rather abruptly at times and all this is aluded to in Proverbs 13. I have worked sheep and goats myself, like the shepherds of biblical times and believe me, occassionally it takes a firm rap with a rod to guide them in the right direction. I certainly do not believe in abuse and would quote Ephesians 6:4 "... fathers, provoide not your children to wrath
I would disagree with you completely on the point of astrophysics and Genesis agreeing on creation. The "day age" theory doesn't hold water because the plants were created on day three and the sun wasn't created until day four. Thus the plants had to survive for some period of time without sun light which is required for photo-synthesis. Also the birds were created on day five along with the fish and other water animals but the land animals were not created until day six. Thus it would be impossible for birds to be decended from dinosaurs (land animals) which were created later.
II Timothy 2:15, "rightly dividing the word of God". Aren't you aware that there are two major parts of the Bible? There is the Old Testament (Old Law) and the New Testament (New Law). The new law did away with the old and imperfect law. Thus the laws concerning things that are unclean were done away. It doesn't change the historical fact (Galatians 3:24), "... the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ...").
Taking something literally and being subject to it are two different things. In the past, the eastern part of what is now the U.S. of A. was under British rule. However, British laws no longer apply here as we achieved our independence from the British. That doesn't change the fact that once we were colonies of the British, but it has no effect today. In the past, Africans were held as slaves in the U.S. or A., but the 13th amendment to the constitution freed all slaves in the U.S. of A. Does that amendment change the historical fact that people were once slaves? No, the historical fact holds true, but it meant that it would not legally happen in the future.
The same is true concerning the new law of God. When Christ became the perfect sacrifice, then the old law was removed. The historical facts remained in place, but the rules changed. Therefore if you claim to believe in God, then you must believe the historical facts of Genesis. You can't believe that God started some clock and let things run their own way, you must believe that in seven days God created everything that has been.
Referring to the GP of this message, have things disappeared? Yes, obviously there are species that have gone extinct. Why, well we haven't always been good stewards of what God gave us. We still aren't necessarily good stewards. But how does extinction have anything to do with evolution, especially speciation. I agree that species evolve somewhat over time to fit their environment and to fit our needs and desires for them, but I can not and will not agree with speciation.
I have no problem believing in evolution, until you start creating new species. Evolution has certainly taken place. I seriously doubt that Noah had two beagles, two labs, two collies, etc on the ark. He had two dogs and we have selectively bred and evolved all the breeds. However, they are all still dogs and no one breed has pushed the others from existence. Each breed has its traits that make it appropriate for some use. Even those (IMO) useless little fuzzy lap dogs are useful to some people.
But the dog existed, it didn't evolve from some "pre-dog" animal which evolved from some "pre-pre-dog" creature. The same is true of chickens. There are a number of varieties of chickens, each of these varities came from the chickens that were on the ark at the time of the flood. They each have their traits that make them appropriate for some particular use. Those traits have been bred into each breed selectively.
As for belief in God and belief in evolution being exclusive, I will agree that you can believe in both. However, you MUST believe that God created the heaven and the earth and all things in it. If you dismiss the first chapters of Genesis as being fiction, then you MUST dismiss the entire Bible as being fiction.
So if a non-chicken laid an egg and when it hatched it was the worlds only chicken, how did it produce any eggs? If I remember correctly from my years on the farm, if there aren't roosters around, the hens quit laying eggs and roosters never lay eggs at all.
If it were possible that the first chicken was fertilized by some other creature, then the egg was not a chicken egg at all, but some sort of hybrid. And then the offspring would not be chickens either. So maybe there isn't such a thing as chickens.
This is much harder for me to buy into than creation. I understand that it is difficult for some people to buy into some greater being, but you really have to stretch to get anywhere with evolution. You have to work on the assumption that something that has a very low likelyhood of happening (some egg laying creature laying an egg with a chicken embryo), actually happened at least twice at the same time. And then you also have to believe that there were male and female that happened to hatch at the same time.
And to think there are people out there that think that I believe in a long shot when they find out that I believe in God and that he created everything.