24 hours?

The duration of 794,243,384,928,000 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom at zero kelvins?

Mabye that too.

EDIT: Also Cesium + water = win. I wish I had Cesium.

Before, not after. :p

Since when did bagels taste like cardboard??? HMMM!!??? HMM!!?? see your not the only one who can do it :p



well i think its safe to say that in the 60's and early 70's, we didnt do much in the way of evolving, but i think we made a comeback in the 80's

[QUOTE=IRG SithLord]About 6 days of creation....what exactly defined a day before the sun was created?[/QUOTE]

im glad you asked that. im not usually a bible thumper buuuttt....



he created the sun and what not BEFORE the first day, or the first day happened as a result of the sun being created, either way...


just to spite the poor ******* who first got one

if that were actually a good idea (good idea meaning from a physiological or biological veiw) wount we have evolved a switch? why pin the responsibility on god? and if your just being jaded give the poor kid a break he's obviously confused :p

I don't know what that means. Can you type it again with all the letters?

lmao!

no



should have been "wouldnt we", not "wount"

do i have any other spelling errors in there... seriously im horrible at spelling if you havn't already noticed.

No, evolution produces lots of little byproducts (junk DNA being the typical example) that may very well have inefficient effects. Natural selection is driven by survival, not (necessarily) efficiency.

Mort, where've you been?

The day-age theory of creationism is highly debated among christians.
And it's really not a big deal, as you said, and I mentioned earlier, the point of the story is who did it, not how it was done.
But just for the sake of clarification I'll give you my reasons for what I believe.

As I said earlier I believe in a literal 6 days of creation.
which is not to say that the earth is only 10,000 years old or whatever,
because God created Adam a full grown man, why couldn't he create the earth already a billion years old?
One thing that's important to remember is that God does not exist within time.
God created time, he is not bound by it.
it says in John 8:58, "Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.'"
Before something that was a very long time before the people who he was speaking to, he currently IS.
With exeption of the far less literal paraphrased versions of the bible, all the versions I looked at said the same.
There's no gramatical error there.
This is to show God's eternity, His Infinitude.
And there's more than just that one verse, if you want more just ask.
So with that in mind, it's easy to see that the passage of 6 literal days on earth have no effect on God.
That is why I believe in a literal 6 days and see no conflict with that and the current scientific findings that say that the earth is howevermany billions of years

old.


I believe you are refereing to 1 Peter 3 and Ephesians 5:22.
I need make it very clearn that these passages are NOT saying that women should have no rights or have no ability to choose for themselves.
the passage in 1 Peter 3 begins with "Likewise" in the ESV, KJV and NKJV and "in the same way" in the NIV.
This means that everything he is going to say is under the same topic that he has been discussing which is general submission to whatever authority is over

you (1 Peter 2:13-22). And in the Greek/Roman culture, women's sufferage had not occured so they had very little rights and their husband, father or older

brother(s) was very much the authority in a woman's life.
1Peter 3:1, "if any of them do not believe the word", refereing to the woman's husband, saying "if he is not a christian" assuming that the wife is.
This is not saying that the woman was a christian before they got married but has since become a christian but her husband has not.
Obviously she is exersising independent thought. In this cercumstance, she is told to be a better wife so that he will she that becoming a christian has made

a positive change in this woman's life.
but you can't stop there because the passage is not limited to women.
Ephesians 5:25 "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her"
How did Christ love the church? he died. Women are calle dto submit, men are called to die.
Let me pose this as a question to women just in case any are reading this.
If a man loved you, honored you, cherished you, protected you, respected you, respected your opinion, was willing to die for you, not only die but die in your

place for a crime of which there is no doubt that you commited and are completely deserving of the punishment; would it be any struggle at all to submit to

this man?
These passages are constantly missused and missinterprated. I've spent quite a deal of time studying these and I'm certain that this is the correct way to

interperate them and I've found no dissagreement from others who have done the same.

As for the slavery passages, I don't see anyway that those are endorsing slavery.
In those days people had slaves.
The important difference between then and the type of slavery that we often think of is that this was not a specific people group who were considered a lower

species and forced to be slaves simply because of their hereitage
These were often hebrews servants to hebrew masters.
They became slaves because or some debt they owed, they had no other way to pay it but sell himself or his family.
Is it a good thing? no. Should we be doing it now? no.
These are passages that are very specific and cannot be take out of their historical context.
I'm sure everyone will agree that these are passages that are easy to take literaly.
They don't say "This person does not deserve freedom, go make them a slave."
But rather, because it was a custom at the time, it says "if you have a slave, this is the way you are to treat them."


Very interesting question, I don't see anything in the bible that says that after the 6th day, there was nothing new, ever. Obviously God created biological systems that alow for things to grow and change as we have already disscused.
So I see no reason to say that the manifest of creatures prior to man's creation was comprehensive and final.

After God creates man in Gen. 1:30 it says that he gave every living creature all the green plants to eat. It doesn't say anything about those who would require meat.
Clearly, some of the plants in the garden of eden were alittle bit different than anything we know of because there was the tree of knowledge, and the tree of life.
After the fall of man at the end of chapter 3 God says all the punishments for Adam & Eve's sin says "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." which is why there were booted from the garden. So if the plants there could give eternal life it's certainly possible that they could provide the neccessary nutrients for those animals that we say now can only eat meat.

I hope all that makes sense.
And, as always, if you know of passages which contradict anything I say here, please let me know and I'll respond or recant as neccessary.
Spring break is next week so I can't say that I'll respond quickly but I will respond if I can.

Everything. Actually everything. Everything in Genesis is wrong. In fact, it's almost impressive how incredibly wrong it is. Various other creation myths across other cultures are far more accurate (by chance, that is, not by any special virtue of them), but every single verse in Genesis is wrong.

Most obviously, the order of events is quite wrong. On the first day, God creates light and separates it from darkness, but doesn't create any light-producing objects until the fourth day.

The only problem is that the evidence we gather from nature and science does not support the Bible's story of the creation of Earth and everything on it. There's no evidence to back the claim of there being different plants in Eden, unless you subscribe to evolution. Did meat plants exist? Certain animals are simply not build to eat plants, and for them to do so would be an example of extremely poor design. And if the carnivores were allowed to eat other animals in the Garden of Eden, and the plants were only ment for the herbivores, then did death exist before Eden? And if there was no death in Eden, as I thought was the case, then was there a huge insect problem? Insects multiply rather rapidly, wouldn't there be an infestation before long? Would the locusts devour everything? Did the plant grow faster than normal? If any of this happened, there's no evidence for it all and it would be quite a stretch to claim that it did.

The scientific evidence about the age of the Earth and the fossil record don't fit the view of six day creation in any way shape or form. The fossil record shows completely different species (that no longer exist) in the ancient eras, and of much simpler form. This also goes against flood geology, if you were thinking that, because the largest and least mobile animals should be in the sediment deepest. At six days old the Earth would still be molten. But then again you said you believe things were created whole, so I guess this makes no difference, despite the fact that scientific evidence would show that the earth's crust cooled slowly and long after its initial creation - which, by the way, would have had to happen AFTER a supernova because of the heavy materials that make of the core, which symply would not have existed if the planet was formed during the same time that the first stars were. Of course, the bible says stars came first, but again, genesis is just for effect. My question is - if you believe as I do that it's purpose is in the message, not a history lesson, why do you still believe in a 6 day creation when it doesn't fit the evidence?

I cannot believe in God not because it is beyond my comprehension to do so - rather, i can see how the existence of a God (existing in several dimensions more than us, at least) could exist, but not a God that goes creating things whole. I cannot believe that suddenly things sprang into creation in full form, and did not grow. Then, why did things after them grow in teh way they did? Why was Adam created with a penis if God did not decide until later to create Eve as a helper? It might have seemed logical in the Middle Ages, but now that we are an enlightened society, a much clearer, more evident, more sensible, and practical theory explains things far better, and without the guesswork of what and how God created. Evolution has a mechanism that explains it and which is evident in our world.

As for the slavery - There's a lot about the Israelites conquering and elnslaving the people around them. Well, let's also not forget the killing of their 'women who have known a man' and their children. And rape those virgins. The Israelites enslaved OTHER RACES, not people withing their own nation. If this were the case, like in Rome, it might be a little different. But there is quite an air of racism as being the 'chosen people', that everyone else is inferior because God is not with them. People have used the bible as an excuse for racism since its conception, until very recently. The South turned to it in argument for the defense of slavery. God condoned slavery, and that view was excepted until the Enlightenment. Do we think it's right anymore? Certainly not. But that's because of humanism.

Women are still told to be submissive by Paul. Does this REALLY strike you as being equal? If a woman took your place for a crime and protected and provided for you, would you be submissive to her? Is this really an argument for equality, or is it an argument for justifying gender roles? I'm of the opinion that gender roles are a bad thing for an equal society, which I endorse.

Mmmm, I'm getting pretty long here, that's all for now. I'm on break too, but I live in Ny and am in Nebraska (partly why I've become so strong about this topic and have spent many hours looking at both sides of this argument), and am staying here for break. Everyone else has left so I have tons of time to kill.

We're still talking about evolution?

According to MSWord's autosummarize thingy, basically what GeneralRamos just said was "Did meat plants exist? Did the plant grow faster than normal? The fossil record shows completely different species (that no longer exist) in the ancient eras, and of much simpler form. God condoned slavery, and that view was excepted until the Enlightenment."

So we're talking about slavery and meat plants, apparently.

Light and Dark were not light and dark as in illumination and lack of such. Light and Dark were, well, philosophical concepts. It's a symbolic meaning, and the Hebrew reflects that, to some degree. There is no way the Genesis creation is meant to be anything but symbolic.

Also consider, Moses obviously compiled the five books from previous accounts, such as the epic of Gilgamesh. If you are religious, this doesn't really ruin anything, depending on which religion you are. Some religions believe strongly that inspired fiction/compilation/ music is as valid a form of revelation as any other. I see this as valid, if God exists, I personally think it makes more sense to have Moses put together Genesis from pieces of the truth.

This would be done not only to make Moses work and show dedication, but probably because if you started talking about super novas and iron cores people would freak out or not listen. You gotta take it to their level, you know? To me, in this light, genesis makes perfect sense.

I always think it's hilarious that people so stuck on science, can be so unscientific in dismissing religous texts. Not neccesaryily referring to anyone in particular here though.

Yeah, but people don't evolve switches. Switches are mechanical, like wheels. People don't have those. :p

I honestly have no idea what happened to the unique things that were in the garden after Adam and Eve were thrown out. The Bible doesn't say.
Because the bible is silent on something that we both agree is not signifigant is not a reason to say that any part of the bible is not true.
Pryor to the fall, the bible doesn't say anything about procreation other than the command to Adam and Eve to "be fruitful and multiply" so I have no reason to say that no other create did reproduce.
I'm not going to hold to that. But it's the best explaination I can come up with.


Well, to put it quite simply, with God all things are possible.
God created time itself. Nothing God does is subject to it. The words old, new, before, after, don't have any meaning for God or anything God creates unless he chooses that they do.
Believeing what I do in regards to the 6 days reconciles science and the bible, atleast for me it does. That's why I believe it.


You've brought up a really good point,
Here's the important thing to remember here is that God does not Change.
Since God doesn't exist within time and we cannot define change with useing time.
But really this is something that stems from our purpose for existing.
God created all of creation for the sole purpose of glorifying himself.
And not just that but that he would recieve glory for ALL of his attributes.
Psalm 19 says that the heavens declare the glory of the lord.
In nature we can see God's invisible attributes, his power, his might, his sovereignty, but there's more than that.
God wanted to be glorified for his compassion, mercy, love, grace, kindness, faithfulness, justice, holiness and whatever else.
God planed from the begining to create a creature who would disobey, who would still be fully responsible for his actions and therefore deserve the punishment of hell, then he would be able to show that creature his mercy by withholding the punishment, his love by providing his son as a propitiation for the sin and his justice in pouring out his wrath on his own son so that the price would be fully paied.
God didn't create Adam and then say, "oh darn, looks like I forgot something."
It was all planned from the begining. Jesus comming to die was not plan b.
The wording of that passage is to show that women do infact have a place. For this reason I do believe in gender roles, not in the way they are often defined today but men and women are very different, I certainly believe in gender equality but not to the point that disregards the obvious differences between men and women.
but I'll get to that later.


Because things occured in bible doesn't mean that the bible endorses them.
As I recal it was God's choosen people who were continualy overrun and enslaved and yes they did the same.
No where does it say that they did everything right and we are to model our lives after them.
The whole of the old testament is an arrow pointing to Christ. because Christ is to be our model. While there are individuals who do things right at specifc times, the majority of the old testament is people screwing up and receving justice because of it.
The Song of Solomon shows the way God intended for Dateing, love and marriage to be.
The Husband (Solomon) in the story had something like 300 wives.
But with this one he got it right, and that is why it's in the bible as our example.


If my WIFE did that I would certianly submit and beg her forgivness for not being that man that I should be.
Women are told to be submissive to their husbands but are nowhere obligated to endure any kind of illtreatment or to just submit and be misurable(sp?).
I believe in equal rights and biblical gender roles. I do not believe that a woman should not be alowed to work or be anything but a homemaker and childbearer.
There is no set biblical rule to say that some jobs are for women and some are for men, in biblical times there were, but the bible never says that this is the way things should be.
I believe in gender roles because, as I said above, God created man and woman differently, specificaly.
Men and women are not the exact same creatures just with alittle bit different plumbing.
Science has proven that men's & women's brains are different (I think atleast, got no proof handy).
But there's no way that anyone can say that men and women are not physicaly and mentaly very different.
If you want equality then there's really no where else you need to go but to Romans 3.
[quote=Romans 3:9-18]9What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, 10as it is written:

"None is righteous, no, not one;
11no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
12All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one."
13"Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive."
"The venom of asps is under their lips."
14"Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness."
15"Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16in their paths are ruin and misery,
17and the way of peace they have not known."
18"There is no fear of God before their eyes."
[/quote]
We are all equaly condemed and equaly in need of God's Grace and mercy.

But then I continue going off topic over to Romans 8
[quote=Romans 8:1-7]1There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. 3For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. 6To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. 7For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot.[/quote]

So, yeah, Does all that make sense?


It's always good to look at all sides. That's really the only reason I keep coming back to this thread because I grew up in the church and I often don't question things that I should. Alot of things that have been said in this thread I never thought of before. Trying to find answers to this is helping me in my own knowlege of what I believe.
And sadly I won't be anywhere near a PC over the break but I'm sure everyone else here can keep you occupied.

and since it's now way past my bedtime I shall bid you all goodnight.

since we have such good medications now, people who have weak immune systems are not dying out, they are reproducing, and we will grow more dependent on our technology than our evolution, nearly everything we produce relys on tools and not the innovation of evolution.

also
i am wondering about de-evolution, because to me that seems like a lame subjective term...because evolving means essentially changing not becoming better...so what the hell is de-evolving, is that going back to what we once were before, because that could still be considered evolution...anyway bedtime

First off, I'd like to say that I respect you. So many people on massassi would let this degenerate into a bitter flamewar. It's good to look at both sides and question everything. If it clears your faith and makes you believe it and understand it more, good; if it makes you change your mind and see things are a different way, good. It's win-win, I just wish more people would do it. If I hadn't, I would be a compeltely different person now. Enjoy your break!

Now for the other stuff - just have a few comments:



If there's a god and he created us just to see who would disobey and who would not, and reward those who followed him and punish those who didn't, then I have trouble seeing the all loving view that is portrayed. If people are damned from the start, why are we as we are? I don't know if you're one of the people who believes that people will be judged according to what they've done in their lives, or simply faith alone, or is it a combination of both? Because if I'm good and am going to Hell, but someone who lived an awful life but put their faith in Christ is going to heaven, than I can't help but see a corrupted system. The innocent are jailed but the guilty areable to walk free. I know that the message is that you can repent and be rewarded for your faith and wanting to change, but do you think that a terrorist who blew up a dozen buildings full of people but who said he was sorry for doing it all will just get a slap on the wrist? Is there no similar punishment? And for those of us that don't believe in God or perhaps don't believe the way he wanted, we get no second chance, we are tortured for eternity? Not that I would want to go to heaven.
invariably, i would choose hell over heaven. Heaven would be very much lacking in evil, right? Well, what is good without evil? In hell, there would obviously be good people in there too that simply didn't believe in God, as well as bad. Without that contrast, everything becomes monotone and stagnant. If nothing bad happened in your life, would the good things still stand out as being so good? Everything would start blending together. I don't want to live like that, especially to time without end. But of course, I don't believe in that anyhow. I just don't think many people question whether heaven is really a place you want to go or not. Have to deal with something long enough and you'll get used to it. An eternity of torture seems the same way to me, if you believe that hell is a place of physical torture.

As far as the whole Eden thing goes, I'm glad you've left it open for discussion rather than filling it with something you don't know. I might ask a priest about that myself, see what kind of answer I get. In fact, I might take a bucnh of these questions, just so I can see what they think. You seem to have a good grasp on it as a message, not literal. And that's good - out here I'm surrounded by people who take every word completely literal and who I suspect don't always look at the historical context. It's frustrating.



The problem is - just because god (in whatever dimensions he exists - I think it has to be at least 9 or something around that number) exists in extra dimensions of time, that doesn't mean that events can happen out of order. It doesn't invalidate the dimension of time that WE exist in, making it possible for things to happen out of order.
I hate to do this, but it comes to the whole question of how and why god exists. No matter whether you subscribe to multiverse or god or whatever, eventually you run into the problem of something always existing. What does this God exist in? What does the multiverse exist in? If it's a place of spawning universes, what are they in? Either case we end up running into this problem. We'll never know, either way, because either would have to exist in many dimensions more than us, and would be unreachable by us.
Hmm, I really forgot where I was going with this, other than the fact that a god existing within dimensions would be bound by them. One doesn't create dimensions, they're merely planes of existence. god didn't create time, because it's just another dimension. God would be bound by this dimension, there's just other ones that he would exist in as well. I'm not sure if any of this is making sense. I have to look at god's existence from the rational, I can't see God as existing if he does not exist (i.e. outside all dimensions. If you exist in zero dimensions, you are a point - a theoretical conjecture of which there would be an infinite number. God could not create anything if he were in less dimensions than us, much as we can't create a 5 dimensional object. Does this make more sense?)



Now I have a real problem with this. If this statement is true, than god created everyone with the purpose of being praised - he was basically looking to make something that would worship him. God is selfish, as the Bible states himself. Even if I were to believe that he existed, and in fact KNEW that he existed, but knew this as his purpose, I would still not worship him. I refuse to glorify someone with such selfish goals, especially if I'm being taught to not be selfish and instead giving by the Bible. I don't really know of the lessons in teh Bible concerningselfishness and giving - at least none by example.



You are very true. Certainly not everything in there is a model for living. But Those things aren't just written off with that argument either, because god did instruct some of those things, like the conduct in conquering their weak neighbors. And yes, you are right that the Israelites were being constantly overrun for 'displeasing God. But keep in mind that the reason for displeasing God was not their treatment of the foreigners, but rather things within the nation and toward god.
And the first ten commandments were far superior morally to the second set, which was mostly just religious rules. Yet the first set was discarded. This doesn't seem liek a step forward. In fact, the idea that the rules progressively get laxer (continuing when Jesus gets rid of things liek stoning of prostitutes and homsexuals, etc) is far from a step in getting progressively better, it's just making the laws easier to follow. That does nothing in favor of making things better, it just means less people get in trouble and need punishment. And it is still wrong to be homosexual or a prostitute according to the Bible, right? Or at least the fundamentalists would say so, I don't know the stance by other groups. But really, what changed was the punishment, not the crime. Still doesn't help fix things.

Yes, I agree with you. You're right- women and men are physically different. Neurologically different and anatomically different. There are soemthings that the average woman can't do as the average man. But those instances are few. Men have an easier time building muscle mass, and for extreme heavy lifting, they may be superior. As for the military, I think that women can get adequately trained for front line duty. The main issue is the concerns of sex and rape, as far as I'm concerned. But beyond that I'm having trouble thinking of anything else where there's a marked difference in performance between the genders. When one becomes pregnant, of course, there's cerrtain limitations.



While that's a start, it is far from equality. All that really says is that everyone has this problem, but that doesn't make us all equal. If I take a bunch of coins from various countries and say 'they're all made of metal', does that make them all equal? Certainly not. Just because they are considered equal in a part, doesn't mean they're viewed as equal as a whole.

That's all of got for now.

wrong, wrong, wrong. it seems many of you have a very poor understanding of evolution. it's no wonder it causes so much controversy among the public.

changes in this generation, that are not genetic, cannot be passed on. even changes that are genetic will not be passed on to the next generation unless they are gametic, and not somatic (that is, a sperm cell or egg cell must mutate. a parent with a somatic dna mutation giving them superpowers will not give the children superpowers unless the mutation is gametic as well as somatic).

which is why i still maintain that god by his nature does not have to exist "in" anything, dimensional or otherwise.
this becomes kind of sticky though, because one would argue that if god does not exist in any dimension then he in fact does not exist. and i would agree IF god was bound by the same rules as the universe, which i dont believe he is. is this kind of circular reasoning? yes, to a point. however you still come down to one of a few options. either everything, including all dimensions were created by a god (im using this term loosly as creative force) who exists outside all dimensions and is not bound by them, or... the dimensions have always existed in and of themselves having no begining and probably no end. it all really depends on what you CHOOSE to believe