[N0help4u]

There probably were but I was covering the ones I know are mentioned in the Bible.
It would be interesting to learn the history/origins of others that started in OT times and when they came into being.

[Wondergirl]

How long did Adam and Eve lived in the Garden? They were eating from the Tree of Life, so it could have been a long time--time enough that God populated the Land of Nod.

[Handyman2007]

It's all mere stories written by man that want people to believe that it IS God's word. I have a hard time believing that what any of the Bible says is actual truth. My reason for this is because it is the ONLY form of these "stories" It has nothing to back it up.

[Wondergirl]

It's all mere stories written by man that want people to believe that it IS God's word. I have a hard time believing that what any of the Bible says is actual truth. My reason for this is because it is the ONLY form of these "stories" It has nothing to back it up.

Go with the flow, Handyman, go with the flow!

[N0help4u]

Originally Posted by Handyman2007
It's all mere stories written by man that want people to believe that it IS God's word.

Josh McDowell and other archeologists and many scientists have set out to prove God is just a story and ended up writing books on what convinced them they were wrong.

[Handyman2007]

Does anyone pat any attentions to the facts of science concerning primitive man and the development of such? If you take the Bible literally especially Genesis, it would have you believe that man just suddenly appeared on Earth and was educated and civilized. This is not scientifically accurate or true. Man evolved over millions and millions of years, That HAS been proven.

[N0help4u]

Has it been proven that even if man developed/evolved physically that that does not necessarily mean they did not have full mental abilities.
Even if man evolved over millions and millions of years would it be reasonable that possibly the Bible starts where man finally was evolved?
Have you ever studied just how primitive man really was thousands of years ago?

How do you explain the pyramids if man was not advanced to some degree?
How are ancient batteries and light bulbs and modern technology explained if man was so primitive in his thinking Yahoo! Search - Web Search

[Fr_Chuck]

No, actually the bible proves that man was created.

[Credendovidis]

No, actually the bible proves that man was created.

With all respect Chuck :

WHAT is that proof?
WHERE do I find that proof?
Or is what you refer to subjective belief "proof"?

:)

·

[Alty]

Isn't it possible to believe in both God and science creating this world?

That's what I believe. Nope, no proof, just what I believe. Science does explain the beginning more realistically. The bibles version, although a nice belief, is a bit far fetched, don't you think?

I could spend the rest of my life trying to accept the bibles version, but it makes no sense. It baffles the mind, therefore isn't it realistic to think that science was involved?

I don't know, science isn't something I'm good at. You could explain till your where blue in the face, it's my worst subject. But the little I do know, well it sounds more realistic to me than God creating something from nothing in 6 days. The complexities of everything in this world, well, it's pretty far fetched.

Not putting down anyone's beliefs, just stating my own, and poorly at that, for that I apologize.

My belief is in both God and science, hand in hand.

[N0help4u]

I figure it this way God USED science to create the universe. Science is the atoms, molecules,
etc... that God created to create.
The Bible says that God used the things which are not seen to create the things that are seen.
The problem Christians have with science is the evolution of man starting as a one cell and evolving to human form 'or however it goes'. Also the age of the earth but with the gap theory that most Christians do not believe in it makes sense how the earth could be billions of years old.

[Credendovidis]

Isn't it possible to believe in both God and science creating this world?

Science did and does not "create" anything. All science basically does is explain things.
The basis of all science is OSE, Objective Supported Evidence. That knowledge can than be used in other processes and theories.
(Religious) Belief at the other hand makes claims, claims that are not supported with OSE. And any format of discussion on basis of objective supported evidence is strongly discouraged.

But I got your point, alty !

:)

·

[Alty]

Sorry everyone, as I said, science is not a subject I know well. Thanks for your answers NoHelp and Cred.

I guess what I mean to say is that I do believe in Evolution, because of the proof, although admittedly I have not done allot of research regarding evolution, the little I do know and understand leads me to believe.

I do believe that God had a hand in it all, but that is only a belief, perhaps even just a hope.

I'd love to do more research on it, but science is a difficult subject for me, something I cannot get my head around. Trust me, I've tried.

I'm a visual person, my strong points are art, and all the things associated with it, writing, building, painting, etc. Things that require sceintific knowledge, now that I finally have an interest I fear I'm too old to truly grasp most of it. You can't teach an old dog new tricks. ;)

Am I making any sense? I don't know how to convey what I believe, sorry for that.

I really appreciate everyone's input to this discussion. My beliefs are still firm, but I have learned allot more of everyone else's beliefs and why or why not they believe what they do. That's a good thing. :)

[N0help4u]

I do believe that God had a hand in it all, but that is only a belief, perhaps even just a hope.

I'd love to do more research on it, but science is a difficult subject for me, something I cannot get my head around. Trust me, I've tried.

I'm a visual person, my strong points are art, and all the things associated with it, writing, building, painting, etc. Things that require sceintific knowledge, now that I finally have an interest I fear I'm too old to truly grasp most of it. You can't teach an old dog new tricks. ;)

Same here Alty

[Alty]

NoHelp, you don't seem scientifically challenged. ;):)

[JoeCanada76]

Evolution is not scientific proof but theory. Theory is an explanation of what they think could have happen but it is not truth. Scientific theory is always changing and on going...

[Credendovidis]

Evolution is not scientific proof but theory. Theory is an explanation of what they think could have happen but it is not truth. Scientific theory is always changing and on going.....

James Van Praagh : Medium, or Conman?

Hello Joe ! Not really ! That statement is a creationist's claim.

Evolution is not just a theory, but a Scientific Theory.
The Evolution Theory provides a view on how the first cell developed into all life on earth today and does that as accurate as possible.
The evidence and validity of any scientific finding is tested and peer retested, and frequently updated to increase its OSE level.

That is in stark contrast to any religious suggestion, which normally is beyond any questioning, and is never backed up by any objective supported evidence (OSE).

So :

Evolution is a Scientific Theory backed up by OSE, and is to be considered as near factual as possible, although not 100 % on all parts. That is for many reasons impossible.

A theory is an explanation of what people think could be correct, but it is not yet proved.

A Scientific Theory is as near as possible to what you call the truth, and is always checked and rechecked again to ensure that the OSE level keeps increasing.

·
LINK : 15 answers to creationists
·

:rolleyes:

·

[N0help4u]

Evolution is not scientific proof but theory. Theory is an explanation of what they think could have happen but it is not truth. Scientific theory is always changing and on going.....

Looks to me like JH was saying scientific theory but just didn't state it with both words proof and theory... he DID say scientific theory in the end.

[Credendovidis]

Looks to me like JH was saying scientific theory but just didn't state it with both words proof and theory.....he DID say scientific theory in the the end.

JH quoted James Van Praagh, but that conman was wrong there!

A Scientific Theory is not always changing. That is simply not true.
Any scientific finding is tested and peer retested, and frequently updated to increase its OSE level. The higher it's OSE level gets, the smaller the changes will become.

Even Einstein's finding on relativity did not put Newton's gravity theory upside down, but amended it to get closer to the reality.

:rolleyes:

Hmmmm : I liked Tweety more than your current graphic !

:rolleyes:

·

[N0help4u]

Well when I get around to changing it I will have to look Tweety up.