Well we have all heard the argument at one time of Creationism and Evolution, right? Well after talking to a pastor one day I started thinking, why can't both be right?

In evolution, the concept is that only useful mutations are kept and thus leading to the variance of life we have on Earth. But the problem is that is you stop to think about it, the concept breaks down when it comes to a longer relative time. If that didn't make sense let me put this way.

Let's look a human eye, a very useful organ I'm sure we all agree. But look at how darn complex it is. You have muscles that coordinate to move it, along with the ones that focus the lens. Then you have cells that specifically register color or motion and nerves yo send impulses to he brain. Not to mention the jelly filling or the dynamics of he eyeball to achieve the best shape to carry out the task of sight. Generalizations yes, but as you can (ahem) see, an extraordinary complex organ. Now for the point.

How could this possibly evolve?

At first you would think it was simple, but look at it closer. Think of the millions of mutations that had to occur in sequence. Thus int the meantime you would have useless mutations being passed on. Thus evolution breaks down in the long run.

Now creationism shows that the plans and animals came to be by God's hand in 6 days with him resting on the 7th day. Scientists bristle a this as there is plenty of physical evidence that contradicts this theory. But does science really disprove it?

If you look at the bible you would see that it states the order that God created the world. If you look at the history science gives, the order matches almost perfectly. So the only problem left would be the timetable. But what is time to God? What is time to an immortal being that exists in more ways then we could ever fathom?

I realize that what I stumbled on was intelligent design. But if looked at with an objective view, it shows that science proves God's existence. Talk to any quantum physicist an they would tell you on the quantum level, the smallest we have been able to look yet, the universe should not exist. The rules break down to such a degree that scientists simply cannot understand why we exist at all. But we do.

For our world to have happened, it is mathematically impossible if lef to chance. So thus, science does nothing to disprove a higher being, quite the opposite.

Quote from: Angel on August 09, 2007, 02:21:49 AM

...
If you look at the bible you would see that it states the order that God created the world. If you look at the history science gives, the order matches almost perfectly. So the only problem left would be the timetable. But what is time to God? What is time to an immortal being that exists in more ways then we could ever fathom?

I realize that what I stumbled on was intelligent design. But if looked at with an objective view, it shows that science proves God's existence. Talk to any quantum physicist an they would tell you on the quantum level, the smallest we have been able to look yet, the universe should not exist. The rules break down to such a degree that scientists simply cannot understand why we exist at all. But we do.

For our world to have happened, it is mathematically impossible if lef to chance. So thus, science does nothing to disprove a higher being, quite the opposite.

The order is not the same. The universe did not start out with the heavens and the earth. It started with the big bang. A huge flash of light that we can still see and hear today, called the background microwave radiation. The heavy metals in the earth and in fact the carbon we were made of, did not exist in the early universe and could only have happened in a super nova explosion. The stars are not in a firmament, but in fact they are moving apart from each other. 99% of all species are extinct, and of those that are currently here, 80% are in the ocean, so could Adam have named them all? Intelligent design is silly to me. It's saying that because science can't prove everything, that we should believe a book that can not prove anything it says. Science is based on the premise of logic. Either logic is correct or it is not. Evolution is one of the most proved theories we have. There is tons of fossil evidence.

I can't believe a book written by men, just because someone claims that the unknown authors were inspired by god. It's like are you going to believe the bible, or you're lying eyes? People believe in religion because they are told to. People believe in science because it's compelling.

I don't believe the numbers favor there being a god. In fact there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that god exists, where there is a ton of evidence that evolution existed. You need to be thinking that eyeballs did not start in humans. They have been evolving for billions of years. Modern man has only been around about 50,000 years. A virtual blink in the time of evolution.

Love always,
Elizabeth

I am not for religion really but I I believe it is (very) valid to say that religion is 'compelling' to some people. For instance a relative of mine; I have heard his stories, I understand his rational logic of why he believes. I personally am doubtful of the book he adheres to, however what the book represents I do believe in, and if you know anything of my thought pattern you know that I do not do things just because I am "told" to do so. Ergo, I wish to refute that people only believe because they are told so; There IS compelling evidence for intelligent design; A lot of that debate relies on perspective, I think.

If you would like to take the view that there is no evidence for the existence of "God" I frankly do not see how you can say this when you discard what that being could be. Please do not take what the bible or any other religion says on what 'God' is; Look in your heart; No book is necessary. This said, Adam? Eve? Uh, ^*shrug* I have no idea but I am rather certain that I do NOT trust the bible in that regard.

^*shrug* It is very difficult to speak of religion or more specifically spirituality because there are many preconceived notions that have built up over the years; I would like to suggest that spirituality should be explored similar to material science, but with the understanding that it is not material and that there is more than the material which makes up this place, and for that matter existence.

Just a few thoughts in the wind...

Quote from: Elizabeth on August 09, 2007, 05:23:40 AM


The order is not the same. The universe did not start out with the heavens and the earth. It started with the big bang. A huge flash of light that we can still see and hear today, called the background microwave radiation. The heavy metals in the earth and in fact the carbon we were made of, did not exist in the early universe and could only have happened in a super nova explosion. The stars are not in a firmament, but in fact they are moving apart from each other. 99% of all species are extinct, and of those that are currently here, 80% are in the ocean, so could Adam have named them all? Intelligent design is silly to me. It's saying that because science can't prove everything, that we should believe a book that can not prove anything it says. Science is based on the premise of logic. Either logic is correct or it is not. Evolution is one of the most proved theories we have. There is tons of fossil evidence.

I can't believe a book written by men, just because someone claims that the unknown authors were inspired by god. It's like are you going to believe the bible, or you're lying eyes? People believe in religion because they are told to. People believe in science because it's compelling.

I don't believe the numbers favor there being a god. In fact there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that god exists, where there is a ton of evidence that evolution existed. You need to be thinking that eyeballs did not start in humans. They have been evolving for billions of years. Modern man has only been around about 50,000 years. A virtual blink in the time of evolution.

Love always,
Elizabeth

I agree with you Elizabeth about the bible being written by man. I'd like to think that through hundreds of years that the bible has been transcribed faithfully. However I'm all to familiar with the ways of man.

But the bible starts off with the universe being dark and empty and God saying, 'let there be light'. No, it does not go into the details of the Earth's and universe's creation, however the time line stands almost perfectly if you look at it. Now keep in mind that even before Darwin, the Bible had this time line down. I can't speak for other religions as I don't know a much about them as I'd like, but this fact about the Bible I do know.

However, as much as I feel that science points to the existence of God, it will never 100% prove he exists. For that to happen, it would destroy the concept of faith. I feel that the reason God doesn't prove to us he is real is that it would destroy free will. We have the choice to believe in him or not. Thus if he removes all doubt, then he has removed our free will as well. He doesn't want slaves, he wants his children. Thus no matter what science comes up with, there will always have to be that leap of faith.

The sequence of creation as detailed in Bible is not correct.  In the Bible, the earth was created, then the sun and stars were created to light the earth.  By the numbers, this story is incorrect.  We now know that the stars were created long before our sun.  The sun was already burning bright when mother earth coalesced. These facts are fairly well accepted.

I don't say this to disprove what the Bible says.  Creation is a terribly complex subject.  The subjects to which this text was addressed was the people of 2000 years ago and more.  To them, the sequence would not be particularly important to tell the story.  The description basically was that God created the earth and heavens.

The Bible does not say HOW God created the earth and heavens... only that he did.  It doesn't say HOW he made the animals and man... only that he did.

So in this particular matter, why in the world can't science and religion get along?  I've never understood the arguments that pop up concerning this artificial dichotomy.

Cindi

The order is way off.  Not only does it have the earth being created before the sun, but it has plants being created before the sun (not to mention that the plants mentioned are on land -- life only existed in the water for most of its history) and birds being created before reptiles. 

I've heard this claim that the Bible correctly states the order in which things happened a lot lately.  It's probably just one of those things that gets passed around and no one bothers to check on.

Yes well, what would happen if you ripped the Genesis pages from the Bible then?

Perhaps it might be a good idea to discard the sections which are not based on verified fact? ^*shrug* I know some of it is valid and even perhaps useful; But I also know that there is fluff within the pages of the Bible. Ergo, toss out the stuff that REALLY REALLY seems like fluff? ... Not a bad idea right?

Quote from: Cindi Jones on August 09, 2007, 01:09:26 PM
The sequence of creation as detailed in Bible is not correct.  In the Bible, the earth was created, then the sun and stars were created to light the earth.  By the numbers, this story is incorrect.  We now know that the stars were created long before our sun.  The sun was already burning bright when mother earth coalesced. These facts are fairly well accepted.

Correct, the stars were created before the Earth Cindi, but you forgot about physics.

Remember, light travels at a set rate, thus we also know that starlight is hundreds if not millions of years old. Alpha Centari takes 14 years for our telescopes to be able to see its light. This system is our closest neighbor. Our own sun takes 8 minutes for its light to travel to earth. Thus as a matter of perspective, the world would have been created before the stars. This then brings the question of who was observing this? As well as who is God speaking to as he creates?

As for the rest, with reptiles being after birds, think about perspective. If dinos were the link between reptiles and birds, perhaps it was a decision of omission. Like an artist who creates art from the same material.

But e have covered the religious side, what about the evolution?

Quote
   English: King James Version
     Genesis 1 [Commentary] Biblical Art and Illustrations
1.     In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2.     And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3.     And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4.     And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5.     And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6.     And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7.     And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8.     And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9.     And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10.     And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
11.     And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12.     And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13.     And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14.     And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

Read it for yourself, there are a lot of problems with this explanation of the creation. Light is not separate from darkness, in fact that sun burns all the time. The stars are not in a firmament. Earth did not precede light. And so on and so on. The problem is that people repeat these ideas that the order is the same to try to convince people that creation matches science, but it's just another lie in a long line of lies that have been told by people who back religion.

The bible was written by monks. Not god. And the high church officials decided what books were going to be included, not god. As we have recently found out, the gospel of Judas and Mary were both not included in the bible, because they did not tell the story the way they wanted it told. There were actully 30 gospels, yet the bible only contains 4, Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John.

If people would stop just blindly believing what other men tell them and read the book for themselves, they would see that the bible is not only not historically accurate, it contains a lot of things that are just flat out not true or not possible based on things we know from archaeological findings. It's funny, churches teach people not to believe science, which is fairly well proven and instead believe the bible, which we know for certain is not correct and has no evidence to support it.

People do because it's a good deal. You get forgiveness for all your wrongs, without having to actually make amends to the people you have wronged. You only have to ask god. It's a pretty easy way to get off the hook. Not to mention you get to live forever. All because some man said so.

Love always,
Elizabeth

This thread on the creation and how it's told in the Bible is one that many Christians have been struggling with for years. For the most part, there are two major camps that are vocal about it.

One camp is comprised of cynics and critics who question the Bible and use the creation "myth" as a reason for their cynicism. After all, the creation story doesn't even come close to even basic observation, let alone evolution.

The second group is akin to the folks who opened the Creation "science" museum in Kentucky a few weeks ago. These guys claim that the Genesis account (both of them) are 100% accurate. Further, they claim that every Christian must believe the creation account, or they should be atheists.

Clearly, there are extremes on both sides. In my opinion, both groups insult not only reason, but they also insult faith by their all-or-nothing attitudes. Their stances make for great TV talking heads, but in all reality, they're too far to the extreme to do any good to the rest of us.

The rest of us, by the way, are the largest majority of the population. We don't have to be fundamentalist Christians to accept some value in the story of Creation, or to glean some powerful lessons of purpose and devotion from it. On the flip side, we don't have to be atheists to embrace the theory of evolution and the majesty of Creation, no matter how it came to be.

It's perfectly fine to question the Bible. It's encouraged, in fact. After all, if everything we believed was a matter of mere fact, then is faith even necessary?

Great thread! Keep it up!

Posted on: August 09, 2007, 08:30:54 PM

---

Quote from: Cindi Jones on August 09, 2007, 01:09:26 PM

So in this particular matter, why in the world can't science and religion get along?  I've never understood the arguments that pop up concerning this artificial dichotomy.

Cindi

Simply brilliant. Thanks, Cindi!

I remember a Phil Donahue show that featured anthropologist Stephen Jay Gould, who exposed the tricks that previous anthropologists had used to 'prove' that Negro's brains were smaller on average than those of Caucasians (thus supporting the belief it was 'natural' for whites to rule over blacks,)  and Carl Sagan, whose series Cosmos had just run on PBS, and had asserted on that show that the universe began 'billions and billions of years ago,' with a Big Bang.

The producers of that episode, in order to create conflict and drama, had made sure that creationists were well represented in the audience.  One well-but-conservatively-dressed woman stood up when she got the mic and scolded Carl Sagan for presenting his lies about 'billions and billions of years' and the big bang, when EVERYBODY KNEW the world had been created by God in just 6 days 6,000 years ago -- it said so in the bible.

"I believe a God who can set up all the conditions fifteen billion years ago that lead to to the universe we perceive today and our ability to perceive it to be more wonderful and magnificent than one that built everything by hand only six thousand years ago," he answered, to spirited applause.

I present my personal God By the Numbers,  Recipe for the Universe - Just Six Numbers. By Sir Marin Rees

Ω≈1
ε=0.007
D=3
N=1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
Q=1/100,000
Λ≈0.7

I believe that this is intelligent design.

Karen

Quote from: David W. Shelton on August 09, 2007, 08:33:52 PM
It's perfectly fine to question the Bible. It's encouraged, in fact.

From what I understand that depends on which group you speak with; I am pretty certain (but can cite nothing at the moment) that some groups do NOT like the Bible questioned.

For what little it is worth.

Quote from: Kimberly on August 09, 2007, 10:41:58 PM

Quote from: David W. Shelton on August 09, 2007, 08:33:52 PM
It's perfectly fine to question the Bible. It's encouraged, in fact.

From what I understand that depends on which group you speak with; I am pretty certain (but can cite nothing at the moment) that some groups do NOT like the Bible questioned.

For what little it is worth.

Well, those same people say that we all should burn for eternity. So let us move beyond their simple minds, by using logic!

Yes the bible is flawed, but so is evolution. Both work until a certain point. The bible as a guide to living towards betterment, and evolution to explain our origins. That cannot be really disputed.

Yes the bible thumpers use it as weapon against all that they think is 'evil'. But the point to the bible is really to show us morals. A kind of guideline so that we can work to a better world of acceptance, but only if followed in the 'spirit' of the words. I honestly feel that it isn't meant to be taken literally and is open to interpretations made by the individual. As for Jesus saying we are saved, well last I heard there was evidence found that proved that Jesus existed. So even if you wish to argue that he as only human, he did die on the cross and didn't resist the tortures he was forced to endure. If the man wasn't divine, he most certainly was inspired by it. Let's move on to evolution.

Now, evolution does explain some of our traits. Like the white and black characteristics of the race, why Asians have narrow eyes, even our lack of significant boy hair. But it does not explain how we developed. Why organs are as they are, how significant changes to species were made before te great continent split. As stated before, it works in the evolutionary short term, but the log term it begins to break down and e see changes that cannot be accounted for by environmental conditions. So perhaps evolution isn't as 'natural' as we think, maybe there is a force that we do not normally consider that acts upon the world. Is it a higher being? You decide.

Now as most skeptics will try to say, the 'miracles' in the bible are mere coincidences at best. Moses happened to get to the Red Sea when there was a sudden shift i the plates that caused there to be a land bridge that disappeared after safely crossing it. It as a lucky fluke that caused a city to crumble after bing marched around 7 times. The list goes on. Most of these miracles could be explained by science yes. But hen does a coincidence stop being a coincidence? If you accept a being that exists everywhere at the same time and is extremely crafty and subtle, then perhaps another line o thought might open. If God as created the universe, and the universe operates on set laws, then why can't God swing probability towards his objectives? It would be no different then how a casino gets house advantage without actually cheating. Now to bring this all together.

Yes creationism has flaws, but the bible does state events that have been proven to have happened. I point to the example of the Red Sea. Evolution does work, but only in the relative short term. I point to my original example of the eye with the statement that it would have been mathematically improbable for the eye structure as we now it to have evolved on any creature. So both point to a middle ground.

Now as I stated before, science will never 100% prove God to have existed. This destroys the concept of free will that God says we are given. The Bible as it has been proven elsewhere in the thread, will never stand up to a literal examination, it is simply to vague in some parts and outright wrong in others. Therefore if both are wrong individually, could it not be possible that they are two halves of a whole?

Quote from: Kimberly on August 09, 2007, 10:41:58 PM

Quote from: David W. Shelton on August 09, 2007, 08:33:52 PM
It's perfectly fine to question the Bible. It's encouraged, in fact.

From what I understand that depends on which group you speak with; I am pretty certain (but can cite nothing at the moment) that some groups do NOT like the Bible questioned.

For what little it is worth.

You're right about this. There are indeed those who are so rigid in their fundamentalism and literalist interpretation of the Bible that for them, it is completely infallible; perfect in every way. Of course, this is the basis of circular reasoning, which is easily and quicky dismissed by anyone with even an ounce of skepticism.

"The Bible is true and infallible, therefore the light from the stars miraculously traveled tens of thousands of light years instantly." or "The Bible is true and infallible, therefore God created the light from the stars as well as the stars themselves. In fact, He created the stars' light as if it were already in transit!"

You see how bizarre some of these mindsets might be. They start with a strict belief, and build everything on that belief. This is why they are so angry when someone questions the Bible... it is their very foundation. Which is interesting because Jesus Himself said that the foundation for the church was that "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God," not the Bible itself (Matthew 16:18). In fact, some groups (especially Catholics) believe that this verse says that the Church is built on Peter himself, since he was the first Pope.

I submit that the very reason we SHOULD allow ourselves to question Scripture is because there are so many denominations divided from each other. We SHOULD question our own faith, and we SHOULD question our heritage. After all, if we never ask, how will we learn? Blind faith is wonderful, but faith based on experience and a passion for the living God is what gives us genuine strength.

After all, Christianity is *not* following the Bible. It's following Christ. The Bible is our guide, but it is certainly not infallible. For those who believe it is perfect and infallible, I pray blessings on them and that they will come to a position of grace before their faith collapses under the weight of their vanity.

Well, me, I like storybooks that try to explain the inexplicable, it's fun.

I also like this kinda thing

Quote from: Karen on August 09, 2007, 10:40:40 PM
... that the universe began 'billions and billions of years ago,' with a Big Bang.


Ω≈1
ε=0.007
D=3
N=1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
Q=1/100,000
Λ≈0.7

I believe that this is intelligent design.

Karen

Quote from: Angel on August 09, 2007, 02:21:49 AM
What is time to an immortal being that exists in more ways then we could ever fathom?

What if it went something like this here - https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,17553.0.html

hey,
  I would like to throw in a new perspective. Before we debate weather science and the "how tale of creation" are simuliar or different I think it first important to note the purpose of science and the purpose behind Genesis 1-3:24b (parden me if my reference's are off).
  Science has one purpose and that is to explain how questions. How do humans work, how do we how stars operate and our solar system stay continue to work, etc... The Genesis story on the other hand, as noted by many scholars (christian and non-christian alike) does not represent "how" questions but deals with "why" questions and answers about Gods character and human existance. Others suggest that the Genesis creation accounts were told to refute other near eastern myths about God, so Israel (the Jews, or Moses, divinly inspired) wrote this tale of creation as a defence of their God.
  I would like to further elaborate on they "why" aspect. What is read in the section on the seven day creation in Genesis displays a God of order, one who took chaos (i.e. water and darkness) and created land and light. In a brief statement this story shows the greatness and transendant power of God. The creation story found in this verses that follow is the second about God and humanity, i.e. are relationship. The story takes a drastic turn to a more intamite and relationship focused story with the characters. A line the emphasis this point is "it is not good for man to be alone." In a nutshell the position which I am offering, offers a story of a God who created the universe out of choas to order who is transendant and all powerful and yet enjoys intamite relationships with his creation who were designed to respond to his love.
  These verses I believe should be taken litterly as story which explains many "why" questions surronding our existance and not seen as a science book as it so often is.
     Just my thoughts,  James

Quote from: Angel on August 09, 2007, 05:45:09 PM

Correct, the stars were created before the Earth Cindi, but you forgot about physics.

hehehe... I'm a professional astronomer FWIW

Quote

Remember, light travels at a set rate, thus we also know that starlight is hundreds if not millions of years old. Alpha Centari takes 14 years for our telescopes to be able to see its light. This system is our closest neighbor. Our own sun takes 8 minutes for its light to travel to earth. Thus as a matter of perspective, the world would have been created before the stars. This then brings the question of who was observing this? As well as who is God speaking to as he creates?

I'll be nice and not call you on those numbers

I see the Bible as a collection of inspirational stories and history.  There is some history in there.  Isaiah was quite a historian in his day.  I don't have a problem for a person basing a faith on it.  It doesn't bother me at all.  There's lots of good stuff in there.  I know.  I used to teach Christian doctrine. 

It is hard to deal with those who quote "facts" that don't exist though.  "The earth is 6000 years old" is NOT in the Bible.  This figure was calculated by some minister some time ago by adding up the ages of the decedents of Adam as listed in the Old Testament. 

The thing is, the Bible is a collection of books written by a bunch of people who's major qualification was that they could read and write in an age when not too many could.  It's quite easy for me to see how those stories were recorded and evolved somewhat over time.  Shoot, modern day companies can't even remember how to build a product that they built only 5 years ago.  And we have computers to keep track of that information.

But you know... isn't that what Christ taught?  We aren't perfect.  Wasn't that his message?  Why should we expect these texts that have survived millenia and managed by imperfect people to be perfect?

I still don't see why science and the religions can't get along.  It does seem that the religious following eventually comes up to speed decades or sometimes centuries after the fact.  For example, the Earth centrist view was eventually abandoned by the church.  We now accept organ transplants with little thought.  Can you imagine what they would have thought of this in the 1700's?  Or how bout artificial insemination?  That would have been a real winner in Puritan America.

I accept the faith of other people, whatever that may be.  But please, don't run my government by it.  Let me cast my vote according to what I believe in peace.

Cindi

Posted on: August 15, 2007, 11:32:19 PM

---

Quote from: jamesBrine on August 14, 2007, 12:09:51 AM
  These verses I believe should be taken litterly as story which explains many "why" questions surronding our existance and not seen as a science book as it so often is.
     Just my thoughts,  James

Amen!  Let's get the religion out of science!  It doesn't fit!    You are on the right on the money James.  It is not a science book.  Yet there are many who believe that the things we learn about our universe must match what is in the Bible.  Many times it can not.  Why would God give us this genetic nature to question and learn and not give us the opportunity to grow?  That makes no sense.

Cindi

Quote from: Cindi Jones on August 16, 2007, 01:38:48 AM
But you know... isn't that what Christ taught?  We aren't perfect.  Wasn't that his message?  Why should we expect these texts that have survived millenia and managed by imperfect people to be perfect?

If you ask me it had a whole lot to do with that this material isn't all that there is, an that love is pretty darn neato an perhaps just maybe a bit important.

Quote from: Kimberly on August 16, 2007, 04:19:47 AM

Quote from: Cindi Jones on August 16, 2007, 01:38:48 AM
But you know... isn't that what Christ taught?  We aren't perfect.  Wasn't that his message?  Why should we expect these texts that have survived millenia and managed by imperfect people to be perfect?

If you ask me it had a whole lot to do with that this material isn't all that there is, an that love is pretty darn neato an perhaps just maybe a bit important.

That is primarily what is left of the faith which I left so many years ago. (Actually, I was publically humiliated and cast out.)  The message of love is truly universal and worthy.  Oddly enough, I now live my life by it where I did not back then.  The difficulties I've had to live have tempered me and brought forth compassion and a deep seated love for my fellow man.

Cindi

Quote from: jamesBrine on August 14, 2007, 12:09:51 AM
Others suggest that the Genesis creation accounts were told to refute other near eastern myths about God

I love myths and stories, especially if they might be instructive

Where I lose the thread of a school of enquiry (if *this* can be called *that*), is when a myth mutates into something which tries to "refute other myths".