Do they believe that serpent still speaks today, because he does. Revelation calls him that old serpent, the devil. He is alive and well and is speaking today to all who will follow him.

Dennis, if you read the book of Genesis, you find all kinds of scripture that support both the “creation theory” and the involvement of aliens upon the Earth. I won’t start quoting, out of respect for time and the 100 word limit, but just go read Genesis with a fresh, objective, open eye, and you will see what I am talking about. As for the talking snake — the Jews historically have a great penchant for using metaphor, analogy and parables to get a point across.

Ummm…but where did the Aliens come from? Did Aliens implant them? And where did those Aliens come from?

In Catholic grade school in the 1940s, we studied a little book titled The Baltimore Catechism. One question in it was: “Where is God?” Its answer: “God is everywhere.” In my 70-some years since, this answer has tempered my approach to theology, philosophy, etc.
Think about it: If God is everywhere, He, She or It (maybe they?) is integral with all that exists — you, me, clothing, food, bacteria, the cosmos, et. al. — what you might call “all of God’s creatures.” To me, God is everybody, everything and probably — at least possibly — plenty more. This is why I find Athiestic arguments hard to accept.
And I believe in a “personal god.” Who or what is more personal than someone or something integral with every molecule and atom of me, you, them, everything? Its logical God would communicate with people, animals, bacteria, trees, rocks, planets, stars, whatever. And logical someone would pray to (converse with) God.
As for Darwin’s scientific findings and the theory that God created everything, I fail to see any serious disagreement, except for philosophical nit-picking. As for the belief the world was made in so-many “days,” I ask, “What is a day? What would be a ‘day’ on a planet a million or trillion light years away?”
The Bible’s chapter of Genesis indicates things were created in an orderly fashion. It doesn’t say God made Adam and Eve and then suddenly the Earth appeared beneath their feet a “day” later, and on next “day” the moon and starts popped into existence. If anything, Genesis begins of the story of evolution.
To accept what’s printed in a Bible or any other “sacred text” simply doesn’t recognize they have been handed down, copied and recopied, translated and retranslated, etc. Even in the English language, there are a dozen versions currently available. Neither Moses nor Christ ever said the words Three and Thou, no matter how sacred they might sound to us. Best we can hope for is that the gist of what’s in sacred scripture has been preserved.
Whether the Holy Koran, the Torah, the Nicene Creed, the Book of Mormon, ancient Egyptian carvings, Asop’s Fables or whatever, these contain what scholars have declared the Wisdom of the Ages. We ignore or misinterpret them at our peril.

The only ‘something (someone)’ who existed was God Himself. He has ALWAYS existed. He created the heavens and the earth from nothing. He spoke them into existence. He is all powerful, with no physical limits. I wouldn’t worship a God who wasn’t.

Its that you dont believe a snake talked….i dont believe that god created everything in 7 days,before he created everything,there was nothing sooo where the hell did god come from IF there was nothing. Logically you cannot make something from absolutely nothing. So my question is… HOW DID GOD COME FROM NOTHING TO BEGIN WITH?

If a suggestion like this was posted already i apologise,i didnt read all the posts. Its my opinion

[...] Saw this while browsing the other day. I also spend much time going through atheistic websites and blogs, [...]

Kara,

I was referring to the Hebrew language, how the form used 3,500 years ago is nothing like modern Hebrew used today. Think of the differences between Olde English and modern English and you can have an idea of the changes that occur as languages age.

I’m not very familiar with population genetics, but the articles Steve posted seem to delve into that sufficiently.

I found this one too that touches on that idea and the Mt. Ararat idea: http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB621.html

I also want to point out that the field of genetics has provided more hard evidence for evolution than any other field.

Re: Kara Kittle
I hesitate to address your points since I am not a scientist but I don’t think you understand how micro-evolution actually works. The reason that blond hair and blue eyes are so common in Scandinavia is not that they offer an evolutionally advantage. It seems likely that at some point during that last ice age the people that we now call Caucasians were almost completely wiped out (I think this is the finding that you were referring to when you talk about the sons and daughters of eve). Among the few that survived was a large proportion of people who possessed the genetic mutation that gave them blond hair and blue eyes this mutation would have been a crippling disability in Africa but in northern Europe it really didn’t mater so the genes persisted. Once the ice receded the population of people that we now call Caucasians exploded since they had a continent to themselves and no real competition from other people groups. Resent research suggests that these people did however possess another mutation that is less obvious than there blond hair and blue eyes and this one did give them a real competitive edge. These people where lactose tolerant and were able to build extremely efficient dairy based economies (unlike there rivals in the south and east). The suggestion of these studies is that the human race is still evolving.

I often wonder why so many young earth creationists feel free to “cherry pick” evidence that appears to support there positions. If what they believe is true modern genetics is a “broken clock that is right twice a day”. To admit that science has anything useful to say about the origin of the human race would seem to me to buy into a series of assumptions that if carried to there obvious conclusions would undermine their position entirely.

God bless and like I said I am not a scientist (or theologian for that mater) just a interested layman

Cheers

Steve in Toronto

Greg,

Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. Please email me at elenburg@discovertruth.com if you’re willing to continue this discussion thread in private email. I have more questions that are off topic from the original question Michael Patton posed.

I’ll try to watch the “Beyond the Firmament” videos this coming week.

-Dennis Elenburg