something for you guys to read here

[Devil's advocate]Yeah, Steve, but, to be honest, it is really much easier to believe that God simply doesn't exist.[/Devil's advocate]

No, need TOS, you are not being logical. You can't keep including "super natural forces" when trying to reach a logical explanation of natural events. Once you do that, all logic is out the door.
By your way of thinking, 2 and 2 equals 5 because God says it does.

I think it takes more faith to believe that there is not a God than to believe that there is one.

-Steve

I am not saying that God does what he wants just to do it. I am saying that is is logical that we could see the light from the stars the way I have explained it. There is complete logic there. And no 2+2=4 if God said that then I would have to wonder if he needs to repeat math... ok to be serious about that, yes it could but if that was what he said then it would be... but that is a bit off topic here. I am staying logical and this has nothing to do with why Evolution is taught as a fact anyways, maybe they should just close this topic and we can discuss it where it is appropriate?

-Steve

I read the info fully at the link you provided, CGM. Perhaps one of the problems is the source of the information contained at the links?

For instance, the article is written by Dr. Batten (“an expert on plant physiology and research in floral induction of lychee and mango”) - and while it's great he's a plant expert, it does make me doubt his 'expert' opinion on 'why we can see distant stars in a young universe'.

In addition, two of the three editors for the article have no apparent qualifications that are applicable re the article ... for instance:

1. Dr. Carl Wieland (“author of several popular creation books, formal qualifications are in medicine and surgery although he has not practiced since 1986 and is past president of the Christian Medical Fellowship of South Australia).

2. Ken Ham (“Christian conference speaker”).

The third editor was one that did interest me - Dr. Johnathan Sarfati who apparently has a "B.Sc. (Hons.) in Chemistry (with condensed matter and nuclear physics papers substituted) and a Ph.D. in Spectroscopy (Physical Chemistry). I'm having a bit of difficulty finding information on any affiliation he currently has with a accredited scholastic or science institute though. Don't be offended, please - I just like to check credibility of an author within his chosen expert field prior to believing what I'm reading as fact is fact.

Hmm...

is it a fact that topics always

evolve into something else?

Very funny

And yes it always does when we talk about these subjects haha

Well then, no wonder Creationists get upset -

Evolutionists keep changing their topics!

haha now that is pretty funny

Need TOS, What do you suppose you would see, if somehow you could be transported to a planet in Centaurus A today, through a telescope that was able to identify objects the size of our solar system? Would it be possible to see our solar system?
Just another thing you may not of thought about--if you were transported today 17 light years away from earth, you would see the earth as it was the year you were born and if you could get the nurse to open the blinds, you could witness your own birth.

I do not see where you are going with this.

-Steve

I would of preferred you answer first, but it is not a trick question, just one to make you think about your position on the age of the earth. Since Centaurus is 10 million light years away, would you be able to see our solar system from there? If you could, would you be looking at our solar system as it appeared 10 million years ago?

Ah ok. Well as I've said we do not have to assume that the two objects were moving away from eachother at just 1 lightyear per year, as I believe it would be more. It would then slow down I do not know if at a constant rate or not, but if I was there I would see our solar system but definintly not 10 million years old. 5million at the most to your logic, but maybe 1000 years old.

-Steve

That's a very interesting site, mz30 - in fact, I should confess it took a bit of head-thumping to get my poor brain to comprehend a bit of it, but I especially like the fact it includes 'Common Creationist Criticisms of Mainstream Dating Methods', not just one totally biased view. Good link and thanks for sharing it with us.

It doesn't matter if a star is moving toward us, away from us or standing still. If a star is twenty-five thousand light years distant (a light year being the distance light will travel in one year's time - a little over six trillion miles) then the light reaching us from that star right now left that star twenty-five thousand years ago. And what we see and measure concerning that star is not what that star is like now, it is what that star was like twenty-five thousand years ago. The star in question could become a supernova as I am typing these words, but that event will not be noticeable from earth for another twenty-five thousand years!! And those are the facts of the matter. No matter what semantic games someone may try to play with the truth, the truth is that the entire universe is much older than six, twelve, or even twenty five thousand years. Denying that is denying truth.

It's that simple. Really.

That's the First Law of DBdynamics. You didn't know?

Well one more thing to ponder on evolution....

Evolution supposedly made things evolve to help them live in the changing enviroment.

Well the Human brain is a kink in the evolution theory. If you learned something new every second it would take 3 million years to fill your brain up.
"Evolutionists say things evolve after there is a need for change."

I want to link to this site and well not just for the proof of creation but also for the giant Human bone found, its a neat read.
http://www.remnantofgod.org/creation.htm

You say that I am playing games with the truth yet I am not. I am merly stating that if the star and Earth were moving away from eachother at a faster rate then today then we will be seeing the star as it was not 10million years ago, but a couple thousand years ago. Where is the game on truth there?

-Steve

Now now, we know light does move at a certain speed but whats not to say when God made the universe he didnt make it so we could see the light instantly instead of just a dark sky?

This goes to what I've said before -

God, if there is one, would have created a universe with principles and laws that we would be able to identify and discover.

This tampering with those laws, as described above, would be something we would also discover, and in doing so, would recognize that God exists - something that the created universe was designed not to show.

If one believes that God would tamper in this manner with those physical laws, and revel "his?" presence, then why waste time with such an elaborate hoax in the first place?

If science is going to be allowed to discover that God exists, then belief in God is no longer necessary because it would no longer require belief and faith - it would be a clear fact.

You might say that God would have done this tampering in such a way that it can not be discovered by science. However, in that case, the scientific explanation of what happened would hold up.

Just another observation.

I agree. I think that something are not provable by science and are things that we are not meant to know on our time here on Earth, but then there is no way to convince many people in this world... guess that is why God will have the rapture, to shake everyones foundations.

-Steve

I didn't say you were playing games; I said "someone".

You're ignoring the basic laws of physics. Or perhaps it's a matter of misconception. A light-year is a measure of distance, like a mile is a measure of distance. It is not a measure of speed. Speed is expressed in terms of distance/time (miles/hour; light-years/millennium). Although the stars are moving, that movement isn't relevant when talking about a single measure of distance.

Now, suppose two stars are 100 light-years apart, and are moving away from each other at a speed of 1/2 that of light. The speed doesn't matter, it's the distance that concerns us.

Now we jump forward 1000 years.The two stars are now 600 light-years apart. Let's assume that the speed at which they are moving apart has dropped to 1/100 of the speed of light. Once again, the speed doesn't matter, since all we're interested in is the distance. For example, take a photo-finish of a horse race. The two horse are both moving, at different speeds, but the only thing we need to know is the distance separating them at the finish line. Their speed is irrelevant. The same holds true when measuring the distance between stars. Their speed is irrelevant.

The speed of light is a constant. It doesn't change. If one were to set a car's cruise control to fifty miles per hour, so that it's speed was constant, then it could be calculated how far that car would travel in one day (1200 miles). Distances could then be expressed in terms of car-days.

It doesn't matter how far from the Solar system other stars were when they formed, or at what speed they are or have been traveling. The measurement of distances now is the relevant data. So a star that is twenty-five thousand light-years distant has to have been in existence for at least twenty-five thousand years, for that is how long it would take the light from that star to reach earth. And we know that the length of time is actually more than that, since historical records show that the stars we see in our night skies have remained unchanged (with a few notable exceptions) for thousands of years.

The speed that the stars are traveling apart from each other is very relavent. I guess I am just not being clear enought. Lets say that one star is stationary and another is moving away at a speed of 2 lightyears/year being it moves the distance of 2 light years in one year.
2 light years apart
0--o Year 1
star moving star

Then after lets say 200 years it slows down too 1.5lightyears/year. For a time of 200 years it travels at that speed.

0----------------------------------------o Year 400
star moving star

From what is thought it would have to be 700 years old because they would be 700 light-years apart when really they are only 400 years old.

See what I am saying?

-Steve

I wonder if we could wander back to the site that Mz30 provided a link to early, for just a moment ... http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html ... down at the bottom of the page there are some links to on-site info that honestly does make good reading regarding 'new or old' earth.

Included in these is a debate between Bales and Stassen that I thought was quite interesting - maybe others will too?

That aside, I often wonder if the need to 'disprove' an old earth is perhaps not based on entirely on the fear that should one thing in the Bible be proved wrong, the entire Bible could therefore be 'wrong'. And again, I can't see why this would be so.

For, if nothing else, surely it could be agreed that this would not necessarily be so? Rather than use my own words again, I'll simply swipe the words of a scientist who apparently believes Christians too can believe in an 'old earth' without loosing their faith (again, swiped from the above site Mz30 provided the link to).

(Quote) "If evolution is true, then isn't the whole Bible wrong?

First let me repeat that the underlying theme of the first book of Genesis can't be scientifically proven or disproved. No test has ever been found that can tell the difference between a universe created by God, and one that appeared without Him. Only certain interpretations of Genesis can be disproved.

Second, let us turn the question around. What if I asked you "If the story of the prodigal son didn't really happen, then is the whole Bible wrong?" Remember that the Bible is a collection of both stories and historical accounts. Because one part is a figurative story does not make the entire Bible so. Even if it did, the underlying message of the Bible would remain". (Unquote)

I say this with true respect ... the young earth theory has been 'disproved' not only by the massive majority of recognised scientists working in their specific fields, it's been disproved by the massive majority of recognised scientists who are also Christians, again working in their specific field.

No one and nothing is infalliable - and the Bible was written by humans, not all at one time nor by one person. Even with the best of intentions, being written so so long ago by people not having the advantages of knowing what we do today it's surely possible one part was either a misconception or misunderstanding of what he thought he should write. This surely must be possible - and having old earth both proven and recognised by religious leaders would not be saying the whole Bible is 'wrong' - rather it would be a continuation of saying to their followers, especially the younger ones, that the content of the Bible is meaningful, yet parts must not be taken literally. (If it was taken literally - well, that hardly bears thinking about).

I know my saying this will send some Christians into either gales of laughter or perhaps have them grinding the enamel off their teeth - but
to recognise that not all of the Bible can be, nor should be, taken literally - is not to loose one's Faith. Rather, it seems it would perhaps strengthen one's Faith knowing that time moves on, lessons are learned and one's Faith still survives.

I agree that not all of the Bible can be taken literaly. I fail to see how that will lessen ones Faith...

-Steve

Oh, I'm so pleased to read your words, truly I am, Steve. And how I wish the particular religious leaders that refuse to believe anything that doesn't fit within their narrow scope of what is 'true', had your understanding and attitude.

I hope religious leaders realize that to 'keep the Faith' they must continue/start using honesty in their teachings - children are smarter now than ever before and without honestly, they risk loosing so many. Not because they admit that 'new earth' is likely incorrect - but because they fight something that would have no long-term affect on Faith, just as some religous leaders did long ago. (Many fought vehemently that earth was flat, negros had no souls and all sorts of things that were 'truths' to them then, but no longer). Admitting it must have been a personal crushing-blow to many - but did their Faith no harm at all.

On a personal level, I also hope that the 'home schooling' system is over-hauled. Not because I think all children having it fall under the same catagory, but simply because apparently the reason many parents insist on it is because of the rift between evolution and 'intelligent design'. And in return for not wanting their children to really hear both sides of the issue (one can teach the difference of opinion re 'old and new earth' n' in their Faith, surely?), these children are missing a huge, huge part of being a child. The chance to interact daily with other children and so many other things vital to their understanding this vast and fascinating world we live in.

I do not see how it is possible to take the whole Bible literaly, but certain things must be, like the creation of the Earth for example.

I see what you are saying though and fully agree with it.

I look forward to seeing more of your posts.

-Steve

I ask this with true respect, Steve ... why is it so essential, please?

For surely it is entirely possible that the creation of the earth can be taken literally - just the time line incorrect?

It is essential because if the timeline is not correct then how can the idea of creationism be correct?

The timeline is not wrong, in my beliefe.

-Steve

Yes, you're postulating stars that are moving faster than light. That is the only way that something could travel two light-years in one year!!! And it's not possible.

A light-year is the distance that light travels in one year. The speed of light is a constant - 186,000 miles/sec. Nothing outside the world of theoretical physics - in other words, in the physical, natural universe can travel faster than light.

OK, this really is simple. If a star that we see today is twenty-five thousand light-years distant, then the light we see has been traveling to us for twenty-five thousand years. That light left that star twenty-five thousand years ago. The star in question has to be at least twenty-five thousand years old. Actually, to be a stable star, it would need to be quite a bit older. Those are simple facts about the universe that are unchangeable. So the universe has to be much older than six or ten or even twenty-five thousand years, since most of the observable universe is farther than twenty-five thousand light years away. If someone presented a "scientific" theory that conveniently ignored natural laws that would invalidate the theory, he'd be labeled a fraud, or worse. Any theory concerning the age of the universe that ignores the universes own natural laws can't be considered valid.

Simply put - if something is x light-years from earth, then it has to be, at the very least, x years old. To claim otherwise is to ignore the basic physical laws of the universe itself.

"It all has to be true, or it all has to be untrue." This is about as simple-minded an argument - concerning anything - that anyone could ever make. (And no Mara, I'm not accusing you of this. )

The bible is part mythology, part history, and part philosophy. And before there were written records, the histories of the various peoples of the earth would have been verbal, kept through the centuries by respected elders who would pass their knowledge down to the next generation. That generation would add to this verbal history, and pass their knowledge on to the following generation, and so on.

Is it possible that some of that verbal history, through the telling and re-telling, could have become distorted, and grown into the mythology that exists in the bible today? I would venture to say that it would be nearly impossible for it not to happen. Poorly kept records are undoubtedly responsible for some of the historical discrepancies that can be found in the book, and I'm sure that the translations, re-translations, and re-re-translations have done nothing to clear already muddied waters.

So do the impossibilities and inaccuracies in the bible invalidate the entire book? No!! No more than a few equations that proved to be in error would invalidate an entire text on mathematics. To claim that they would would be absurd. There is much in the bible concerning the proper ways to act toward ourselves and those around us that are as relevant today as they were when they were penned. A discerning student should be able to separate the mythology, the history, and the philosophy, and learn from these parts not only taken separately, but as they relate to each other as a whole. Is the bible factually true? Not completely, by far. Is it invalid? No, not by a long shot.

Well said, MattV!

Oh Steve, when I read your words, "It is essential because if the timeline is not correct then how can the idea of creationism be correct?", I realized that our discussion here could be far more serious than just a general debate. It is not my intention - ever!! - to try to destroy another person's Faith.

While I honestly and totally believe in 'old earth', I also honestly and totally do believe that one can both believe in 'old earth' and still retain their Faith.

For instance, the below site is, in my opinion, a good one and I hope the information there will help answer some of the questions. The site itself is called "Answers in Creation - Bringing the Bible and Science together Without Conflict' ... http://www.answersincreation.org/question.htm

(Quote) Can You Be a Christian and Believe in an Old Earth?

"Yes, you can! There is no verse in the Bible which causes you to accept a young earth as the only answer. The Bible does not say, "Thou shalt believe in a young earth." The fact is, no verse in the Bible makes any claims as to the age of the earth. All the so-called verses that young earth proponents point to can be interpreted by the reader to mean old or young. Also, the key doctrines of the Bible are not affected by either interpretation". (There is several on-site links there, including one along the top, 'Theology').

I hope this helps, at least a bit ... for truth never destroys anything, really it doesn't.

I read through this article and there is nothing in there I would call proof. I would summarise the article as follows:

The bible is completely infallible and therefore any scientific theory that does not agree with the bible is wrong (of course they mean their interpretation of the bible).

Hi Budapest - and you're right - and I do wish I'd chosen a better site to show that believing in the Bible doesn't mean that those who wish to keep their faith need not always believe in 'young earth'.

When I read Steve's words about why it was so important to him that the 'earth be young', it made me mentally cringe as debating things like this are always fun to me - but never at the risk of destroying another person's Faith. And that link was my feeble attempt to show that he and others like him can believe the earth is old and still retain their Faith.

Perhaps until religous leaders everywhere acknowledge that throughout the centuries human's understanding of things has grown vastly - and to argue endlessly about something such as our earth being 'young' when it truly appears this is not true, is to risk crediblity in all areas. (I say this because it appears the same arguments are used again and again by the same people - and few of these people have any special training in the field they are discussing, nor are they acknowledged by an accredited education or science facility or, for that matter, by the vast majority of their 'peers').

This is hard for me - gentle smile - because I don't believe in God. But neither do I wish anyone to loose his or her Faith, providing it does no harm to others. But I do wish believing was based on the 'intent' of the Bible, rather than taking it's contents literally, including time lines.

Steve, this may help ... 'Notable Christians Open to Old Earth Interpretation' (brief exerpts from about 100 Ministers, Evangelists, Theologians, and a Scholar (OT/Hebrew), etc - with one thing in common, they are all Christians).

Exerpts:

Dr. Ed Cabal (Theologian, Professor)
"The fact remains, however, that the assumptions made by Morris and others are unjustified regarding the historical and logical connections of old earth views to naturalism. They are also historically naïve to teach that Bible/science issues are so simple hermeneutically as to preclude old earth exegetical possibilities. But because some young earth creationists elevate the issue "to a degree of importance that it does not deserve," the fires of controversy are stoked by inflammatory and misleading language.
...
If there is no demonstrable danger or biblical unfaithfulness in an old earth doctrine per se, then it is a mistake to make a young earth the essential component of evangelical creationism. The evangelical paradigm for creation should not necessitate a position on the age of the earth.
...
Evangelicals should not view debate about the age of the earth as a matter of heresy or danger, and there is no biblical reason to break fellowship over the matter".

Francis S. Collins (Physcian, Scientist)
"If the tenets of young earth creationism were true, basically all of the sciences of geology, cosmology, and biology would utterly collapse. It would be the same as saying 2 plus 2 is actually 5. The tragedy of young-earth creationism is that it takes a relatively recent and extreme view of Genesis, applies to it an unjustified scientific gloss, and then asks sincere and well-meaning seekers to swallow this whole, despite the massive discordance with decades of scientific evidence from multiple disciplines. Is it any wonder that many sadly turn away from faith concluding that they cannot believe in a God who asks for an abandonment of logic and reason?
It breaks my heart to see young people raised in Christian homes who are told that they have to believe that perspective or their faith is in doubt or they're somehow betraying God Almighty. And then faced with the facts that science tells us about the age of the earth, what a terrible quandary they're placed into. Do they reject their faith? Do they reject science?".

Source: http://www.geocities.com/vr_junkie/Notable...Creatinists.htm (Site contains link to full texts excepts are quoted from)

Notable Christians eh?

Never heard of Dr. Cabal, and Francis Collins doesn't claim to be a Christian anywhere. Strange.

And your source is a personal homepage and they misspelled "Creationists" in the URL.

Just to let you know MaraM, it was not the site you linked to that I was talking about.

Thanks for clarifying, Budapest

Re: "And your source is a personal homepage and they misspelled "Creationists" in the URL"

Oh dear, here we go. Yes, it is a person's website. (Most websites are?). And the spelling of a word negates all of it's content? Huge sigh.

I am sorry you haven't heard of a couple of the people listed but perhaps if the quotes by the theologians and ministers and Evangelists are read? Just a wee thing but many who are Christians don't have 'theologian' as a credential behind their name but perhaps that doesn't negate the fact that they both believe in God and 'old earth'?

I honestly wonder why it appears to annoy when a non-Christian is trying to show that believing in the Bible can still be valid even with the earth being old. In fact, with respect, no matter what I post it appears to offend ... perhaps clarifying this for me would be helpful?

That is a very interesting site MaraM, thanks.

I have to agree that just because a word is misspelled does not mean that the contents should be negated, it is just a simple everyday mistake.

I do not find it annoying that you are trying to show that believing in the Bible is still valid with the Earth being old, I really like it. You are not really taking sides here yet providing info to both. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this topic more

Keep up the work,
Steve

name='MaraM' date='Jul 31 2007, 01:09 PM' post='582460']
Oh dear, here we go. Yes, it is a person's website. (Most websites are?). And the spelling of a word negates all of it's content? Huge sigh.

I am sorry you haven't heard of a couple of the people listed but perhaps if the quotes by the theologians and ministers and Evangelists are read? Just a wee thing but many who are Christians don't have 'theologian' as a credential behind their name but perhaps that doesn't negate the fact that they both believe in God and 'old earth'?

I honestly wonder why it appears to annoy when a non-Christian is trying to show that believing in the Bible can still be valid even with the earth being old. In fact, with respect, no matter what I post it appears to offend ... perhaps clarifying this for me would be helpful?

It is my mistake that I missed this part: (Site contains link to full texts excepts are quoted from) For that I do apologize...

It is a mistake is thinking anyones offended.

Not only have I not heard of them, but there names bring up nearly nothing in google searches. If they are notable Christians, it seems there would be extensive material on them. (Francis Collins has stuff about him, but I could not find anywhere where he declared to be a Christian.) I think you will find a much larger Christian majority supporting a young earth than an old earth. (catholocism is an exception.)

I understand people say "its up to interpretation of the Scripture"....but when you read the Bible and the genealogies listed, and the years shown, a young earth is presented in the Bible. You'll find that many Christians that support an old earth often add much to what simply isn't written. There are many "its possible", "could have been", "probably" 's said.

Perhaps these Christians will be more helpful ... Together, they form a " a community of faith dedicated to sharing our beliefs and experiences with anyone seeking answers to spiritual questions". Some include:

1. Michael Battle is Vice President, Associate Dean of Academic Studies and Associate Professor of Theology at Virginia Theological Seminary in Alexandria, Virginia.

2. Marcus Borg, a renowned Jesus scholar with the highest of national and international credits and praise, Dr. Borg has written many books including his widely known Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time and Reading the Bible Again for the First Time.

3. Fred Borsch, a retired Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles, Frederick Borsch is presently Professor of Anglican Studies at the Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia.

4. The Rev. Dr. Fred Burnham is the former director of Trinity Institute, a program for the continuing theological education of Episcopal clergy and laity sponsored by the Parish of Trinity Church, New York City.

Excerpt from: "[i]As a Christian, how do I reconcile stories from the Bible with current scientific thought?

Perhaps a better way of phrasing this question is to ask whether the Bible intends to provide an accurate historical account of happenings in the universe. The Bible itself answers that question within the first two chapters of the first book. Genesis is an account of the origin of a people of God, and it begins with a story about the creation of all things, including the heavens and the earth, and humankind. Having created all things, God rested on the seventh day. However, immediately following the first creation story (Gen 1:1-2:3), the Bible relates a second story about the creation of humankind (Gen 2:4-24).

The inclusion of both of these stories at the very beginning of the Bible shows us that the book is not meant to convey an historical reckoning of every event of creation. The Bible contains many stories that contradict each other, and that very fact tells us something important. Through the stories, the Bible provides us with ways of interpreting the actions of God and the continuous creative energy of God in the universe. Thus, the creation and other etymological stories are not meant to be taken as factual accounts of how things came about, but are meant to convey some interpretations of God's importance to the warp and woof of the fabric of creation".

Full text and other info at source: http://www.explorefaith.org/scientific.html

I'm not saying that one must change their belief and say the world is old, rather I'm suggesting that many good Christians seem to have no problem reconciling old earth with the Bible - ergo, their belief in old earth does not negate their Faith at all.

I think of people like this as 'cousins' of those so long ago who must have had some battles both with others within their own Faith and within themselves when it came to filtering which parts of the Bible should be taken literally and which parts were never intended to be taken as such. It must have very ever so difficult yet without their courage, our world would still be back in the 'middle ages' in so many ways surely.

I think a very large number of Christian sects readily subscribe to the kinds of interpretations you have provided, MaraM.
Thanks for taking the time to make these available to the discussion.
Cheers,
John

Excellent Post 'MaraM' and I agree with your thoughts, 100%.
Your effort in providing this information is much appreciated.

One of the best things I ever learned from a biblical professor was when he told us that the bible is not "literally" true, rather it is "literarily" true. As in, the bible is a work of literature, and it is vital to its interpretation that it be approached as such. That said, I'm not certain what the best way is to try and parallel the things we know from science with an interpretation of Genesis, but I believe the two can coexist.

Along the lines of discussion MaraM has brought up, here's an article in which the pope states that faith an religion can certainly coexist, and the Creation vs. Evolution clash is "absurd". http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19956961/


Of course the pope isn't saying very much that's new here, the CC has taken the position of theistic evolution for a while now. But it's significant none the less.

Amazing - I mostly agree with something the Pope is saying!

Or, maybe, he's been reading some of my posts?

Bah.....When God said he made everything he made everything, period.

And who cares what the pope says he is just a man its what the Bible says. The Bible says God Created everything man came up with evolution.

Uh, something wrong with that logic.

If God created everything, then God created evolution.

Man just discovered it.

Thanks so much for the kind words - they honestly mean a great deal to me - gentle hug and smile. To be honest, I was about to wander away and not return - another gentle smile.
-----

I ask with respect, CGM, but have any of the articles actually been read, I wonder? I understand the resistance to reading anything not written by a Christian but how very odd that other true Christians are declared 'wrong', as well. Period. Because they believe differently than you do, it does not make them any less of a Christian nor mean they have less true Faith.

This, to me, makes them a Christian who so firmly believes in his or her faith that they are not frightened to study and learn. And for myself - and this is only my own personal feeling - the people who believe in the Bible being 'literary' (as in each word not to be taken literally) are apt to be the people who are both happy in their Faith and simply 'live and let live' and do no harm to others, either mentally or physically.

I say this with respect too - yes, the Pope is most surely 'a man' - but he is also the most powerful Christian in our world, I suspect. It would perhaps be truly an interesting debate if he and your local Pastor got together one Sunday?

- - - - -

From honest curiousity I ask this. If one has a rigid 'no changes', each word in the Bible is to be taken literally ... what would happen in our world if people such as this 'took power', I wonder?

He is catholic. I go to a Pentacostal church.


I read the articles at least most of it.



It says in Genesis that God created everything in 6 days and on the Seventh he rested. Not that things evolved.....



One more thing to add, just because people say they are Christians does not make them one.