Questions for creationists

[Jon Miller]

I am fairly certain the Bible compares the state of Man in heaven to the state of Man in the garden of eden.

If heaven has no death of people, then the garden of eden has no death of people.

(if you accept those interpretations)

also, the result of eating of the tree was death

as said in the Bible (if you don't think that bit is fairy tale)

it is internally consistent

it just doesn't make sense if you start throwing out bits and pieces

now I also admit that you can make interpretations that not only venture where science says nothing, but goes were science says that the interpretation is false.

I maintain that the Bible can be internally consistent and interpretations can be made that are not disproved by science.

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
If there are millions of stars and millions of inhabited planets and God had to die a horrible death on each of them to save the sentient beings that would border on fetish. It would make God a very weird character indeed.

I think that there are millions of start and millions of inhabited planets.

I, however, do not beleive all sinned.

Also, I am not sure that God would not need to die on more than 1 world. If Jesus can die for the sins of the world, I see no problem with Him dying for the sins of the universe.

Jon Miller

[JohnT]

Also, I am not sure that God would not need to die on more than 1 world. If Jesus can die for the sins of the world, I see no problem with Him dying for the sins of the universe.

I can see the opening lines of the Alien's Bible:

"A long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away..."

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


I think that there are millions of start and millions of inhabited planets.

I, however, do not beleive all sinned.

That's a hilarious answer

(we really need that lol smilie that rolls)

[Jon Miller]

I always try to be entertaining

and to acknoledge the possibility of the strange

Jon Miller

[Logical Realist]

Self-serving arguments

I think the fact that creationists make so much up while pouncing on any evolutionist for the smallest gap or bit of speculation illustrates their selective reasoning, and that their agenda is not really to promote good,rational,objective science and "fairness" in the class room. But to dress up their religion as scientific fact so that they can push it on everyone else in the public arena.

And btw, just because a theory is logically possible it doesn't mean that its proven,should be taken seriously or even probable. The Greek myth;developed by Anaximander; of all animals appearing all at once in random combinations and many dying off until only the working combinations remained..... is logically possible but in no way a good explanation for how modern day species came to be. Though it is more realistic then the Christian theory.(And I bet any Christian would flat out laugh at an atheist for advocating such a unproven theory to account for mankind's origins, again showing how "faith" is only good to a Xian when it's faith in God.)

Anaximander saw through creationism over 2000 years ago in Pagan Greece. With reasoning far more sound then any modern day fundies. Evolutionary theories have thus been around far longer then the Christian myth,they have always been a part of Westen culture and will go on long after the Christian myth is as abandoned as the myths of its Pagan ancestors.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Actually, the Bible DOES say how old Adam was when his kids were born, and how long he lived. Working back from the genealogies, Adam was created around 4000 BC.

I have a question. According to the Bible, grass was created before any of the animals. But there is no grass, or grass pollen, in the fossil record until after the dinosaurs died (they ate ferns and suchlike). According to creationists, the sequence of fossils is due to the ability of creatures to reach higher ground as the Flood waters rose (i.e. sloths could outrun velociraptors in those days).

So when did grass lose the ability to run to higher ground, and how fast could grass run?

[Docfeelgood]

When does single cell organisms decide to choose to become animal life or plant life?

[Logical Realist]

Straw Man

When does single cell organisms decide to choose to become animal life or plant life?

Isn't that a bit of a loaded question and a straw man? Has any evolutionary scientist ever said that cells make conscious decisions to become plants and animals? Looks like you are grasping for straws.

Plants and animals just developed that way via natural,nonconscious processes.

Tad poles turn into frogs...did they make a conscious decision? cuts heal back...did the cells decide to heal the cut? No. But they do because that is in accordance with their nature.

Just like rain...the atmosphere doesn't decide to be rainy....rain just happens. Like evolution.

[Docfeelgood]

Was the first life a plant or animal?

[-=Vagrant=-]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless

I have a question. According to the Bible, grass was created before any of the animals. But there is no grass, or grass pollen, in the fossil record until after the dinosaurs died (they ate ferns and suchlike). According to creationists, the sequence of fossils is due to the ability of creatures to reach higher ground as the Flood waters rose (i.e. sloths could outrun velociraptors in those days).

So when did grass lose the ability to run to higher ground, and how fast could grass run?

Actually, grass evolved during the time when Earth's climate started,for the very first time, to cool. That was the time when the huge rainforest started to diminish and gave way to prairie,savanna and the like. There was no grass when dinosaurs lived.
The running speed of grass depends on wether it's european or african grass.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Well, damn. My dog will die pre-sin. Babies die pre-sin. I don't think it takes a radical leap of faith or logic to think that people can die before they sin.

Actually, if the baby hasn't been baptized, it dies with the original sin of Adam and Eve (which the Greek philosephers etc. died with. Read Dante's Inferno, awesome book.) And according to popular Judeo-Christian belief, dogs don't have souls. I don't believe it, but since I'm taking the creationist side (in this issue, just for fun), that's what the belief is.

[Docfeelgood]

Im Jewish

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous


Actually, if the baby hasn't been baptized, it dies with the original sin of Adam and Eve (which the Greek philosephers etc. died with. Read Dante's Inferno, awesome book.) And according to popular Judeo-Christian belief, dogs don't have souls. I don't believe it, but since I'm taking the creationist side (in this issue, just for fun), that's what the belief is.

that is according to some Christians beleives not to others.

For the baby bit I wouldn't be surprised if all babies are saved (just cause God is kind and merciful). But I do beleive that sin has affected the baby (it just has not done anything yet). It is not in a state of presin (it is a fallen being).

(I am also taking some beleifs I do not have, and the others are right, if we are going to argue this position you have to make the interpretation in sink with science)

Jon Miller

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by JohnT

Also, I am not sure that God would not need to die on more than 1 world. If Jesus can die for the sins of the world, I see no problem with Him dying for the sins of the universe.

I can see the opening lines of the Alien's Bible:

"A long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away..."

we really need a smiley that rolls