Genesis 1:1; Heb.11:3  God spoke the Word and instantaneously time, matter/energy, space and information was created within the subsequent 6 days.  He did not require between 13-15 billion of years before He could create the universe, millions of years before He could breath the breath of life into the lifeless body that took time to form.

The problem you are having is that the devil has totally eroded your faith in the Word of God which can only be found in the Bible and until you go to the source of revelation of the Infinite God to the finite man you will continue to confuse yourself with either human philosophies or doctrines of the devil.

Hahahhhahaaaa, so my submissions are human philosophies or doctrines of the devil. It is your choice to label me what suits you. I am indifferent to wheather discussants accept or reject my submissions. I am also indifferent to wheather they call me names or not.

Why do Christians believe in the bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ?  Because of the words of Scripture  ("according to the Scriptures".

I do not quote the bible because I do not believe it to be the word of God. If by bodily resurrection you mean that Jesus rose in a bodily form, I will agree. If however you  mean that he rose with his physical body, I will disagree. Thus clarify what you mean by bodily resurrection. Best wishes.

m_nwankwo:

Hahahhhahaaaa, so my submissions are human philosophies or doctrines of the devil. It is your choice to label me what suits you. I am indifferent to wheather discussants accept or reject my submissions. I am also indifferent to wheather they call me names or not.   I do not quote the bible because I do not believe it to be the word of God.

I did not call you names all I did was to define your presuppositions for you.  The use of ad hominems and ridicule is the pastime of evolutionists such as wirinet and Huxley.  Theistic evolution is known to be a compromise belief that suggests God used evolutionary processes to create the universe and life on earth over billions of years.  Another terminology is Progressive creationists which is a compromise belief accepting that God has created organisms in a progressive manner over billions of years to accommodate secular dating methods.

All these are human ideologies.  Ideologies or philosophies come from spirits; either the human spirit, evil spirits or the Holy Spirit.  For you to have the Truth that comes from the Holy Spirit you can only access it specifically from the Truth book, the Holy Bible.  Charles Wesley rightly addressed this issue with the statement below:

"The Bible must be the invention either of good men or angels, bad men or devils, or of God. However, it was not written by good men, because good men would not tell lies by saying 'Thus saith the Lord;' it was not written by bad men because they would not write about doing good duty, while condemning sin, and themselves to hell; thus, it must be written by divine inspiration" (Charles Wesley, McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict, 1990:178).

m_nwankwo:

If by bodily resurrection you mean that Jesus rose in a bodily form, I will agree. If however you  mean that he rose with his physical body, I will disagree. Thus clarify what you mean by bodily resurrection. Best wishes.

The Bible is fresher than tomorrow's newspaper.  In 1John 4:1-3 We have been commanded and warned to test every spirit because they are not all from God, some are of the anti-christ.  We have been warned to discern any spirit inspiring any teacher to deny the incarnation, His passion, death, bodily resurrection and bodily ascension to heaven is not of God and is anti-christ, this was the 'gospel' of the gnostics of those days and has now metamorphosised into the evolution doctrine today.

http://www.cuttingedge.org/articles/p253.htm

I did not call you names all I did was to define your presuppositions for you.  The use of ad hominems and ridicule is the pastime of evolutionists such as wirinet and Huxley.  Theistic evolution is known to be a compromise belief that suggests God used evolutionary processes to create the universe and life on earth over billions of years.  Another terminology is Progressive creationists which is a compromise belief accepting that God has created organisms in a progressive manner over billions of years to accommodate secular dating methods.

All these are human ideologies.  Ideologies or philosophies come from spirits; either the human spirit, evil spirits or the Holy Spirit.  For you to have the Truth that comes from the Holy Spirit you can only access it specifically from the Truth book, the Holy Bible.  Charles Wesley rightly addressed this issue with the statement below:

I have in my discourse with you defined what I mean by evolution. Evolution is an effect of the laws of God. That means that the driving power of evolution is the the laws of God. God did not create the universe, the earth or the human body in an instantenous earthly time. If that has happened we would see the evidence. Not just that, the stars, galaxies, planets, suns, yam, human body, animal bodies will continue to emerge instantaenously. The irrefutable observation that heavenly bodies, plant, animal, and human bodies undergo birth, growth, death and transformation is a clear pointer to the observation that these bodies were not created instantenously but subsequently developed from a "seed". If you claim that God created these gross material things instantaneously, then just give me a single evidence in the present time where God replicated these instantaenous material creations. On the contrarly, you can see evidence of development, of change, of growth, of ripeness, of decay, of death all round you. Indeed the process of development is mirrowed in the simple things as sowing a grain of corn  as well as a in complex processes like the birth/death of suns.

The Bible is fresher than tomorrow's newspaper.  In 1John 4:1-3 We have been commanded and warned to test every spirit because they are not all from God, some are of the anti-christ.  We have been warned to discern any spirit inspiring any teacher to deny the incarnation, His passion, death, bodily resurrection and bodily ascension to heaven is not of God and is anti-christ, this was the 'gospel' of the gnostics of those days and has now metamorphosised into the evolution doctrine today.

Sure, you should test everything that comes your way and arrive at your own conclusions. My point is simple: Jesus Christ, the son of God did not rise or resurrect with a physical body. It is imposssible to ascend to heaven which is spiritual with a body that is physical. Jesus resurrected in a bodily form that is non-earthly or non-flesh and blood or non-physical. Thus my assertion is not that Jesus did not ressurect in a bodily form, rather it is that the ressurection body is not a physical body but a "heavenly" body. Thus Jesus did not rise in the flesh. Jesus did not come down from heaven in flesh, he only picked the flesh in the womb of Mary, that is on earth and he cannot ascend to heaven in flesh since heaven is not made of flesh but of spirit. Jesus has to drop his flesh on earth.  Flesh and blood cannot enter heaven. It is that simple. Best wishes.

m_nwankwo:

Sure, you should test everything that comes your way and arrive at your own conclusions. My point is simple: Jesus Christ, the son of God did not rise or resurrect with a physical body. It is imposssible to ascend to heaven which is spiritual with a body that is physical. Jesus resurrected in a bodily form that is non-earthly or non-flesh and blood or non-physical. Thus my assertion is not that Jesus did not ressurect in a bodily form, rather it is that the ressurection body is not a physical body but a "heavenly" body. Thus Jesus did not rise in the flesh. Jesus did not come down from heaven in flesh, he only picked the flesh in the womb of Mary, that is on earth and he cannot ascend to heaven in flesh since heaven is not made of flesh but of spirit. Jesus has to drop his flesh on earth. Flesh and blood cannot enter heaven. It is that simple. Best wishes.

If the physical body cannot go into heaven, why is Jesus evoking the thought of going into heaven in physical bodily form in the following?

Mark 9: 39 - 40

39 "Do not stop him," Jesus said. "No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me,
40 for whoever is not against us is for us.
41 I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to Christ will certainly not lose his reward.
42 "And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck.
43 If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out.[/b]44 where 'their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.'
45 And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell.
46 where 'their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.'
47And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. [b]It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, 48where " 'their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.'
49 Everyone will be salted with fire.
50"Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with each other."


Is it really better to enter life cripple? Is there such a thing as a crippled spirit? What are we to make of these comment from Jesus if not to be read as literally as they appear?

Huxley.

Yes. It is meant to be taken metaphorically and the physical form part of the passage is relatively unimportant.
The physical aspect is used merely to emphasise the importance of not sinning.

At the end of the passage, Jesus says: "Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with each other."

This reinforces the fact that the passage is to be read metaphorically. Jesus is not saying that man should literally take salt. He's saying "Don't sin. Be pure".

Bastage:

Huxley.

Yes. It is meant to be taken metaphorically and the physical form part of the passage is relatively unimportant.
The physical aspect is used merely to emphasise the importance of not sinning.

At the end of the passage, Jesus says: "Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with each other."

This reinforces the fact that the passage is to be read metaphorically. Jesus is not saying that man should literally take salt. He's saying "Don't sin. Be pure".

Bastage, thanks for the post.

But I keep asking, "What is the criterion for deciding which narrative to take literally and which metaphoricall?"

How would a first century reader have understood this text?

The salt bit is irrelevant. When a narrative is metaphorical, it is pretty clear from the text and wordings. For instance,

"You are the salt of the earth"
"Do not hide your light under a bushel"
etc, etc.

These are clearly metaphors.

However, are the following metaphors as well?

1) Jesus walking on water
2) Jesus casting demons into a herd of pigs
3) Jesus cursing a fig tree
4) Jesus disturbing vendors in the temple
5) Jesus riding on clouds during the 2nd coming

etc, etc.

What is the criterion?

What is the criterion?

This is the biggest question of them all.

The answer is: Belief.


A lot of people let their Church do their believing for them. That Church defines what is literal and what is metaphorical. But the problem here is that their doctrines are often set in stone, are centuries old and are rarely adaptable to new knowledge.
Others are not so rigid. They study the Bible and apply the metaphors and literalism where they think it is appropriate on a personal basis. When new knowledge comes to light, they can adapt it to their belief system.

The criterion for definition of what is literal and what is metaphorical is belief. But it's up to you wether you define it or let someone else do it for you.

Bastage:

This is the biggest question of them all.

The answer is: Belief.


A lot of people let their Church do their believing for them. That Church defines what is literal and what is metaphorical. But the problem here is that their doctrines are often set in stone, are centuries old and are rarely adaptable to new knowledge.
Others are not so rigid. They study the Bible and apply the metaphors and literalism where they think it is appropriate on a personal basis. When new knowledge comes to light, they can adapt it to their belief system.

The criterion for definition of what is literal and what is metaphorical is belief. But it's up to you wether you define it or let someone else do it for you.

This sounds like circular reasoning to me.   Are you saying that there is no objective reality defined in the religious narrative.   OK, lets apply your criterion to the virgin birth narrative.

Should the virgin birth be taken as literal or metaphoric?    You are saying that, if you believe it is literal then it is literal.  If you believe it is metaphoric, then it is metaphoric.

But how do you come to believe one way or the other?  Would you just accept it on tradition or authority?  Would you seek for evidence?

Incidentally,  the word "believe" is so much misused in general parlance, I have become very cautious as to how I use it.  Examples;

1)   2+3=5.  Would you say "I believe 2 plus 3 is 5"?  That 2 plus 3 is 5 is so a certainty that believe is inappropriate in this case.

2)  Would you say "I believe the earth goes round the sun"


"Believe" should be used in case where there is room for doubt and there is not enough evidence to make a proposition absolutely certain.

Tradition and evidence come into play but the answer is down to you alone.

You've first got to understand what religion is. Then you have to study it's history and meaning. This can lead to all sorts of interesting possibilities.

It can lead to one studying the very nature of reality itself. It may even lead into the realms of quantum physics. In this scenario perceived reality becomes relative.

The Earth goes around the Sun in our perceived reality. That is a "physical" fact. But from there, you may lead onto the question of does the Sun really exist? You see it and other people see it, but what if all those other people are just figments of your imagination? What if the Sun doesn't exist and you're just imagining it to be so? You then have a choice. You can choose to believe it exists or you can choose to believe that it is a figment of your imagination. Religion operates on much the same level. Tradition and authority tells us that the Sun exists but is it correct? Evidence tells us that it exists as we can see it and feel it's warmth. But is that evidence correct?

We weigh up our options and then make our decisions based on the above. But one has to understand that even with the knowledge that we have about the Sun (both authoratative and evidential) no individual can prove that it does actually exist. It can only be pertinent to your relative reality and it's your decision wether or not to believe it's there.

So in answer to your question "if you believe it is literal then it is literal. If you believe it is metaphoric, then it is metaphoric" the cold hard truth in the light of day is YES. You and only you can decide what is metaphoric and what is literal. You can listen to other people and they may sway your views, you can view the evidence and adapt that to your belief system, but the whole answer is relative to you alone.

huxley:

If the physical body cannot go into heaven, why is Jesus evoking the thought of going into heaven in physical bodily form in the following?

Mark 9: 39 - 40

39 "Do not stop him," Jesus said. "No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me,
40 for whoever is not against us is for us.
41 I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to Christ will certainly not lose his reward.
42 "And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck.
43 If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out.[/b]44 where 'their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.'
45 And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell.
46 where 'their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.'
47And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. [b]It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, 48where " 'their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.'
49 Everyone will be salted with fire.
50"Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with each other."


Is it really better to enter life cripple? Is there such a thing as a crippled spirit? What are we to make of these comment from Jesus if not to be read as literally as they appear?

I do not quote nor interpret biblical passages to buttress my point. Thus I would not try to interpret what you quoted. Jesus, the son of God did not resurrect with a physical body of flesh and blood. If you dispute that, then I can go on and give details on why the resurrection and ascension of a physical body into heaven is an impossibility. Stay blessed.

@Bastage

I loved your analysis, what you said is the trend we see today people continually try to bend what the bible says to fit with reality and I fear we are coming to its yield point where the bible would finally give way as man continues to evolve, and I am sure even then someone will come up with a way to interpret it to say it did not say the rules will be forever.
Before I go one more thing, you said

what if all those other people are just figments of your imagination?

Here is what I got from Wikipedia on what Imagination means

Imagination is (1) the faculty of imagining, or of forming mental images or concepts of what is not actually present to the senses, and (2) the action or process of forming such images or concepts. It helps provide meaning to experience and understanding to knowledge; it is a fundamental facility through which people make sense of the world, and it also plays a key role in the learning process.

I would love to think that people around me are not imaginations because my sense of smell, feeling , sound and sight all correlate with the fact that they do exist. Just thought I should point that out, cheers.

I loved your analysis, what you said is the trend we see today people continually try to bend what the bible says to fit with reality and I fear we are coming to its yield point where the bible would finally give way as man continues to evolve

It's actually not a new trend. In fact early Christianity operated in that way. The Catholic Church stamped it out and introduced dogma.

m_nwankwo,

I have in my discourse with you defined what I mean by evolution. Evolution is an effect of the laws of God. That means that the driving power of evolution is the the laws of God. God did not create the universe, the earth or the human body in an instantenous earthly time. If that has happened we would see the evidence. Not just that, the stars, galaxies, planets, suns, yam, human body, animal bodies will continue to emerge instantaenously. The irrefutable observation that heavenly bodies, plant, animal, and human bodies undergo birth, growth, death and transformation is a clear pointer to the observation that these bodies were not created instantenously but subsequently developed from a "seed". If you claim that God created these gross material things instantaneously, then just give me a single evidence in the present time where God replicated these instantaenous material creations. On the contrarly, you can see evidence of development, of change, of growth, of ripeness, of decay, of death all round you. Indeed the process of development is mirrowed in the simple things as sowing a grain of corn as well as a in complex processes like the birth/death of suns.

When I said that your philosophy is based on the shakeable human ideology you would not agree.  The idea of creation or evolution by developmental stages was taken from one Ernst Haeckel who was a fraudster and dubious so called evolutionist.  He taught that the development of an organism (its ontogeny) repeats or recapitulates the evolutionary history of its ancestors (its phylogeny).  In other words he fraudulently taught that ontogeny recapitulates (begets) phylogeny.

Ernst Haeckel who was a disciple of Darwin made the gullibles to believe that the development of a vertebrate embryo in its mothers' womb would be like watching an animated cartoon in which you would see it move along as it passes through the various adult forms of its ancestors in the sequence in which they had evolved.  This conjecture was exposed as a fraud by Dr. Wilhem His, Sr., who was a professor of anatomy at the university of Leipzig and a world famous comparative embryologist.  http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=29

m_nwankwo, if this is what you pitch your faith or knowledge on I will like to inform you that you have been duped.  God created heaven and earth in six literal days and has inbuilt within each living organism to produce after its own kind, and if need be He has spare parts in Heaven by which He can recreate what has been destroyed all to the glory of God.  If you care to know, since you do not believe in the Bible, Jesus performed creative miracles during His earthly ministry such as creating eyes to a man that was born blind, He turned water into wine, multiplied two loaves of bread and five fish to feed 5 and 7 thousand people respectively.  He did not have to wait millions of years for these to mature for use, they all happened instantly.  This is an evidence that as the Father is working, Jesus is working and the Holy Spirit is still working even now.  I can testify of the creative miracles that happen in my bible believing church as shorter legs have grown out to become normal, those born blind have received their sights, those born deaf and dumb received instantenous recreation of both vocal and hearing organs, and recently a woman who had her womb removed by a surgeon received a brand new womb as she confounded the doctor who performed the operation when she announced to him that she was pregnant and now the skeptic doctor is now a believer since delivered her of a bouncing baby and, I am sure many other bible believing churches can testify of the creative miracles being performed in the name of Jesus Christ all to the glory of God.

@m_nwankwo

Sure, you should test everything that comes your way and arrive at your own conclusions. My point is simple: Jesus Christ, the son of God did not rise or resurrect with a physical body. It is imposssible to ascend to heaven which is spiritual with a body that is physical. Jesus resurrected in a bodily form that is non-earthly or non-flesh and blood or non-physical. Thus my assertion is not that Jesus did not ressurect in a bodily form, rather it is that the ressurection body is not a physical body but a "heavenly" body. Thus Jesus did not rise in the flesh. Jesus did not come down from heaven in flesh, he only picked the flesh in the womb of Mary, that is on earth and he cannot ascend to heaven in flesh since heaven is not made of flesh but of spirit. Jesus has to drop his flesh on earth.  Flesh and blood cannot enter heaven. It is that simple. Best wishes.

In Luke 24:36-45; John 20:19 you will discover 21 evidences of the bodily resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and as hard as you may try you will not find His body here in the grave.  Even His disciples initially believed it was His spirit that appeared to them but note Jesus' response to their fears in the points given below:

1.  In Lk.24:39 "Behold, My hands and My Feet"
2.  "It is I Myself, not another and a different person"
3.  "Handle Me, and see"
4.  "A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see Me have"
5.  He showed them His hands and His feet (Lk.24:40; Jn.20:20)
6.  He took fish and honeycomb and did[b] eat[/b] before them.  Lk.24:41-43)
7.  He is risen (Mt.28:6-7; Mark16:6).  What is risen?  It could not be His soul and spirit for they did  not die.  They went to into hell to preach and carry on work (Ps.16:10; Lk.23:43; Eph.4:8-10; 1 Pet.3:19; Heb.2:14-15).  His body is the only thing that died (Jas.2:26) and the only thing that could have resurrected (Lk.24:39; Zech.13:6; Acts.1:11)
8.  They held Him by the feet (Matt.28:9; Lk.24:39:-40)
9.  They saw Him (Matt.28:17; Jn.20:19-20)
10.  They found not the body (Lk.24:3,23).  Why couldn't they find the body?  Because it was resurrected (Lk.24:39:-43)
11.  Why seek you the living (body) among the dead bodies (Lk.24:5-6;Jas.2:26)?  Did they go to the tomb looking for a spirit to embalm, or was it the body they sought?  Then it was the body that was risen from the dead, a glorified body at that.
12.  Jesus Himself drew near. . . He sat at meat with them . . . they knew Him (Lk.24:15, 30-31)
13.  Angels said He was alive (Lk.24:23; Matt.28:6-7; Mk.16:6)
14.  Jesus Himself stood in the midst of them (Lk.24:36; Jn.20:19).  What was it that stood in their midst?  They thought it was a spirit (Lk.24:37), but Jesus assured them that it was not a spirit.  It was His own body that had been with them for years (Lk.24:39-43)
15.  It behoved Christ to be crucified, and to rise from the dead (Lk.24:46).  What was it that was crucified?  The same thing that rose from the dead.
16.  He lifted up His hands. . . He was parted from them, and carried into heaven (Lk.24:50-51).  Whose hands were these?  Where they the hands of a spirit?  What was it that was separated from them and taken to heaven?  If it was not a spirit, as He said (Lk.24:37-43), then it was His body.
17.  They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre. . . For as yet they knew not the scripture, that He must rise from the dead (Jn. 20:2,9).  The missing body made no less than 12 appearances to hundred of witnessess.  It was not taken away.  It was resurrected and is alive today at the right hand of God (Mk.16:19; Acts.2:33; Rom. 8:34; Heb.1:3; 12:2)
18.  "Except I shall see in His hands the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into His side.  I will not believe".  Thomas had the opportunity eight days later, as an evidence that the body of Jesus was literally resurrected (Jn.20:25-29; Lk.24:37-43).
19.  In all resurrections the bodies were made alive again, not the souls (1 Kgs.17:17-24).  To argue that Christ's body is the only one never to be resurrected is extreme rebellion, for many scriptures say it was raised (Acts.2:31; 4:33; Rom.1:4; 1 Pet.3:21).
20.  One shall say unto Him in eternity, "what are these wounds in thine hands?  Then, He shall answer, Those wounds with which I was wounded in the house of my friends" (Zech.13:6)
21.  He was buried. . . He rose again (1 Cor.15:1-58)

In the scriptures quoted above it is clear that anyone who does not believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ will be eternally lost.   

m_nwankwo, can you now see that your gnostic beliefs has let you down again by spiritualising everything without any evidence in history or science.  It is my prayer that your eyes will be open so that you will be able to comprehend the light of the gospel and that the daystar in your heart would appear.

OLAADEGBU:

I did not call you names all I did was to define your presuppositions for you. The use of ad hominems and ridicule is the pastime of evolutionists such as wirinet and Huxley. Theistic evolution is known to be a compromise belief that suggests God used evolutionary processes to create the universe and life on earth over billions of years. Another terminology is Progressive creationists which is a compromise belief accepting that God has created organisms in a progressive manner over billions of years to accommodate secular dating methods.

Mr OLAADEGBU, what is your problem? You are a theist, who believes your whole life revolves around the worship and study of European Gods, with European personalities, language and culture. Good for you. I am an unapologetic Evolutionist, who just want to survive in the most important place to me - the earth, and in the process perform my evolutionary obligation of leaving some of my Genes behind for prosperity, whatever happens after that, honestly, I DO NOT CARE.

So continue your worship, you might be rewarded by your European God with whatever you are promised, and leave me alone. I Know he gave you wisdom greater than Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein and Plato added together.

wirinet:

So continue your worship, you might be rewarded by your European God with whatever you are promised, and leave me alone. I Know he gave you wisdom greater than Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein and Plato added together.

My God is not an European God, He is the uncreated Creator of the whole universe and heaven even including you.  Does your point not show an example of a pot calling a kettle black or is it calling a dog a bad name so as to hang it?  The so called Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein and Plato were not particularly Africans, were they?  If not why do you follow their convoluted hypothesis since they are Europeans or Jews?  At least Albert Einstein, a Jew, was wise enough to acknowledge that he was trying to follow God's thoughts in creation after Him, while Plato rightly predicted that "if ever a perfect person ever lived that he will be crucified", but Charles Darwin, the apostle of the evolution theory has been found out to be a fraud.

He never apologised nor gave credit to several other people who formulated the theory of natural selection, especially to a creationist by the name Edward Blyth who published several articles describing the process of natural selection in Magazine of Natural History between 1835 and 1837 which was a full 22 years before Darwin published his own book On the Origin of Species.  It was also discovered that Darwin had copies of these magazines that he plagiarized and part of his book are nearly copied verbatim from Blyth's articles.  The only difference with Blyth was that he was a believer in God and believed that God created original kinds and that all modern species descended from those kinds, and that natural selection acted by conserving rather than originating.  Blyth also believed that man was a separate creation from animals. (Gen.1:27).

wirinet:

Mr OLAADEGBU, what is your problem? You are a theist, who believes your whole life revolves around the worship and study of European Gods, with European personalities, language and culture. Good for you. I am an unapologetic Evolutionist, who just want to survive in the most important place to me - the earth, and in the process perform my evolutionary obligation of leaving some of my Genes behind for prosperity, whatever happens after that, honestly, I DO NOT CARE.

I am not ashamed to be a believer in the Eternal, uncreated, infinite Creator.  But tell me does that mean that the culture, language of the so called European personalities that are your evolutionist heroes are now African?  Since they are not African why do you swallow their conjectures hook, line and sinker?  An apologetic means someone who defends his faith without apologising so can you explain what you mean by being an unapologetic Evolutionist?  I understand what your heroes mean by the theory of "survival of the fittest", but do you know that your so called champion of Evolution, Charles Darwin, is a racist and a male chauvinist who's followers would not hesitate to eliminate the weak Africans so as to survive?  that they believe that Caucasians are more evolved than Africans?  That Hitler and the communist regimes used this same theory of the survival of the fittest to eliminate millions around the world and left millions to die of starvation and disease?  And here you are condemning biblical creationists who teach and believe that God created man equally in His own image.

OLAADEGBU:

My God is not an European God, He is the uncreated Creator of the whole universe and heaven even including you. Does you point not show an example of a pot calling a kettle black or is it calling a dog a bad name so as to hang it. The so called Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein and Plato were not particularly Africans,no? If not why do you follow their convoluted theories because they are Europeans or Jews? At least Albert Einstein was wise enough to acknowledge that he was trying to follow God's thoughts in creation after Him, while Plato rightly predicted that "if ever a righteous person ever lived that he will be crucified", but Charles Darwin has been found out to be a fraud.

He never apologised nor gave credit to several other people who formulated the theory of natural selection, especially a creationist by the name Edward Blyth who published several articles describing the process of natural selection in Magazine of Natural History between 1835 and 1837 which was a full 22 years before Darwin published his book On the Origin of Species. It was also discovered that Darwin had copies of the magazines he plagiarized and that part of his book are nearly copied verbatim from Blyth's articles. The only difference with Blyth was that he was a believer in God and believed that God created original kinds and that all modern species descended from those kinds, and that natural selection acted by conserving rather than originating. Blyth also believed that man was a separate creation from animals. (Gen.1:27).

I am not ashamed to be a believer in the Eternal, uncreated, infinite Creator. But tell me does that mean that the culture, language and so called European personalities of your evolutionist heroes are now African? Since they are not African why do you swallow their conjectures hook, line and sinker? An apologetic means someone who defends his faith without apologising so can you explain what you mean by being an unapologetic Evolutionist? I understand what your heroes mean by survival of the fittest, but do you know that your so called champion of Evolution, Charles Darwin, is a racist and a male chauvinist who's followers would not hesitate to eliminate the weak Africans so as to survive? that they believe that Caucasians are more evolved than Africans? That Hitler and the communist regimes used this same theory of the survival of the fittest to eliminate millions around the world? And here you are condemning biblical creationists who teach and believe that God created man equally in His own image.

This level of bone-skull ignorance is actually dangerous in civilised society. I can only put this down to the reasoning faculty having been damaged by religious indoctrination. If you think my accusations are unjustified answer this one question:

1) Why are there no fossils of rabbit in the pre-cambrians?

I will retract my accusation unreservedly if you so much as come close to a theory that answers the question.

OLAADEGBU,

Why i affirm that i am an apologetic Evolutionist is because being an african from a very unscientific backgroung (we only know how to consume the benefit of science without believing in the science itself), in a society that believes epilepsy and madness is caused by evil spirits and can only be cured by consulting the most powerful Gods (European or African), To hold an Evolutionary point of view publicly is worse that telling everyone you are HIV positive.

Now I did not become an evolutionary by someone forcing the concept on me, no body convinced me, I can to that realization after decades of study of variuos scientific desciplines of Astronomy, Antropology, paleontology, molecular biology, and even fundermental physics. I know understand the way the universe works, and it does not need a human like figure, using hebrew words or even Arabic to make it work.

Even if Charles darwin was not the original postulator of the theory of natural selection (just as Bill Gates was not the original creator of the DOS operating system, which became windows, we own him a lot for bringing it into the academia and popularising it.

Yes Mr OLAADEGBU, your God is European in Nature, if not then give me a list of his attributes, his looks, his colour, his language, the even his son is white. Just as the moslems worship an Arabian God.

Please i do not swallow any persons theory hook line and sinker, there are many alternating theories and I reject the ones i do not agree with. Even the great Einstein was wrong when dismising the Quantum Theory matter, which was propergated by Max Planck. But i now in the area of Relativity, einstein is 100% right.

Yes darwin can be a racist, that does not diminish from his theories, he may even be gay for as far as i am concerned. The greatest racing ever is Your God and his followers, who ordered people to be killed based on their beliefs or race. How do you expect the Arabs to worship him when your God had discriminated against them though out the jewish history. Hes slaughters the Palestines at the slightest provacation to protect his chosen people. Who is more racist

huxley:

This level of bone-skull ignorance is actually dangerous in civilised society. I can only put this down to the reasoning faculty having been damaged by religious indoctrination.

There you go again, the evolutionists tactics of diverting attention from addressing the questions at hand, especially when they have no clues.  Resorting to name-calling and attacking the person instead of the argument.  I am not surprised, since your religion of humanism does not subscribe to any moral absolutes, it is therefore no wonder why the use of ridicule and ad hominems to an evolutionist are like the use of water to a fish.  The difference with biblical creationists is that we have a God who was present to observe the creation of His works and who has given a recorded account of how it was done and He has handed this record, that is, the big picture over to those who will believe Him to have the revelation knowledge of these.  He has also given us the decalogue as His standard of moral living that guides us by by His grace.  He has not only cleansed me by His Words but has also washed my heart by His blood in order to have fellowship, communion, connection and a relationship with Him.

huxley:

If you think my accusations are unjustified answer this one question:

1) Why are there no fossils of rabbit in the pre-cambrians?

I will retract my accusation unreservedly if you so much as come close to a theory that answers the question.

This is another diversionary tactic, that prevents you from answering my questions, starting from the first post of this thread.  Instead of you attempting to answer the myriads of questions that I have posted all you do is to attack the person asking the question and to ask your own question with the intention of diverting the issue at hand.

If you want me to answer your question, since you have asked this same question on two different ocassions you will first of all answer this simple question.  Are dinosaurs extinct?  A yes or no will do.

For his time Darwin was quite advance in the way he viewed the human "races", even more so that many of the theologians of his generation.  He was strongly opposed to the slave trade and showed great respect when dealing with Africans.  In fact, he writes fondly of an African taxidermist in Scotland that he had the pleasure of meeting.   This article gives a thorough exposition of Darwin's position.

I think compared to today, the standard of behaviour have advanced, but Darwin personally was well advanced for his time.

I agree, whatever his private beliefs, politics, etc were, none of these are determinants on the truth or otherwise of the theory of evolution by natural selection.



=============================================================================


Darwin's Views on Slavery and Africans
Slavery existed long before Darwin, and America's race based slave system was well entrenched before Darwin was even born. Darwin was a member of several abolitionist organizations and he wrote frequently about the injustices of slavery. Darwin also defended the intelligence of Africans and other non-whites on several occasions.

I will not even allude to the many heart-sickening atrocities which I authentically heard of; -- nor would I have mentioned the above revolting details, had I not met with several people, so blinded by the constitutional gaiety of the negro as to speak of slavery as a tolerable evil. Such people have generally visited at the houses of the upper classes, where the domestic slaves are usually well treated, and they have not, like myself, lived amongst the lower classes. Such inquirers will ask slaves about their condition; they forget that the slave must indeed be dull, who does not calculate on the chance of his answer reaching his master's ears.

,

It is often attempted to palliate slavery by comparing the state of slaves with our poorer countrymen: if the misery of our poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin; but how this bears on slavery, I cannot see; as well might the use of the thumb-screw be defended in one land, by showing that men in another land suffered from some dreadful disease. Those who look tenderly at the slave owner, and with a cold heart at the slave, never seem to put themselves into the position of the latter; what a cheerless prospect, with not even a hope of change! picture to yourself the chance, ever hanging over you, of your wife and your little children -- those objects which nature urges even the slave to call his own -- being torn from you and sold like beasts to the first bidder! And these deeds are done and palliated by men, who profess to love their neighbours as themselves, who believe in God, and pray that his Will be done on earth! It makes one's blood boil, yet heart tremble, to think that we Englishmen and our American descendants, with their boastful cry of liberty, have been and are so guilty:
- The Voyage of the Beagle; Charles Darwin, 1839

In a letter to Thomas Wentworth Higginson, who formed and led the first black regiment in the American Civil War, Darwin wrote:

My wife has just finished reading aloud your 'Life with a Black Regiment,' and you must allow me to thank you heartily for the very great pleasure which it has in many ways given us. I always thought well of the negroes, from the little which I have seen of them; and I have been delighted to have my vague impressions confirmed, and their character and mental powers so ably discussed. When you were here I did not know of the noble position which you had filled. I had formerly read about the black regiments, but failed to connect your name with your admirable undertaking. Although we enjoyed greatly your visit to Down, my wife and myself have over and over again regretted that we did not know about the black regiment, as we should have greatly liked to have heard a little about the South from your own lips.

Your descriptions have vividly recalled walks taken forty years ago in Brazil. We have your collected Essays, which were kindly sent us by Mr. Conway, but have not yet had time to read them. I occasionally glean a little news of you in the 'Index'; and within the last hour have read an interesting article of yours on the progress of Free Thought.
- Letter from Darwin to Thomas Higginson,  February 27, 1873

While on the voyage of the HMS Beagle Darwin wrote:

I was told before leaving England that after living in slave countries all my opinions would be altered; the only alteration I am aware of is forming a much higher estimate of the negro character. It is impossible to see a negro and not feel kindly towards him; such cheerful, open, honest expressions and such fine muscular bodies. I never saw any of the diminutive Portuguese, with their murderous countenances, without almost wishing for Brazil to follow the example of Haiti; and, considering the enormous healthy-looking black population, it will be wonderful if, at some future day, it does not take place.
- Letter from Darwin to J.S. Henslo, March 1834

In Haiti the African slaves rebelled and formed their own democratic government in 1803. For Darwin to have endorsed the idea of negro slaves rebelling and taking control of countries is quite extraordinary and was definitely an extreme minority position among Europeans.

When Darwin was eighteen he recorded his acquaintances with a black man in the UK, whom he had spent time with. His notes were later published in his autobiography.

By the way, a negro lived in Edinburgh, who had travelled with Waterton, and gained his livelihood by stuffing birds, which he did excellently: he gave me lessons for payment, and I used often to sit with him, for he was a very pleasant and intelligent man.
- Charles Darwin; The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, 1887


In the autobiographical chapter of The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Darwin recalled the following about the conflicts that arose during his voyage on the HMS Beagle over the issue of slavery.

Fitz-Roy's temper was a most unfortunate one. It was usually worst in the early morning, and with his eagle eye he could generally detect something amiss about the ship, and was then unsparing in his blame. He was very kind to me, but was a man very difficult to live with on the intimate terms which necessarily followed from our messing by ourselves in the same cabin. We had several quarrels; for instance, early in the voyage at Bahia, in Brazil, he defended and praised slavery, which I abominated, and told me that he had just visited a great slave-owner, who had called up many of his slaves and asked them whether they were happy, and whether they wished to be free, and all answered "No." I then asked him, perhaps with a sneer, whether he thought that the answer of slaves in the presence of their master was worth anything? This made him excessively angry, and he said that as I doubted his word we could not live any longer together. I thought that I should have been compelled to leave the ship; but as soon as the news spread, which it did quickly, as the captain sent for the first lieutenant to assuage his anger by abusing me, I was deeply gratified by receiving an invitation from all the gun-room officers to mess with them. But after a few hours Fitz-Roy showed his usual magnanimity by sending an officer to me with an apology and a request that I would continue to live with him.
- Charles Darwin; The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, 1887

With all of this, however, opponents of evolution would have us believe that Darwin and evolutionary theory are responsible, at least in part, for the racism of the early 20th century. Yet 20th century racism was strongest in America in the South, where evolution was least accepted and barely even taught. The Ku Klux Klan, which reached its height in the 1920s, was both the leading institution of violent racism and also an opponent of evolution.

OLAADEGBU:

There you go again, the evolutionists tactics of diverting attention from addressing the questions at hand, especially when they have no clues. Resorting to name-calling and attacking the person instead of the argument. I am not surprised, since your religion of humanism does not subscribe to any moral absolutes, it is therefore no wonder why the use of ridicule and ad hominems to an evolutionist are like the use of water to a fish. The difference with biblical creationists is that we have a God who was present to observe the creation of His works and who has given a recorded account of how it was done and He has handed this record, that is, the big picture over to those who will believe Him to have the revelation knowledge of these. He has also given us the decalogue as His standard of moral living that guides us by by His grace. He has not only cleansed me by His Words but has also washed my heart by His blood in order to have fellowship, communion, connection and a relationship with Him.

This is another diversionary tactic, that prevents you from answering my questions, starting from the first post of this thread. Instead of you attempting to answer the myriads of questions that I have posted all you do is to attack the person asking the question and to ask your own question with the intention of diverting the issue at hand.

If you want me to answer your question, since you have asked this same question on two different ocassions you will first of all answer this simple question. Are dinosaurs extinct? A yes or no will do.

Yes, ABSOLUTELY, dinosaurs are extinct. (but their descendants live on as birds)

@Huxley: « #83 on: Today at 01:10:01 PM »

For his time Darwin was quite advance in the way he viewed the human "races", even more so that many of the theologians of his generation. He was strongly opposed to the slave trade and showed great respect when dealing with Africans. In fact, he writes fondly of an African taxidermist in Scotland that he had the pleasure of meeting. This article gives a thorough exposition of Darwin's position.

No one says that an atheist could not be humanist. This is what Darwin have exhibited, in the above, by his kindness, and concern especially about the "unprevileged people." Afterall, he sees himself, exactly as another human being. We also agree that he was not a theologian, otherwise, he would have believed in the existence of a Creating God, instead of his evolution hypothesis. I say hypothesis, because no non-creationst has proven it beyond any doubt that things claimed by creationist to have been created by God, came into existence through evolution from another completely different and distinct thing.

And theologians are not always kind people. The difference been the creationist and evolutionist is simple; belief in God Who creates.

I think compared to today, the standard of behaviour have advanced, but Darwin personally was well advanced for his time.

I agree, whatever his private beliefs, politics, etc were, none of these are determinants on the truth or otherwise of the theory of evolution by natural selection.

What makes natural selection possible? If it is nature, then how did nature come about? I mean nature that is relative to the survival of things, that came about in the natural selection of "evolutional ideas," versus how another thing perishes and unable to survive the activities imposed by the sudden and unnaural condition they are exposed?

Finally, if Darwin is well advanced for his time, could we then use the same argument to determine that there are still some ideas, that may occur in Theology, presently, that many, especially the atheists may not be able to understand because they are just "well advance" for this time we are living? There is no doubt that whatever knowledge we have now, however we think of it as the apex of advancement, it is only relative to this time and will not be the apex of knowledge of the well distance future.

In 2000 years to the future for example, the present day knowledge may be compared to what was elementary school knowledge of the 1950s.

I was told last night about Dr. Jeffry Lang's google/Youtube video about his leaving atheism for Islam. I think you need to watch it, under the video title; Math Professor Muslim. For me it is an interesting piece.

When I said that your philosophy is based on the shakeable human ideology you would not agree.  The idea of creation or evolution by developmental stages was taken from one Ernst Haeckel who was a fraudster and dubious so called evolutionist.  He taught that the development of an organism (its ontogeny) repeats or recapitulates the evolutionary history of its ancestors (its phylogeny).  In other words he fraudulently taught that ontogeny recapitulates (begets) phylogeny.

Ernst Haeckel who was a disciple of Darwin made the gullibles to believe that the development of a vertebrate embryo in its mothers' womb would be like watching an animated cartoon in which you would see it move along as it passes through the various adult forms of its ancestors in the sequence in which they had evolved.  This conjecture was exposed as a fraud by Dr. Wilhem His, Sr., who was a professor of anatomy at the university of Leipzig and a world famous comparative embryologist.  http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=29

Ernest Haeckel assertions has nothing to do with my statements on the fact that the human physical body was created by evolutionary process spanning millions of years. You always quote scientists that believe what you believe and yet non of those scientists that you quote can produce a single peer reviewed paper on a scientific journal, even one with the lowest impact factor. This is because their assertions will not survive the scientific rigor of peer review. A belief that the human body did not come about by the process of evolution has no scientific basis. Articles in newspapers, religious magazines or assertions on crusade grounds are not science but opinions and indeed any person is entitled to his or her opinion. I do not know your background but if you have some basic training in genetics and evolutionary biology, I can forward you a series of top quality scientific papers in support of the my assertion that the human body (not the soul or spirit) originated from common decent.

m_nwankwo, if this is what you pitch your faith or knowledge on I will like to inform you that you have been duped.  God created heaven and earth in six literal days and has inbuilt within each living organism to produce after its own kind, and if need be He has spare parts in Heaven by which He can recreate what has been destroyed all to the glory of God.  If you care to know, since you do not believe in the Bible, Jesus performed creative miracles during His earthly ministry such as creating eyes to a man that was born blind, He turned water into wine, multiplied two loaves of bread and five fish to feed 5 and 7 thousand people respectively.  He did not have to wait millions of years for these to mature for use, they all happened instantly.  This is an evidence that as the Father is working, Jesus is working and the Holy Spirit is still working even now.  I can testify of the creative miracles that happen in my bible believing church as shorter legs have grown out to become normal, those born blind have received their sights, those born deaf and dumb received instantenous recreation of both vocal and hearing organs, and recently a woman who had her womb removed by a surgeon received a brand new womb as she confounded the doctor who performed the operation when she announced to him that she was pregnant and now the skeptic doctor is now a believer since delivered her of a bouncing baby and, I am sure many other bible believing churches can testify of the creative miracles being performed in the name of Jesus Christ all to the glory of God.  

I have clearly stated my position on these matters. Refute them if you can. Let us look at the science of these matters a bit. If you think that the human body did not come about by common decent, kindly offer expalnation for just three points below:

1. That the human chromosome 2 came about as a result of telomeric fusion of two ape chromosomes and the presense of a vestigial centromere in human chromosome 2.

2. The presence of pseudo genes in humans whereas these genes are active and in the same location/orientation in the genome of apes and some other mammals like dogs.

3 Identical retroviral DNA sequences in the genome of human and chimps.

Sometime ago Huxley posted a 2 hours plus video given by Dr. Collins, the leader of the government group that sequenced the human genome. He is a top class scientist and also says that he is a christian. Watch that video. It is a video that all serious seekers for the truth in these matters should watch. The link is shown below:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjJAWuzno9Y

Jesus did not create new eyes. Jesus healed a man born blind. It is indeed strange that you will equate healing a blind man with creating new eyes. Healing a blind man is possible within the laws of God but creating an entirely new eyes is impossible even for the son of God Jesus. To justify your argument Jesus should have created one single person from the dust. He did not do so and if you have evidence to the contrarly, present it. Jesus did not multiply two fish into thousands. It is impossible for such an event to happen. That story was a parable and nothing more. Besides if you think that it is possible for Jesus to create fish, why did the story say that he multiplied two fish, it would indeed be a miracle in you view for Jesus to create thousands of fish from nothing. Healing is within the laws of God and they do happen. Healing and creating are not the same thing. Thus the examples you are given from your local church has nothing to do with creating as you seem to argue. If a shorter leg is strengtened, it is possible and you can see orthopedic surgeons do the same. If people are born blind or deaf and they are healed, that is within the power of God since their is already a prexisting eye or ear in which the power of God can revive and made healthy. It is however impossible to create  a new set of eyes or ears without a living cell serviing as the precursor. Thus it is impossible for God or his son to create the human body or its organs from the dust in an instant. Miracles do happen and it cuts across all religions and beliefs. Any human being who out of unshakable faith in God cry to God for help in a distreess of the body or soul will can be permitted to recieve the power of God. Where such permission are granted, men recieve what they referer to as miracles.

In Luke 24:36-45; John 20:19 you will discover 21 evidences of the bodily resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and as hard as you may try you will not find His body here in the grave.  Even His disciples initially believed it was His spirit that appeared to them but note Jesus' response to their fears in the points given below:

1.  In Lk.24:39 "Behold, My hands and My Feet"
2.  "It is I Myself, not another and a different person"
3.  "Handle Me, and see"
4.  "A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see Me have"
5.  He showed them His hands and His feet (Lk.24:40; Jn.20:20)
6.  He took fish and honeycomb and did eat before them.  Lk.24:41-43)
7.  He is risen (Mt.28:6-7; Mark16:6).  What is risen?  It could not be His soul and spirit for they did  not die.  They went to into hell to preach and carry on work (Ps.16:10; Lk.23:43; Eph.4:8-10; 1 Pet.3:19; Heb.2:14-15).  His body is the only thing that died (Jas.2:26) and the only thing that could have resurrected (Lk.24:39; Zech.13:6; Acts.1:11)
8.  They held Him by the feet (Matt.28:9; Lk.24:39:-40)
9.  They saw Him (Matt.28:17; Jn.20:19-20)
10.  They found not the body (Lk.24:3,23).  Why couldn't they find the body?  Because it was resurrected (Lk.24:39:-43)
11.  Why seek you the living (body) among the dead bodies (Lk.24:5-6;Jas.2:26)?  Did they go to the tomb looking for a spirit to embalm, or was it the body they sought?  Then it was the body that was risen from the dead, a glorified body at that.
12.  Jesus Himself drew near. . . He sat at meat with them . . . they knew Him (Lk.24:15, 30-31)
13.  Angels said He was alive (Lk.24:23; Matt.28:6-7; Mk.16:6)
14.  Jesus Himself stood in the midst of them (Lk.24:36; Jn.20:19).  What was it that stood in their midst?  They thought it was a spirit (Lk.24:37), but Jesus assured them that it was not a spirit.  It was His own body that had been with them for years (Lk.24:39-43)
15.  It behoved Christ to be crucified, and to rise from the dead (Lk.24:46).  What was it that was crucified?  The same thing that rose from the dead.
16.  He lifted up His hands. . . He was parted from them, and carried into heaven (Lk.24:50-51).  Whose hands were these?  Where they the hands of a spirit?  What was it that was separated from them and taken to heaven?  If it was not a spirit, as He said (Lk.24:37-43), then it was His body.
17.  They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre. . . For as yet they knew not the scripture, that He must rise from the dead (Jn. 20:2,9).  The missing body made no less than 12 appearances to hundred of witnessess.  It was not taken away.  It was resurrected and is alive today at the right hand of God (Mk.16:19; Acts.2:33; Rom. 8:34; Heb.1:3; 12:2)
18.  "Except I shall see in His hands the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into His side.  I will not believe".  Thomas had the opportunity eight days later, as an evidence that the body of Jesus was literally resurrected (Jn.20:25-29; Lk.24:37-43).
19.  In all resurrections the bodies were made alive again, not the souls (1 Kgs.17:17-24).  To argue that Christ's body is the only one never to be resurrected is extreme rebellion, for many scriptures say it was raised (Acts.2:31; 4:33; Rom.1:4; 1 Pet.3:21).
20.  One shall say unto Him in eternity, "what are these wounds in thine hands?  Then, He shall answer, Those wounds with which I was wounded in the house of my friends" (Zech.13:6)
21.  He was buried. . . He rose again (1 Cor.15:1-58)

In the scriptures quoted above it is clear that anyone who does not believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ will be eternally lost.  

m_nwankwo, can you now see that your gnostic beliefs has let you down again by spiritualising everything without any evidence in history or science.  It is my prayer that your eyes will be open so that you will be able to comprehend the light of the gospel and that the daystar in your heart would appear.

All that you have cited above do not in anyway refute my assertion that Jesus did not resurrect in a physical body but with a body that is non physical or earthly. I am not a gnostic. I draw my spiritual assertions from the Grail Message.  Jesus resurrected in an ethereal body and that body looks like the physical body and have all the wound marks that is in his physical body. You can also be given explanations on how and why the wound marks were on the ethereal body of Jesus. Stay blessed.

@M_nwankwo: When I read your assertion that Jesus is son of God, am always amazed by it. Please could you give a good intellectual argument how you arrived at this? I read above how you derided Olaadegbu that his argument is what he heard from his "local Church" which he is passing up as creation, instead of healing.

While I agree with you that there is a difference between creation anew, which is what I as a creationsit believe, even though all created things have a set of commn elements, from which they are created. These common element are mainly soil/earth and water, but each creatd thing have a different formular or composition agregates of each, hence it is no surprise that you will find commonality of elemental compositions between two opposite created things. For example you have persuaded us with your argument that;

1. That the human chromosome 2 came about as a result of telomeric fusion of two ape chromosomes and the presense of a vestigial centromere in human chromosome 2.
2. The presence of pseudo genes in humans whereas these genes are active and in the same location/orientation in the genome of apes and some other mammals like dogs.
3 Identical retroviral DNA sequences in the genome of human and chimps.

Since all of these three above and much more are true, can you then argue that man, Chimp, dog, etc are exactly alike? If you can not, then it may be better for you to look at their unique differences and realise that it is the differences that may point to creation instead of evolution.

One thing I will give you though, unlike the atheist or agnostic, is that you do believe in One God, even though your own god has a son, since you believe that Jesusis his son. My question to you then is this, if Jesus and his father, your god could not create anything, but things evolved anyhow, what is the purpose of either one of them? And do you see a reason for a religion, or obedience to a God and definitely, is there a day of Judgement in your future?

Why do any good, except as a humanist, since you do not see the value for a god, an obedience to this god through a religion and a day of Judgement? What things evolved from, the very original thing that evolution start with, who created it or how did it come to existence, if there is no GOd who created it, in the first place and gave it the evolutionary elemental changes to take place in its right time, if I am to go by your argument?

Finally, my simple observation of your argument against Olaadegbu, even though I am not a christian, and do not believe in a God with a son, rather a God who is uniquely independent and separate from what i call created, and Jesus happen to be a created in my own view, aren't your argument from a local church source, which is hat "Grail Message" is to me? And long time before Grail Message, just as before (Muhammad and Jesus and Moses, (as)), there were knowledge about God, and no knowledge about a son of god. Or can anyone bring out any from Adam or his wife or children?

olabowale:

@M_nwankwo: When I read your assertion that Jesus is son of God, am always amazed by it. Please could you give a good intellectual argument how you arrived at this? I read above how you derided Olaadegbu that his argument is what he heard from his "local Church" which he is passing up as creation, instead of healing.

While I agree with you that there is a difference between creation anew, which is what I as a creationsit believe, even though all created things have a set of commn elements, from which they are created. These common element are mainly soil/earth and water, but each creatd thing have a different formular or composition agregates of each, hence it is no surprise that you will find commonality of elemental compositions between two opposite created things. For example you have persuaded us with your argument that;

1. That the human chromosome 2 came about as a result of telomeric fusion of two ape chromosomes and the presense of a vestigial centromere in human chromosome 2.
2. The presence of pseudo genes in humans whereas these genes are active and in the same location/orientation in the genome of apes and some other mammals like dogs.
3 Identical retroviral DNA sequences in the genome of human and chimps.

Since all of these three above and much more are true, can you then argue that man, Chimp, dog, etc are exactly alike? If you can not, then it may be better for you to look at their unique differences and realise that it is the differences that may point to creation instead of evolution.

One thing I will give you though, unlike the atheist or agnostic, is that you do believe in One God, even though your own god has a son, since you believe that Jesusis his son. My question to you then is this, if Jesus and his father, your god could not create anything, but things evolved anyhow, what is the purpose of either one of them? And do you see a reason for a religion, or obedience to a God and definitely, is there a day of Judgement in your future?

Why do any good, except as a humanist, since you do not see the value for a god, an obedience to this god through a religion and a day of Judgement? What things evolved from, the very original thing that evolution start with, who created it or how did it come to existence, if there is no GOd who created it, in the first place and gave it the evolutionary elemental changes to take place in its right time, if I am to go by your argument?

Finally, my simple observation of your argument against Olaadegbu, even though I am not a christian, and do not believe in a God with a son, rather a God who is uniquely independent and separate from what i call created, and Jesus happen to be a created in my own view, aren't your argument from a local church source, which is hat "Grail Message" is to me? And long time before Grail Message, just as before (Muhammad and Jesus and Moses, (as)), there were knowledge about God, and no knowledge about a son of god. Or can anyone bring out any from Adam or his wife or children?

If you accept those three points as being true, what implication does that have for your understanding of life? Surely it must mean that at some point there were NO humans and that humans and the near descendants are the offsprings of close relatives to chimps.

So your god created the human lineage from common relative of chimps and humans? What else can those three points imply?

The difference been the creationist and evolutionist is simple; belief in God Who creates.

No it isn't.
The difference is that an evolutionist takes a look at scientific evidence and makes a logical assumption.
A Creationist, on the other hand, gets his "evidence" from a Book of Fairytales and then completely defies logic and understanding.

As for proof of evolution? You need to look no further than your own body.
What is a coccyx?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coccyx

In humans and other tailless primates (e.g. great apes) since Nacholapithecus (a Miocene hominoid)[2], the coccyx is the remnant of a vestigial tail

@Olabowale

@M_nwankwo: When I read your assertion that Jesus is son of God, am always amazed by it. Please could you give a good intellectual argument how you arrived at this? I read above how you derided Olaadegbu that his argument is what he heard from his "local Church" which he is passing up as creation, instead of healing.

I believe or rather I know that Jesus is the son of God. In this forum, I have on many threads and some exchanges with you stated why I hold that position. I do not see the reason to repeat myself. Besides their is no " good intellectual argument" that made me to recognise that Jesus is the son of God. I came to that recognition using the the faculties of the spirit. Any human being who genuinely serves God, irrespective of his or her religion will at a point in his or her spiritual development come to the recognition that Jesus is the son of God. I didnot "deride" Olaadegbu assertion. I simply pointed out that all the examples he quoted are not creations but healings and healing and creation are not the same thing.

While I agree with you that there is a difference between creation anew, which is what I as a creationsit believe, even though all created things have a set of commn elements, from which they are created. These common element are mainly soil/earth and water, but each creatd thing have a different formular or composition agregates of each, hence it is no surprise that you will find commonality of elemental compositions between two opposite created things. For example you have persuaded us with your argument that;

1. That the human chromosome 2 came about as a result of telomeric fusion of two ape chromosomes and the presense of a vestigial centromere in human chromosome 2.
2. The presence of pseudo genes in humans whereas these genes are active and in the same location/orientation in the genome of apes and some other mammals like dogs.
3 Identical retroviral DNA sequences in the genome of human and chimps.

Since all of these three above and much more are true, can you then argue that man, Chimp, dog, etc are exactly alike? If you can not, then it may be better for you to look at their unique differences and realise that it is the differences that may point to creation instead of evolution.

If you agree with the three scientific points I raised above, then you have no more reason to dispute that the human body (not the spirit or soul) decended from an ancestor that are phylogenetically related to modern day apes. I have consistently stated that the process of evolution was and is an expression of the will of God in material universes. Thus evolution is not a process dictated by adaptation/selection alone  as some of my fellow biologists may argue but a manifestation of the will of God. It is the laws of God that brought evolution into existence, it is the same laws of God that guides evolution, it is the same laws of God that create the enviroment for adaptation and selection of genes, it is the same laws of God that determine speciation , etc. Science have investigated this matter. However science is unable to investigate the spirit and it is this spirit which is a breath or creation of God that is the missing link. Evolutionary process prepared the body which the spirit can enter during the process of incarnation. The radiation of God or for better understanding the energy from God which resulted in physical matter has cooled off to such an extent that it is not possible for these energy to crytalize into physical forms in an instant, they have to undergo development and part of this development is what scientists refer to as evolution.

One thing I will give you though, unlike the atheist or agnostic, is that you do believe in One God, even though your own god has a son, since you believe that Jesusis his son. My question to you then is this, if Jesus and his father, your god could not create anything, but things evolved anyhow, what is the purpose of either one of them? And do you see a reason for a religion, or obedience to a God and definitely, is there a day of Judgement in your future?

Why do any good, except as a humanist, since you do not see the value for a god, an obedience to this god through a religion and a day of Judgement? What things evolved from, the very original thing that evolution start with, who created it or how did it come to existence, if there is no GOd who created it, in the first place and gave it the evolutionary elemental changes to take place in its right time, if I am to go by your argument?

I never said that Jesus and his Father are incapable of creating. I have only stated that in the material worlds, the energy of God that constitute matter have cooled off that this energy can become forms through development. Matter in its different forms is not a direct creation of God but were subsequently formed following development. The urge for development is an intinsic property of all the priomordial elements from which matter formed. Thus human body, animal bodies, planets, solar systems, galaxies and inded the entire universe formed as a result of union of these primordial elements over millions and billions of years. Thus the material universes and the creatures inhabiting them are after effects of the power of God. Sure the came from the radiation of God but albeit indirectly.


The sole purpose of existence is to recognise the will of God and live according to the will of God. Religion is however not synonymous with the will of God. God created us without a religion but by his words and we can only be saved  by obedience to the words of God. We are in the creation of God to find supreme happiness and radiant joy. The language of God in creation is the will of God. If one wants to know his creator then he or she must understand the language of God and live accordingly. Jesus, the son of God has already summed up the will of his Father when he declared "Love God with all your heart and love your neighbour as yourself". He or she who is able to live according to this supreme commandment will find his way to heaven, the kingdom of God. This commandment is also the irrefutable yardstick to access the right kind of faith in God. If we follow this commandment, we will never hurt our neigbours through words, actions, thoughts, motives etc. The earth will be an earhly replica of heaven where the will of God reigns. Stay blessed.

huxley:

Yes, ABSOLUTELY, dinosaurs are extinct. (but their descendants live on as birds)

Thanks for your answer.  This again says so much about the so called evolutionary theory where the goalpost can be moved to suit their argument.  The fact that they cannot make up their minds as to whether the dinosaur is extinct or not is an example here.

Many evolutionists do not really think dinosaurs are extinct, for instance, in 1997, at the entrance to a bird exhibition at a zoo in Cincinnati, Ohio, it displays a sign stating the following words:

"Dinosaurs went extinct millions of years ago--- or did they?  No, birds are essentially modern short-tailed feathered dinosaurs."

Birds are warm-blooded and reptiles are cold blooded, but evolutionists who believe dinosaurs evolved into birds would like to see dinosaurs as warm-blooded to support the theory of Birdosaurs, whatever that means.  I will give a few quotes of evolutionists who disagree with your theory below:

Dr. Larry Martins, of the univ. of Kansas, "Recent research has shown the microscopic structure of dinosaur bones was characteristic of cold-blooded animals, so we are back to cold-blooded dinosaurs".

- Stieg, Did birds evolve from dinosaurs? The Philadelphia Inquirer, March 1997.

Another concerns research on the embryonic origins of the "fingers" of birds and dinosaurs, shows that birds could not have evolved from dinosaurs.

 - A. Burke and A. Feduccia, Developmental patterns and the identification of homologies in the avian hand, Science[/i]278:1229, 1997.

A study of the so called feathered dinosaur from China revealed that the dinosaur had a distinctively reptilian lung and diaphragm, which is distincly different from the avian lung.

- J. Ruben et al., Lung structure and ventilation in theropod dinosaurs and early birds, [i]Science[b]278:[/b]1267-1270, 1997.

Another report said that the frayed edges that some thought to be "feathers" on the Chinese fossil are similar to the collagen fibres found immediately beneath the skin of sea snakes.

- A. Gibbons, Plucking the feathered dinosaur, Science[b]278:[/b]1229,1997.

I quoted all these to say that there is no credible evidence to proof that dinosaurs evolved into birds, Dinosaurs have always been dinosaurs and birds have always been birds.  The belief that reptiles or dinosaurs evolved into birds requires reptilian scales on the way to becoming feathers, that is, transitional scales, not fully formed feathers.  

Therefore, the similarities placed in creatures shows the hand of the One true Creator God who made everything. The book of Genesis is clear that God didn't make birds from pre-existing dinosaurs. Dinosaurs which was a land animal was created on Day 6 and came after winged creatures made on Day 5, according to the Bible. Both biblically and scientifically, chicken eaters globally can rest easy because they are not eating mutant dinosaurs.

God willing and as time permits I will attempt to answer your question as best as I can.

@Huxley: « #88 on: Yesterday at 04:12:59 PM »

If you accept those three points as being true, what implication does that have for your understanding of life? Surely it must mean that at some point there were NO humans and that humans and the near descendants are the offsprings of close relatives to chimps.

Your argument is half true. There was a time that there was no human. Thats what creationist believes. Afterall, to be created in this case means that at a time before that, what is created was not in existence. Again, my understanding of life, since I am a creationist, I do accept that all things have a common elements from which each is created from. But they are created, essentially unique and independently from one another.

So even though all things are made of water and earth, that does not mean that each evolves from any other. So a greasely bear is not from black bear, or brown bear or polar bear!

So human is not from Chimp or dog! God craeted each in their uniqueness. Its like a line of different polymers. They are not derivitives from each other. They have different qualities, etc and their may be overlapping infinitesimal commonalities, but they are independent of each other, on the whole. God, the Creator shows His Unique Power here in the way He creates.

So your god created the human lineage from common relative of chimps and humans? What else can those three points imply?

No. You assumption is wrong. The three points imply not what you assume, but that they have common Creator. Thats the major point. A minor point is that the created things have a common material(s) from which they are uniquely made from; earth and water.

@M_nwankwo: « #90 on: Yesterday at 08:44:51 PM »

@Olabowale
If you agree with the three scientific points I raised above, then you have no more reason to dispute that the human body (not the spirit or soul) decended from an ancestor that are phylogenetically related to modern day apes. I have consistently stated that the process of evolution was and is an expression of the will of God in material universes. Thus evolution is not a process dictated by adaptation/selection alone as some of my fellow biologists may argue but a manifestation of the will of God. It is the laws of God that brought evolution into existence, it is the same laws of God that guides evolution, it is the same laws of God that create the enviroment for adaptation and selection of genes, it is the same laws of God that determine speciation , etc. Science have investigated this matter.

Is it possible that science could be wrong in its assumption that only evolution is at play, and not creation, when it comes to the physical composition of say man? You have gracefully admitted that science is immature in its present splendor to us any understanding of spirit/soul. I will therefore take the position that the knowledge of science, today points to immaturity, hence a good number of scientists cling to evolution.

Thank God that it is not all scientists in this camp of evolution concept. We must also recognize that God has more knowledge, and His knowledge is absolute and superior than humans. God said that He creates. I wonder how then that you argue about this statement of god about Himself, while you claim that you believe in His existence? You must either not believe that He exists, or you do not believe His, which is the only reason you believe in evolution, a concept that has not been proven with complete certainty by "mere humans!"

However science is unable to investigate the spirit and it is this spirit which is a breath or creation of God that is the missing link. Evolutionary process prepared the body which the spirit can enter during the process of incarnation. The radiation of God or for better understanding the energy from God which resulted in physical matter has cooled off to such an extent that it is not possible for these energy to crytalize into physical forms in an instant, they have to undergo development and part of this development is what scientists refer to as evolution.

You tend to limit the power of God to only a time, in the past. You seem to believe that God does not have a significant power, even today. This is not the God that I worship, as a muslim. God is always powerful and humans are limited in knowledge of God, and all that He creates. Scientists are still discovering things on this earth of ours. There will always, till the end of time things to learn, otherwise, knowledge would have been complete and nothing to learn, at all.

Incarnation? I will not comment on this.




[Quote]
I never said that Jesus and his Father are incapable of creating. I have only stated that in the material worlds, the energy of God that constitute matter have cooled off that this energy can become forms through development. Matter in its different forms is not a direct creation of God but were subsequently formed following development. The urge for development is an intinsic property of all the priomordial elements from which matter formed. Thus human body, animal bodies, planets, solar systems, galaxies and inded the entire universe formed as a result of union of these primordial elements over millions and billions of years. Thus the material universes and the creatures inhabiting them are after effects of the power of God. Sure the came from the radiation of God but albeit indirectly.


The sole purpose of existence is to recognise the will of God and live according to the will of God. Religion is however not synonymous with the will of God. God created us without a religion but by his words and we can only be saved by obedience to the words of God. We are in the creation of God to find supreme happiness and radiant joy. The language of God in creation is the will of God. If one wants to know his creator then he or she must understand the language of God and live accordingly.
[/quote]

What is the purpose of being saved, since if you remember there is no punishment, no hellfire? What are you going to be saved from?

Jesus, the son of God has already summed up the will of his Father when he declared "Love God with all your heart and love your neighbour as yourself". He or she who is able to live according to this supreme commandment will find his way to heaven, the kingdom of God. This commandment is also the irrefutable yardstick to access the right kind of faith in God. If we follow this commandment, we will never hurt our neigbours through words, actions, thoughts, motives etc. The earth will be an earhly replica of heaven where the will of God reigns. Stay blessed.

The will of God reigns on this earth right now. God has given every man the will to be goood or otherwise. To obey and worship Him, or otherwies. Is there a need for a awesome to have a son? Who is the wife of God? I know who the mother of Jesus was; Mary, both of them are humans. God declares that He is Unique in every way. He has no parents and He is not a parent of any.

@Bastage: « #89 on: Yesterday at 07:11:58 PM »

Quote
The difference been the creationist and evolutionist is simple; belief in God Who creates.

No it isn't.
The difference is that an evolutionist takes a look at scientific evidence and makes a logical assumption.
A Creationist, on the other hand, gets his "evidence" from a Book of Fairytales and then completely defies logic and understanding.

You need to read the Qur'an where God the Almighty said He created mankind. Then He puts forward scientific statement about creation: "and We bring everything out of water." For a man with good thinking, and great knowledge there should be reflection about the fact that everything contain some amount of water.

No wonder you might have felt that you are related to fish; thats a poor man thinking. Low mentality. Unlike the creationist.

@Huxley, wirinet and other disciples of Charles Darwin.

Below are some of the tell tale stories that make up the evolutionary theory, which is a combination of Charles Darwin's beliefs and that of his followers.

On racism, male chauvinism and evolution:

Evolutionists make up pretty stories to try and make their theories sound plausible. Here is one example from Charles Darwin’s own writings in an early edition of The Origin of Species, 1859, p. 184. This section was removed from later editions after Darwin was criticized by his fellow evolutionists for obvious reasons:

“In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely opened mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.”

Such stories were also contrived by Charles Darwin and Thomas Huxley to promote their views in favour of white supremacy, in support of human racism and in justification of their chauvinistic sexism. In The Descent of Man, 2nd ed., New York; A. L. Burt Co., 1874, p. 178, Darwin wrote:

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”

   

On page 326, he continued:

“It is generally admitted that with women the powers of intuition, of rapid perception, and perhaps of imitation, are more strongly marked than in man; but some, at least, of these faculties are characteristic of the lower races, and therefore of a past and lower state of civilization. The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by man attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than woman can attain—whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands.”

 

In echoing Darwin’s sentiments recorded above, Thomas Huxley wrote in his Lay Sermons, Addresses, and Reviews, New York: Appleton, 1871 p. 20:

“No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man.  And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathous relative has a fair field and no favor, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried on by thoughts and not by bites.”

 

Henry Fairfield Osborn was a disciple of Thomas Huxley.  He would eventually become the President of the American Museum of Natural History’s Board of Trustees from 1908 to 1933.  He would continue to strongly promote the evolutionary theories and the racism of his mentor.  In an article in the Museum’s own magazine, ("The Evolution of Human Races," Natural History, April 1980, p. 129--reprinted from January/February 1926 issue) he wrote:

“The Negroid stock is even more ancient than the Caucasian and Mongolians, as may be proved by an examination not only of the brain, of the hair, of the bodily characteristics ,  but of the instincts, the intelligence. The standard of intelligence of the average adult Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year-old-youth of the species Homo sapiens.”

And to see that my fellow black Africans and women in general will throw common sense overboard and swallow these theories hook, line and "stinker" to the extent that they even name their own children after them and applaud them as the best minds since sliced bread is amazing.