[theunify]

I suppose once you put your mind to creation, its hard to let go of the possibility that evolution is a tad wrong, and vice versa, once you accept evolution it's hard to accept creation, I studied evolution like most of us here at TOequest, but I also believe in creation.

I think I believe in creation because, evolutionists are soo convinced they are right, that makes me think they are wrong or at least, wrong in thinking they are 100% right. I'd rather believe in a theory that allows for a God than a theory that doesn't, simply because it makes more sense for a complex Universe such as ours to be explained by a theory that encompasses "spiritual" rather than "physical", what is so logical about the big-bang, is that not a spiritual? process when we seperate it from the fact that rationalization is not the be all end all?? therefore which way do you lean...

A. Do you believe in evolution, i.e. would you put ur life on it being 100% correct?

B. Do you believe the world was created by God and could very well have only existed for 2000+ years in the hopes that evolution is not 100%correct.

[theunify]

Please Respond Here

[Lloyd Gillespie]

TU, define the one as an absolute one single entity, with no two entity parts or two entity actions, existing as the one, and you'll quickly see why all foolish "god" theories are impossible of existing... One is absolutely impossible of existing as any kind of "absolute one action/being entity"___Period...! Think about it___If you have one piece of matter, it can't move, as that's two. If you have one motion, it can't exist, as it can't have matter, as that's two___motion and matter. No matter what the one is, it absolutely must be a minimum of two, to have any true identity, or motion/action, and really it requires a minimum of three, to mechanically function as any sensible type of universal foundation___i.e., thermal/matter/motion... So, you show me your "One god", that exists/works as more than one, when only one, and I may even buy such nonsense, of impossible gods...

Lloyd

[ThirdWorld]

So, you show me your "One god", that exists/works as more than one, when only one, and I may even buy such nonsense, of impossible gods...

*** The "One God" that I believe in comes in 'parts' if you will: in Jn. 1:1 it says "the Word was with God and the Word was God".

It is so translated in my view because it could not be put in a form that was more elegant. The verse actually means that the Word was 'of God' like a 'part of God'. If you say 'of God', however, that might be misunderstood to mean 'a possession of God' in the way for example your shoes are yours.

But the 'of God' really means 'part of God' as your foot is to you and not as your shoes are to you. I hope you can understand this simple example that I use to explain the concept of God comprising "parts" and is therefore not 'monolithic' as you may be thinking we affirm that he is.

Further the parts that God are made of are not foot and hands etc but his parts are Omniscience, Omnipotence and Life [which is omnipresent].

Omniscience as the name implies means all intelligent and this is the Mind that conceptualized all the universe but I say respectfully he could by himself do no more.

Omnipotence means all powerful or Infinite Energy and this is the Word of power by which God created all the worlds/ universe. My TOE requires that the infinite energy particle is the Word of God himself and this energy, along with Time and Space is what comprises the entire physical universe.

The Life principle in my view is the Holy Ghost who is neither intelligence nor power but is forever linked to these two in a one God.

I think I have said enough, no need now to explain that Time, and Space are the created 'things' of the universe and are not God but are in my view only CONCEPTS subtended by the Omniscient mind of God.

So I'll Leave it here for now.


Roger

[everymansmedium]

Hello
I could not click on either of your choices as they are worded.

I think that evolution is a tool in the hands of the intelligent creator. The only point in time for the creation is NOW. It is as a continued process of creation at every point that there is life. All life is one single organism and that single organism is the image of the divine force. We are created within this image. We eat of the body and drink of the blood of the image of the divine force. This force has been trying to pass on this information since the begining of life. The information is in every religion and every country and every man woman and child in this world now previosly and in time to come. We all have our piece of this great puzzel.
John

[sillysally]

Is the basis of creation one god? I don't believe that because life is currently a collective effort. It takes 2 people to make at least one, but if it only takes one person to make one person, then possibly and I have my own idea on that in the virgin birth thread on the religion forum but that idea is based on millenniums of myth. Is there something else besides creation or evolution? Can anyone think of something else? If we are only stuck between the 2 then it is one or the other. But if it was just a one god effort, then it will only be one to one, and not 2 to 1 to make a person. 1:1 sounds more efficient, 2:1 takes more effort, so something did change along the lines and there were other gods and religions before the Judaism god. I didn't vote because the choices are too narrow, even though there will only be one answer but since it's a collective effort, then there has to be more than one. Even Genesis, god made adam but when the killing son was sent away, he went to a village of other people and adam and eve only had 2 kids at first. So what god created those others because it certainly couldnt have been the adam and eve god. And who's to say they were all bad people? Isn't it a fact in history that the winner of an event only tells his side of the story?

Is intelligent design a third attempt at explanation or is it the same as creationism?

[ThirdWorld]

Even Genesis, god made adam but when the killing son was sent away, he went to a village of other people and adam and eve only had 2 kids at first

*** Not quite true, Adam and Eve evidently also had girl children at that time so Cain married his sister which was the done thing in those days.

Roger

[sillysally]

Originally Posted by ThirdWorld *** Not quite true, Adam and Eve evidently also had girl children at that time so Cain married his sister which was the done thing in those days. Roger

That's one of the only surviving books in my house but I haven't read it in a while. Thanks, I knew they had more but the first 2 were the only ones I remembered.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

If you had seen the movie, "The Savage Is Loose", by G.C.Scott, Trish Vandevere and Johnny Carson's son, in the seventies, you'd have seen the truth of Genesis on the big screen. Adam and Eve had two sons, Cain slew Abel, and was banished to the woods, where he met his wife and "knew her." His wife was his mother. The bible starts in incest, as the movie clearly depicted. Of course there is the other Genesis book of Adam and Lillith, depicting the many children's veiw, of sisters, too...

Lloyd

[N0B0DY]

It has also been hypothesized that Adam and Eve were genetic experiments, which would mesh with a lord walking in a garden and needing to stitch up Adam. It would also mesh as a history repeating itself, something like the genetic experiments being worked on today. Then perhaps there were more clones walking the earth than previously considered, with enough to start a few races without incestuous relations.