The Ark is in a crate somewhere in a US Government storage unit

One key question about fish that can survive out of water. How long can they do it? Long enough to reproduce? If they can, how do the young survive, searching for food? And speaking of young, how are fish young born? The problems is that evolution only see part of the process. Never has anyone supporting evolution gotten the full picture of what happens. When fish are born, their eggs hatch underwater. When does the transition from laying eggs underwater to laying them on land occur? There are so many questions evolution leaves out or doesn't answer.

And the whole thing about Punctuated Equlibrium sounds like a depserate answer to address these questions. Even if evolution had the science to back it up, where is the science behind Punctuated Equlibrium. Where was the 'great discovery' and when was it made? I've never heard of it. When I heard about Punctuated Equilirium, the first thing was a evolutionists (I believe Dawkins) opinion on how to address the issues creationists were bringing up. Simple translations when you really think about it: just like Heckel's embryo drawings, they were made up.

Does evolution require a greater miracle than creation? That's debatable. Nothing becomes something through random chance, probability, and billions of years, vs nothing becomes something through a spoken word. Both require miracles well beyond anything this world could ever comprehend. But I will says it takes a level of faith far greater to believe in evolution than it does in a creation.

Punctuated Equilibrium was coined by Stephen J Gould. Dawkins does not believe in it. Not because it posits some sort of super-fast, quicker than usual Natural Selection that speciates in one or two generations; it doesn't, speciation still takes place over [tens of] thousands of years. Nor is it like Lamarckism which posits that species pass on non-genetic traits they acquire during their lifetime.

No, Dawkins and Gould both believe that Natural Selection is the Primary Process that "advances" Evolution. Gould, however, also thinks that principles of Chaos Theory are at work, and that rapid environmental changes affect the speciation process. This is Punctuaterd Equilibrium and it makes a lot of sense to me .

Dawkins' main beef with it seems to be that he doesn't see the distinction. As far as he's concerned, Natural Selection (under Punctuated Equilibrium) still takes many thousands of years so what's the difference? He also seems to have a personal gripe with Gould that Gould is just trying to make a name for himself .

The arguments are as fierce as any between Evolutionists and Creationists. There is an excellent book called The Evolutionists detailing these raging debates. I highly recommend it for a greater understanding of what Natural Selection and Evolution actually are saying.

As Punctuated Equilibrium is Chaos Theory applied to Biology, I think it also reveals a Sentience at work in the Universe (Gould himself is not so likely to cop to this). But Chaos Theory posits something called The Self-Organizing Principle, and demonstrates that many "non-living" processes have a lot of characteristics of living organisms.

That sounds like Sentience to me, no matter how you slice it .

GB

PS: Fencer, Evolution doesn't leave those things out. Most of your questions are answered in textbooks .

GAAAA! This electronic monster constantly torments me! I have my response all ready only for it to all be erased because I look for verification! I could throw it into the deepest part of the swamp, but then my family would not let me back in the wigwam.

Alright, I will try again, but it's condensed.

GB I think you need to look up the definition of miracle.
But sense we cannot come to a common ground on the science that supports Genisis I can see no reason to go further.

Wagga, thanks for the suggestion about the browsers, but as you see I have enough trouble with this thing.

Thanks also for the refresher on male/female genetics. However you did not cover why no other races in malaria prone regions have no similar traits. As would be expected if the enviroment played such a role in our genetic development. Also, the two genetic diseases you mention, while race specific, have no "side benifit" as syckle-cell does.

A possible side topic for the future might be a discussion on the breakdown of the human genes, and what causes it. But unfortunatly someone might misread it as condoning racism.

Do you really want to get into archeology? Are you wondering how an estimated one million people, ( by some accounts ), could leave hardly any trace in the deasert? May I suggest a quick look at the Bedouin? These people can move from one point to another and you could hardly know they were there after a few days. Rarely will you find anything discarded, all is used literally til it useless.
About the only thing that they have that could be called permanant is an occasional well.
The Ark of the Covanant? A few possibilities that come to mind,
-It was destroyed when the Temple was (2nd Kings 25:8-10)
-It was carried away, and simply forgotten in time among the other booty taken in conquest.
-It was hidden by the preists beforhand.
-God took it away by way of mirical to heaven, to await His Son's return, (Revelation 11:19).
Best I can do right now. Personally, God knows, and that's fine for now.
Now, lets see if this thing works.

Puddleglum:
GB I think you need to look up the definition of miracle.
But sense we cannot come to a common ground on the science that supports Genisis I can see no reason to go further.

Fair enough Puddleglum .

But on the point about Miracles, perhaps I should have used quotation marks, though I think there is room for both a nuanced and a broader view of the Miraculous as well as a Metaphoric usage of the term. In the narrow sense, Miracle refers to a "Supernatural" event that defies the laws of Nature, ostensibly directed by a Deity or Deities or some such "Supernatural" (i.e. outside of Nature or Transcendent) Force.

However, I think some of the distinctions between Nature (the Material) and Transcendence are rather arbitrary, and that there is no clear cut dividing line. Both must necessarily exist in relationship with the other. And how we define that relationship is largely a matter of perspective.

From my perspective(s), Nature and Transcendence are both part of a Whole. And I also define "Existence" on any level as natural (with a small n). If it exists at all, it can be said to be natural, even if not necessarily "material". Thus the "Miraculous" can also be said to be natural.

So for me, I see it as "Miraculous" that anything even exists at all, either Material or Transcendent.

Peace and Long Life

Gandalf's Beard

So for me, I see it as "Miraculous" that anything even exists at all, either Material or Transcendent.

Very good point, and one in which I agree with wholeheartedly.

Diverging ever so gently from the current topic/s I've been recently trying to wrap my brain around the concept of the Trinity, that is the Godhead formed by God the Father, Christ the Son, and the Holy Ghost. From everything I can determine and have read about Christ and the Holy Ghost are subservient to God the Father, however the Three are One, which kind of throws me for a loop. The Holy Ghost seems to be in Spirit form, although He can manifest into physical form, such as the Dove at Christ's baptism. God the Father and Christ are both Physical Beings (as far as I have read)...but They are both the Same Person. God is usually depicted as sitting on His throne in Heaven, although He has been on Earth before at Eden, where He walked with Adam and Eve. But Christ appears to have always been...I'm not sure how to word this...mobile. However They're both in the same place at the same time. I think. I have been really struggling with trying to conceptualize this and I'm having a great deal of difficulty with it and was wondering if anyone might have any answers here they could posit that might explain in terms I can figure out. I guess what I'm trying to figure out is when on the New Heaven and New Earth when I stand in God's court at the New Jerusalem and looking at God, and Christ is standing right beside me...will I be looking at Christ or God the Father? See my dilemma here? I mean They're all One but They're still three Separate Entities at the same time, yes?

I've sort of a rudimentary theory here I've come up with but I'm not sure it's 100% on the money. Let's say that the Godhead makes a Body, like yours or mine. God the Father would be, say, like the Brain or Mind. No actions or thoughts could be accomplished without His say so. He is the Great Thinker and Planner. Christ would be the Body, the One who carries out God the Father's thoughts through physical action. The Holy Ghost would be like the Heart and Blood that courses through the Body, providing Spiritual Nourishment for the Whole. But Both ultimately listen to God the Father, or the Mind in this case. I'm trying to form a concise and accurate idea of how this works and like I said, I've been kind of grappling with the concept for many years now but find myself very curious after the recent Heaven SF as to how it works since it plays into that portion of Scripture as well. Any ideas?

For me, I resolve the Trinity as follows (though it is not the orthodox Catholic or Protestant teaching of three "Persons" in One). God the Father is the One Soul or Persona, The Spirit is His Energy or Breath, i.e. Life Force that Animates Him and the Universe (this concept is Ancient and is the same in every Spiritual Teaching and Language; Spirit/Energy/Breath were almost always the same word in every language), Jesus was God the Father incarnating in a Physical Earthly Body. I think you are saying basically the same thing Shadow.

Now in my view, the entire Universe is God incarnating in "Physical" Form (however; you don't need to believe that part to understand how I view the concept of the Trinity ).

But it's the only way I would be able to make it work logically if I were to become a Christian Monotheist. Anything else is really a form of Polytheism, which is what you get when you conceive of One Godhead in Three Distinct, Separate, and Divine Persons, which is why Orthodox Jews and Muslims (and "Arian" Christians--not to be confused with Aryans) have problems with the Trinity.

Now I don't really have a problem with the Three Persons in One concept myself, because I think the Hindu/Pagan/Gnostic view resolves it also. The Many are all God's Incarnations and reflect different aspects of the Divine Persona. What is Individual and Separate on the "lower" more "material" planes are Whole and One Godhead at the "Highest" plane which is pure Spirit. But this view is a form of Polytheism which resolves into a Monism (CS Lewis still called it Monotheism, but it is distinctly different from the Abrahamic concept of Monotheism).

GB

God the Father is the One Soul or Persona, The Spirit is His Energy or Breath, i.e. Life Force that Animates Him and the Universe (this concept is Ancient and is the same in every Spiritual Teaching and Language; Spirit/Energy/Breath were almost always the same word in every language), Jesus was God the Father incarnating in a Physical Earthly Body. I think you are saying basically the same thing Shadow.

I think we're saying the same thing to a degree...

Now in my view, the entire Universe is God incarnating in "Physical" Form (however; you don't need to believe that part to understand how I view the concept of the Trinity).

I don't know that I'd go so far as to say that God is the "Universe". God is to the Universe as the Author is to the Book He's Writing. We can see clear indications around us, evidence for lack of a better word, of His involvement. But my problem with the idea as you've presented it is that God has no tolerance for sin, and the second that Creation went off its kilter He wouldn't have tolerated it were it a part of His physical form, anymore than the human body is able to tolerate a cancerous tumor. The spiritual mechanics just don't seem to work in that case. God existed before the Universe did (this is clear from a straight reading of Genesis 1), and thus while we see elements of God within the world around us it is not God Himself we see, anymore than someone sees Lee Iacoca manifesting physically in their 1964 1/2 Ford Mustang, even though he designed the thing.

Also I'm not really sure that the Triune Godhead can be strictly labeled as Polytheism as that concept involves numerous gods. Of course I might be misinterpreting this whole thing but my understanding of stock Polytheism would be something akin to the Greek/Roman pantheon of gods, with multiple deities covering all sorts of functions in the running of the world. They're all purely separate entities. This isn't really the case with the Trinity as they're all essentially One (John 1 covers this to a degree). In fact at Christ's baptism all 3 are present, Christ being baptized, God speaking from Heaven, and the Holy Ghost in the form of a Dove alighting on Christ. With regards to the subject this feels to me to be a really key moment in the Bible as the Trinity is put on full display for all to see.

The problem I'm kind of running into is that They seem to be Separate and yet One. Which leads directly to my dilemma...were I standing in God's personal Court in the New Jerusalem and looking at God's throne, and Christ were standing physically next to me, do I see Christ on the throne or God the Father? I must admit this has always puzzled me but this is the first time I've really tried to tackle the matter head on. Most of my life people who were more knowledgeable on the subject told me that it makes no sense to us as we're of a finite mindset (which is why the concept of infinity also tends to baffle us) but that we'll be able to comprehend it when we're there. But since God gave us the most advanced biological supercomputer (the one between our ears ) ever devised for mortal man we should be able to decypher this at least on some level, yes?

Diverging ever so gently from the current topic/s I've been recently trying to wrap my brain around the concept of the Trinity, that is the Godhead formed by God the Father, Christ the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

According to St Patrick, the Trinity can be explained by a shamrock, that is to say, a plant with three distinct lobes to its leaves. My own personal explanation to myself, is that the Trinity is three manifestations of the one being. Just as you or I could be all at once a child, a parent and someone at work. Depending on which hat we wear at any given time. I'd like a better explanation, if one is available.

Thanks also for the refresher on male/female genetics. However you did not cover why no other races in malaria prone regions have no similar traits. As would be expected if the enviroment played such a role in our genetic development. Also, the two genetic diseases you mention, while race specific, have no "side benifit" as syckle-cell does.

Well actually I did cover 'malaria'. I said:

As for regions, the same disorder might simply have different names in various locations. Like Tay-Sachs disease in Palestine, or Thalassaemia, a Greek term, in other parts of the Mediterranean.

Malaria in all three cases results in similar genetic diseases, such as Tay-Sachs (Jewish), Thalassaemia (Greek, Italian or Maltese) or Sickle-cell (African). All centred around the Mediterranean.

Do you really want to get into archeology?

Of course I do. I've been interested in this for ever so long, ever since 'Raider's of the Lost Ark' came out. I agree that 'Shishak' might have taken the Lost Ark of the Covenant. But surely there are other possibilities also?

In Polytheist Paganism and Hinduism, many of the laity would indeed see the multiple deities simply as separate entities fulfilling different functions. However, there were more than one level of Initiation. At higher levels of Initiation (the "Mystery" Schools), the Initiate would come to recognize that the Many were all Aspects of One Eternal Being.

Lewis, when talking about these "educated classes" in Pagan Societies simply called them Monotheists, though that is not strictly correct. Strict Monotheists do indeed maintain that God is Only One.

Christian orthodoxy (Protestant and Catholic) is unique as a so-called "Monotheist" religion as it posits "Three Separate Persons in One". The "Educated" Polytheist (or Monist) recognizes this Model. The Strict Monotheist does not.

That is why the only way to logically make Christianity Strictly Monotheist (and maintain Christ's Divinity) is to use the Unorthodox Model I presented in my first paragraph of the last post Shadow.

Wagga's Shamrock Metaphor is nice and it works, but it reduces the "three [distinct] manifestations" to One Being wearing three different metaphorical hats.

This position has also been denied by orthodoxy. Again, because God is seen as Literally Three Separate Persons.

In trying to understand why Christianity adopted a Polytheist/Monist Model yet still called it "Monotheism", I admit to being somewhat baffled. Though over the years I have come to understand that at various times in Christianity, this Model was devised and defended more for political than religious reasons.

GB

Diverging ever so gently from the current topic/s I've been recently trying to wrap my brain around the concept of the Trinity, that is the Godhead formed by God the Father, Christ the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

I'm not sure why, but I've never had a problem accepting this idea. It just makes total sense to me that one Being could have three distinct and separate parts and yet be One. I know that's not very helpful, but I really don't know how to explain my understanding of it.

GB is right in saying that the Three as One model of divinity is a very old one, and certainly not original to Christianity. Many other cultures had divinities that were worshiped as three distinct people, but were accepted as being the same. The Greek goddesses Hecate, Selene, and Artemis were separate, but all aspects/manifestations of the same lunar force, being the New moon, the Full moon, and the Crescent moon respectively. (If I'm remembering my Greek myth correctly...).There are many other examples.

while we see elements of God within the world around us it is not God Himself we see, anymore than someone sees Lee Iacoca manifesting physically in their 1964 1/2 Ford Mustang, even though he designed the thing.

But perhaps one day they'll use his voice in a GPS system!

I think the question of the Trinity is quite interesting, and I've also been thinking about it a lot lately. The most common understanding I've come across makes the Trinity into one God taking the form of three persons (as GB said, God wearing his different metaphorical hats) rather than one God existing in three persons (which I realize is a subtle difference, and possibly not correct). People come up with all sorts of interesting analogies for this. A very fundamentalist preacher who comes to the university every so often to yell at everyone for being sinful says the Trinity is like Michael Landon as himself, as Little Joe Cartwright on Bonanza, and as Pa on Little House on the Prairie.

One link I've found a bit helpful in recognizing the different theories is this: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2 ... tatements/ I think that guy is probably right in that the Trinity is the only good example of the Trinity.

The thing is, while reading the Bible it's not that easy to get an orthodox interpretation of the Trinity. Most verses sound to me like Jesus and God the Father are rather different. Why would Jesus pray to himself?, what would be the point of God sacrificing his son if they were exactly the same person?, etc. I can't actually think of any explicit verses other than the Johannine comma, which I don't really count.

Anyway, it's an interesting question and I'm not sure where I stand on it exactly, though I have a general idea. I was trying to explain it to a curious Hindu friend the other day and I did feel really stupid insisting that Christianity is monotheistic while talking about the Trinity. She believes in one god, too, and she'll talk about "god" rather than "the gods," but because her god takes the form of a bunch of other gods, her religion is polytheistic. There's a huge difference theologically between the two beliefs, but it's really not easy to explain to someone who is unfamiliar with it.

The thing is, while reading the Bible it's not that easy to get an orthodox interpretation of the Trinity.

That's why we have the Church to help us sort through those types of issues. The Bible was never meant to be a place to go to get the answer to every question we have.

Someone gave me an analogy that the Bible is like an instruction manual for a car. It has very useful information in it that is very important for the operation of your vehicle. However, if you have car trouble, you take the car into the specialists to help you fix the problem because sometimes the manual just doesn't give you enough information to solve it.

...GB is right in saying that the Three as One model of divinity is a very old one, and certainly not original to Christianity.

Furthermore, our parish priest who is from India explained to us that Hindus do not believe in many gods as is misperceived. They instead believe in many incarnations of the same one God. Christians believe there was only one incarnation: the Christ.

On another note, anyone interested in finding out what denomination your favorite super hero is can be found at adherants.com :

http://www.adherents.com/lit/comics/com ... igion.html

Stylteralmaldo:
Furthermore, our parish priest who is from India explained to us that Hindus do not believe in many gods as is misperceived. They instead believe in many incarnations of the same one God. Christians believe there was only one incarnation: the Christ.

This is just a semantic quibble, but in such discussions semantics can become rather large distinctions: It's not a "misperception" per se, that Hindus believe in Many Gods, nor would it be a "misperception" to say that they ultimately believe in One God. They believe that we are all part of Brahma's Dream. And thus we are all God (or at least "Aspects" or "Incarnations" of God).

On the "Higher" planes of existence, Brahma's Incarnations are considered Deities in and of themselves. Yet they are all Aspects of Brahma.

So the key concept is BALANCE, neither The One nor The Many are to be sacrificed at the Altar of the Other. They (and We) are One and Many simultaneously--One in Many and Many in One--i.e. a Monism.

As I pointed out before, even someone as learned as CS Lewis didn't properly make the distinction between Monism and Monotheism, he simply saw the Polytheistic aspects as what the uninitiated believed and called what the Initiates believed Monotheism, which is close (really close ), but misses the huge semantic difference between Monism and Monotheism

Live Long and Prosper

Gandalf's Beard

I've sort of a rudimentary theory here I've come up with but I'm not sure it's 100% on the money. Let's say that the Godhead makes a Body, like yours or mine. God the Father would be, say, like the Brain or Mind. No actions or thoughts could be accomplished without His say so. He is the Great Thinker and Planner. Christ would be the Body, the One who carries out God the Father's thoughts through physical action. The Holy Ghost would be like the Heart and Blood that courses through the Body, providing Spiritual Nourishment for the Whole. But Both ultimately listen to God the Father, or the Mind in this case. I'm trying to form a concise and accurate idea of how this works and like I said, I've been kind of grappling with the concept for many years now but find myself very curious after the recent Heaven SF as to how it works since it plays into that portion of Scripture as well. Any ideas?

Ever so close. Ok, not claiming to be some great theologin, (cannot stand the title, too snooty). My understanding of the trinity simply goes like this,
We, that is all mankind, are created in the image of God. Genesis 16.
So think about it this way;
-God the Father is the mind, not nessesarily the brain, but still the guiding force, in charge. I know there are several opinions on the brain/mind connection, but I'll pass on that right now.
-God the Son/Jesus is the body. Like our physical selves doing the will of the mind so Jesus did the Father's. Luke 22:42 "..yet not my will but yours be done.. is one of many examples.
-The Holy Spirit for us is simply our own soul. It is our "lifeforce" if you will. Without it we would be dead. Sort of like removing a battery from a toy, it won't work.
I know it sounds simplistic, but look at all the references to the Holy Spirit in the Bible. Genesis 1:2 speaks of the Holy Spirit hovering over the waters. I understand the word hovering to be translated as the same word used for a hen brooding her eggs. She is providing energy/poering their growth. In other references Jesus was doing miracles by the power of the Holy Spirit. At penticost the disciples were filled with the Holy Spirit, and afterward were able to do miracle as well.
Best I can do without looking up more references, and I have been having a lowsy time with that.

First Puddleglum, that is entirely Shadowlander's quote .

Second, though you are very close to describing what Shadow and I both described, the word Soul is more aptly applied to the Mind/Personality/Consciousness/Sentience--i.e. God the Father.

The Holy Spirit is the Life-Force/Energy/Breath, but it is not the Soul.

Otherwise I would say you are right on the money .

And again, this solution maintains Strict Monotheism without resorting to the tortured logic of the orthodox position which is trying to say that they are "Three Separate Persons who are also One Person, but we still want to call it Monotheism" .

GB