Thanks Watziznehm (cute screen name btw, whats-his-name)! I have a friend who converted to christianity after being an atheist for many years. He was a biology professor, and as he so correctly put it "It got to the point that believing in evolution would take more faith than believing in creation by design. It was ludicrous to continue teaching something that didn't have a leg to stand on."

At some point all people who formerly believed in evolution will realize this, and unfortunately, will usually turn to some other form of atheism, just to rationalize their behavior to that point. It seems incredible to me that some people would rather believe that when we die, there is nothing else, and thus no purpose to life at all, than to believe that there is an all sufficient, loving savior! Sure, we all have to account for our actions on judgement day...and? I'd rather live knowing that I've got something worth dying for, than to die knowing I had nothing to live for.

Well, this is all very interesting. I'm afraid I haven't much to say on the evolution angle, so I shall dare to introduce a new topic. Forgive any lapses, logical, grammatical, or otherwise, as I'm writing this at a quite indecent hour and my brain is foggy to say the least.

I've been thinking recently on the distinction between faith and belief. Faith, I would say (and would hope to be agreed with by the majority, at least), is trust, a deep and abiding trust in the promises of God, and a complete dependence on Him in all things. Or, as Luther says rather more succintly, "Faith is nothing more than believing God when he says something." (Or something to that effect). I could go on, because it's quite a nuanced thing and not so easily summarised, but as I said I'm tired, and I feel that's a pretty non-controversial, meat-and-potatos definition. If I'm off, feel free to say so - and I know you will!

Belief may be easily distinguished, as it usually implies nothing more than mental assent to a certain set of propositions. A is A; things fall towards the earth; 2+2=4; my mother's hair is red - so runs belief. There is no emotional connotation. Trust, at least on the surface, is absent. (More on that later).

What I'm curious about is the interplay between a person's faith and belief; or, to get to the heart of the matter, your faith and belief. It's no secret that theological views change over time. People learn more, more about what they believe or more about what other people believe, or more about whatever it is they're believing in, and they revise their 'positions'. They realize they were mistaken. There is no Rapture. Or yes, there is. Or single/double predestination is wrong, or the Pope is in/fallible, whatever. I know this happens to me often enough.

So where do we suss out where faith ends and belief begins? Or, to put another way, how are we confident of what we believe in, but willing to take a second look at certain things we believe? Or shouldn't we? Perhaps God said it, we believe it, that settles it. Fine and well, but if not, where does the trust leave off and the pondering begin, and how do we preserve that line (between what can and cannot be questioned)? Does it need to be preserved? Are the two (faith and belief) in fact one? (Which would seem to imply that one must have, and in fact, if saved, will have a flawless theology, a discomforting thought to anyone who's ever realized they're wrong in this arena).

Coming at all of this from a rather different angle, perhaps belief presupposes faith and not vice versa. For instance, to believe my mother's hair is red I must be receiving some indication that it is red, and I must trust whatever is sending that indication (most likely my eyes, but possibly hearsay, or logic of the A is A sort). So, what reason have I to trust, and not fall into an endless mire of scepticism? I can't very well say I have faith in my eyes, because I don't. Much less other people or mental processes.

And...I think I'll just leave off there.

Please excuse my rambling.

Pray for me,

P.

Let's see, it is very important how people define faith versus belief. If the devils believe in God and tremble. (James 2:19) Then belief can be misunderstood. Someone can say they believe in Jesus for hours on end but not ask for repentance for sins.
Sometimes I would apologize for fighting with my sister when I was little, but was I sorry? NO! I was just sorry I got in trouble. If I'd recognized why I'd broken my parent's rules and wanted to not do it again, then I would've been truly sorry.

People can see a tornado coming but never run for shelter. They don't take it seriously enough to act upon.

As for evolution, proponents of the theory fail to take account that mutations cause defects. In order to get any mutations that could eventually "improve" something you would have to have so many bad mutations it wouldn't even be funny.

Wow, such amazing discussions going on in here! It's been a while since I peeked in. I'm glad to see such good points against evolution getting an airing. And I never heard before about the Chinese character for "Flood", FencerforJesus. Thank you very much for sharing that!

I wanted to ask the opinions of all the Christians on this topic regarding these two Bible studies:
The Rapture - Post or Pre-Tribulation?
Sabbath Day

These are on the website of now-deceased Biblical archeologist Ron Wyatt. I don't want to be blown by every doctrinal wind, but I think he was a very honest man, and if these studies were approved by him, that gives them a boost in my opinion (these were not written by him). Also, the studies seem valid Biblically.
Do you agree with the conclusions?

I haven't read the full article yet, but I can already see at least one point I strongly disagree with.

For example it says that Mat 7:22-23 is talking about Christians. I can't agree there.

Here's the exact quote --

Jesus also speaks about a law being transgressed that prevents people from entering his kingdom;
Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' (Please note that Jesus is addressing Christians here. How many non-Christians are going around doing these wonderful things in Jesus' name?)
And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!' (Mat 7:22-23).

Here's why I disagree with them.

1. They say, "How many non-Christians are going around doing these wonderful things in Jesus' name?" Well, there are many non-Christians who do things in Jesus' Name. There are fake Christians, and there are "religious" people who do things out of ceremony and don't have a relationship with God. There are fake prophets and fake pastors just out to make a buck. There are people who prtend to do miracles when they are really either after money or fame. There are deceived people who think they are saved but really aren't. There are non-Christians who do "good works" and therefore think they have served God even though they have never committed their life to Him. All of these people would fit into that Scripture quite well. So I don't see how they can assume that particular Scripture is talking about Christians.

2. In the Scripture itself, Jesus says "I never knew you." That proves that the people He's referring to are not Christians. Because if they were Christians, then Jesus would have known them at least at some point. But He says He never knew them.

I'll probably have more to say when I read the rest, but unfortunately I have to get off the computer. Hopefully I can comment more later or tomorrow.

~Riella

I haven't read the full article yet, but I can already see at least one point I strongly disagree with. For example it says that Mat 7:22-23 is talking about Christians. I can't agree there.

Here's why I disagree with them.
1. They say, "How many non-Christians are going around doing these wonderful things in Jesus' name?" Well, there are many non-Christians who do things in Jesus' Name. There are fake Christians, and there are "religious" people who do things out of ceremony and don't have a relationship with God. There are fake prophets and fake pastors just out to make a buck. There are people who prtend to do miracles when they are really either after money or fame. There are deceived people who think they are saved but really aren't. There are non-Christians who do "good works" and therefore think they have served God even though they have never committed their life to Him. All of these people would fit into that Scripture quite well. So I don't see how they can assume that particular Scripture is talking about Christians.
2. In the Scripture itself, Jesus says "I never knew you." That proves that the people He's referring to are not Christians. Because if they were Christians, then Jesus would have known them at least at some point. But He says He never knew them.

I'll probably have more to say when I read the rest, but unfortunately I have to get off the computer. Hopefully I can comment more later or tomorrow.
~Riella

Well, I certainly agree that there are people who do things in the name of Christ who are not actually living a Christian life. However, I do have to support that the scripture is speaking to followers of Christ. Recall, this scripture was written by Matthew, but he was quoting Jesus here. Jesus was addressing a crowd of followers, many of whom were following him for months at a time. He was addressing the fact that many of them were following him because it was the "cool" thing, because they wanted to see miracles and the like. The problem was that many of them didn't really understand what being a Christian is all about. Now, also remember that the word "Christian" is a title, not of religion, but literally means "Follower of the Savior" (Many people do not know or misunderstand that "Christ" is a title within itself, not a name, which means "Savior").
Here is where many get confused. To follow Christ is one thing, but to Act upon belief is another. Here in this scripture, he was basically laying out the guidelines which would separate the followers from the believers. So, in a sense, you're absolutely right, there are definitely many people in the "Christian" scene that fit this who are not actual Christians, however, the scriptures are guidelines and a clarification tool, not a history book, so, the scripture is talking to Christians not as a rule, but as a warning to examine our personal Christian walks and determining for ourselves if we are a true Christian or not.

I wanted to ask the opinions of all the Christians on this topic regarding these two Bible studies:
The Rapture - Post or Pre-Tribulation?
Sabbath Day

Do you agree with the conclusions?

Topic 1) Well, while I am no Theology major (however, my father has a Master's of Divinity, and IS a Theology Major), It would appear that this author has confused the Second Coming with the Rapture, or worse, has melded them together as one event. He is correct in saying that the Tribulation is a time of testing for those that are living, but it is certainly not the judging period for the saints. That will be done in heaven, not on earth. Here is something that many believers of post-trib rapture overlook. When the Second Coming occurs, it will take place after the Tribulation AND after the rapture, why? Because we as the raptured church will be with Him at the second coming. See here: "The armies in heaven, clothed in fine linen, follow Jesus out of heaven at His second coming (Rev. 19:14, Zech. 14:5, Col. 3:4). These are not angels because Rev. 19:8 tells us the fine linen is the righteousness of the saints. In order to come out of heaven we first have to go in, indicating a previous rapture." (As quoted from http://www.rapturealert.com/sixteenproofs.html
For more proof, please read the entire article, as it would take too much space on this board.

Topic 2) Many people fall into this trap. This is supporting customary Jewish traditions. I have no problem with that. I do, however, have a problem with people putting God in a box. You see, according to this belief system, if you don't worship God on Saturday, then you're basically spitting in God's face and worshipping the Pope instead. What this belief fails to grasp is the grace and understanding of our God. He doesn't care what day we worship Him on! He only cares that we worship Him. This would be similar to the notion that God is offended that people celebrate His birthday on December 25th, as opposed to a date in mid-July, as is more accurate. Seriously? My God is not as petty as all that. Now, as for the scriptures declaring death to those who do not observe the Sabbath. Let's be clear. These scriptures were working off of the original Jewish calendar, which is far different than our own. A traditional Jewish day was not 24 hours, but closer to 48. Secondly, the scripture also states that we as believers are not to forsake the gathering together of ourselves (as believers). Well, guess what? Most believers gather on Sunday. Thirdly, the worship of God and the observance of His word is not about traditions!! It is about honor, and faith, and the sacrificing of your time to give to God instead of man! Do we really think that our all sufficient, loving, gracious, all-knowing, all powerful God would be constrained by the fact that we worship on Sunday instead of Saturday? No, of course not. Because then, He would be a person, and not a deity. As long as you do it in the correct attitude, then it absolutely does not matter what day of the week it is done on. This is of course, my personal opinion, and does not represent any particular person or belief system.

Well, I certainly agree that there are people who do things in the name of Christ who are not actually living a Christian life. However, I do have to support that the scripture is speaking to followers of Christ. Recall, this scripture was written by Matthew, but he was quoting Jesus here. Jesus was addressing a crowd of followers, many of whom were following him for months at a time. He was addressing the fact that many of them were following him because it was the "cool" thing, because they wanted to see miracles and the like. The problem was that many of them didn't really understand what being a Christian is all about. Now, also remember that the word "Christian" is a title, not of religion, but literally means "Follower of the Savior" (Many people do not know or misunderstand that "Christ" is a title within itself, not a name, which means "Savior").
Here is where many get confused. To follow Christ is one thing, but to Act upon belief is another. Here in this scripture, he was basically laying out the guidelines which would separate the followers from the believers. So, in a sense, you're absolutely right, there are definitely many people in the "Christian" scene that fit this who are not actual Christians, however, the scriptures are guidelines and a clarification tool, not a history book, so, the scripture is talking to Christians not as a rule, but as a warning to examine our personal Christian walks and determining for ourselves if we are a true Christian or not.

I'm not exactly sure what you're saying, or if you completely understood what I was saying. You might have, but it's hard for me to tell because I didn't completely understand your post.
Just to make sure, I'd like to clarify. When I say "Christian", I mean a real believer -- someone who has gone through an honest conversion. Not someone who follows temporarily because it's cool, only to fall away when the going gets tough. I don't really call the latter type a "Christian" at all.
Are you saying that the scripture is meant for the latter? If so, we are totally in agreement, and that is what I was trying to say in the first place. But if you mean that the scripture is meant for both, then I would disagree with you.
I hope that makes what I was saying clearer, if it wasn't clear before.

~Riella

I'm not exactly sure what you're saying, or if you completely understood what I was saying. You might have, but it's hard for me to tell because I didn't completely understand your post.
Just to make sure, I'd like to clarify. When I say "Christian", I mean a real believer -- someone who has gone through an honest conversion. Not someone who follows temporarily because it's cool, only to fall away when the going gets tough. I don't really call the latter type a "Christian" at all.
Are you saying that the scripture is meant for the latter? If so, we are totally in agreement, and that is what I was trying to say in the first place. But if you mean that the scripture is meant for both, then I would disagree with you.
I hope that makes what I was saying clearer, if it wasn't clear before.
~Riella

Yes, I understand, and we are in agreement. What I am saying is that this scripture doesn't make a distinction between the two, because people who act like Christians can still be true Christians if they realise the truth. Okay, I think the confusion here is that we tend to think linear, like this passage only had one intended purpose, and that's it. But actually, the scripture is:
A) Talking to unbelievers: By stating that if they choose the become a Christian, then they need to be committed whole heartedly to it.

B) Talking to the "religious" crowd (i.e. the fake Christian): By stating that if they think they can get to heaven on good works, they've been decieved and they need to get their act together.

C) Talking to the true Christian: By warning against false security, and false pretenses, because, let's face it, even true Christians can be decieved and are quite frequently.

It's a multi-faceted teaching, as are most of them. Jesus says the Word is alive, and it's true, because everyone can get something different every time they read it. It's intended for us to apply to our daily lives, regardless of where we are spiritually (whether we fall into category A, B, or C, this scripture is still for us). Does that make more sense?

This is an interesting topic. I believe in God. I guess I'd call myself a Christian.

I also believe that we become trees when we die.

NO ONE has yet to explain the fact that DNA cannot write itself. It simply cannot reproduce itself. Never has. Never will. That being said, there is no possible way that a single celled organism, no matter how microscopic, simply came into being without having been created

While this is true, I wouldn't use it as "proof" of a Creator. There are a lot of things that nobody was able to explain in the past that science has now found an answer to. There may be a scientific reason for this as well.

I also believe that we become trees when we die.

What do you mean by the above?

Well, I guess when we die we go into the ground, and trees grow from the ground, so when we die we become trees. I think it's a good reflection of our lives because we spend our life on earth, always wanting something more. Then we become trees, still bound to the earth in a more permanent way, still literally reaching for the skies.

Well, I guess when we die we go into the ground, and trees grow from the ground, so when we die we become trees.

What happens if your tree gets chopped down?

~Riella

NO ONE has yet to explain the fact that DNA cannot write itself. It simply cannot reproduce itself

DNA does reproduce itself. It has to replicate itself for a human being to exist, because as a molecule, deoxyribonucleic acid is very easily destroyed. It it held together by a few hydrogen bonds (which are very weak as far as intermolecular forces go), and while single stranded DNA is farily stable (with it's sugar-phosphate backbone), single stranded DNA isn't a whole lot of good in biological systems.

During DNA replication, mRNA is made, and without mRNA we wouldn't have any protein synthesis in our bodies, as mRNA carries the information for protein synthesis.

As far as DNA creating itself is concerned. . . well, it's highly unlikely, but I wouldn't say impossible. Most scientists believe that early life on earth used RNA as genetic information rather than DNA. RNA (Ribonucleic Acid) is single stranded, (features uracil rather than thymine as a nucleotide base), and is less stable due to the presence of an extra oxygen atom in one of the sugars (oxygen being an extremely electronegative substance has a rather destabilizing feature on several molecules and biological systems).

But when it comes down to it, people give DNA a lot more complexity than it deserves. When it boils down to it, it's nothing more than sugar, phospate ions, and one of four nitrogenous bases. What's complex about DNA is the information that it carries. People can arrange DNA in any old way, but if it is not arranged in a "particular" way, then the results can be catastrophic.

That being said, DNA's complexity doesn't prove that God exists or that He doesn't. DNA's simplicity means that it is possible for it to form itself (and replicate itself), and if a system "evolved" to use a particular sequence to produce a particular mRNA to produce a particular protein, they could have always evolved differently.

That being said, I am still a young-earth creationist, and a Christian. . . I just dislike people who believe all of the scientific fallacies that are out there concerning evolution, and the origins of earth. Both evolution and Christianity deal with realities that cannot be seen or touched. . . and therefore both require faith and faith alone.

My understanding of DNA (this coming from an education of Civil Engineering and Computer Science, not biology), is that is can replicate it self, but anything that differs from the 'parent' to any 'children' can only come from the parent. The genes can only be re-shuffled. The best way to describe this is common terms is a deck of cards. Take a deck of card, you can shuffle them around, mix them around, do what you wish, and you can get all sorts of different combinations. You can even lose cards permanently. If as you shuffle, the 5 of Hearts flies out, that card is lost. We see this behavior in genetics all the time. This explains mutations, dominate genes, recessive genes, etc.

However, if your deck of cards only contains Clubs and Spades, no matter how many times you reshuffle the deck, you will not find any Heart or Diamond in the deck. This is the point creationists have been trying to get evolutionists to understand. Evolution claims that with enough mutations, new genes can arise. This is the case of discovering a Heart or Diamond into a deck of cards that initially contained only Clubs and Spades, only through constant reshuffling. In the cards example, the only way to get a Heart or Diamond into a deck with only Clubs and Spades is to insert one from an outside source. Genetically speaking, the only way a new gene would remotely be able to be inserted into the link would be from an outside source. And from my understanding, genetically speaking, whenever this is attempted, bad things happen.

As DK says, from a molecular perspective, DNA is not that complex. It's just gigantically huge containing millions of atoms. The combination of the various genes and data contained within that DNA is what makes it so complex. That is why every person who ever lived (with possible exceptions of identical twins) has their own unique DNA. Going back to the deck of cards, the chances of getting a Royal Flush in Poker is 4 out of 52*51*50*49*48. Those chances are less than 1 in a million, which is still not mathmatically impossible, it is very close. That chances of randomly getting one combination of DNA is way beyond mathmatically impossible.

And I'm not even getting into the issue of L-amino acids and D-amino acids where one of the D's (I think it's the D's) within a biological system makes life impossible. If my memory serves me correct, if in oxygen (it may be just left alone in a non-controlled environment) all L and D amino acids will switch until there approximately 50-50 concentration of L's and D's. There are biological mechanisms that I can't identify right now, that prevent the L's from transforming into D's.

These are just simple examples as to how life absolutely cannot form itself. One of the reasons why I hold so strongly to young earth model (aside from that is what the Bible says, with no true reason to believe otherwise in terms of interpretation) is that all the other models from evolution to old earth have significant fallacies. And if it has a fallacy, it cannot be the true case. So by process of elimination, the young earth model is the only one I've seen that doesn't have significant fallacies. Is it perfect? No, it's not perfect and there are many theories within young earth that can pretty much only be left to speculation. The Hovind Theory of how the Flood came to pass is interesting and definitely a possibility, but it is just a theory and at the least, Kent Hovind treats it a theory. There are other theories too about the Flood that support young earth, but still the young earth models still have the fewest unanswered questions that could critically break it down.

Well, I guess when we die we go into the ground, and trees grow from the ground, so when we die we become trees. I think it's a good reflection of our lives because we spend our life on earth, always wanting something more. Then we become trees, still bound to the earth in a more permanent way, still literally reaching for the skies.

Are you talking about the Circle of Life

In terms of DNA, as DK said, it perfectly able to replicate itself. nough said. ATP is also enother universal life molecule but that is for another time

The young earth model or yem, is something I was never able to get my head around, and now I tend to go more for the "older earth" theary, thus taking the Hebrew word "yom" as a time period rather then day, but at the end of the day I try not to get to bogged down by it, (cliche alert) as I try to live in the present rather then the past.

However I once heard someone say,
If God made Adam and Eve out to be xx years when they where one, why could that not be applied to the earth ?