One of the questions that comes up is if Adam and Eve were the first humans 6,000 years ago, why are there different blood types at all. Shouldn't we all have the same type of blood? The other question is why are some types non-transferable to others, why is there sometimes a fatal reaction when the wrong type is used. Myself, I have what has been called the universal donor, I can give to anyone except for all the medications I am on that no-one wants. Blood types alone would indicate a long period (tens of thousands of years) of divergence for different groups to evolve different types of blood. If God made us all from the same mold, why don't we all have the same type of blood? This tells me that God used whatever was at hand to evolve humans a long time ago. Even intelligent design, doesn't hold up.Don't you know, Breakup, that god planted misleading evidence to test humans' faith in him and his powers? He also planted a fossil record to test humans faith in the creation story. Lois
One of the questions that comes up is if Adam and Eve were the first humans 6,000 years ago, why are there different blood types at all. Shouldn't we all have the same type of blood? The other question is why are some types non-transferable to others, why is there sometimes a fatal reaction when the wrong type is used. Myself, I have what has been called the universal donor, I can give to anyone except for all the medications I am on that no-one wants. Blood types alone would indicate a long period (tens of thousands of years) of divergence for different groups to evolve different types of blood. If God made us all from the same mold, why don't we all have the same type of blood? This tells me that God used whatever was at hand to evolve humans a long time ago. Even intelligent design, doesn't hold up.I agree, but you may have posted this in the wrong thread (see Religion and Secularism - "In God's Image") I know, but I tried to post it there, and kept getting an error message, and I wanted to post it somewhere so as not to loose it.
One of the questions that comes up is if Adam and Eve were the first humans 6,000 years ago, why are there different blood types at all. Shouldn't we all have the same type of blood? The other question is why are some types non-transferable to others, why is there sometimes a fatal reaction when the wrong type is used. Myself, I have what has been called the universal donor, I can give to anyone except for all the medications I am on that no-one wants. Blood types alone would indicate a long period (tens of thousands of years) of divergence for different groups to evolve different types of blood. If God made us all from the same mold, why don't we all have the same type of blood? This tells me that God used whatever was at hand to evolve humans a long time ago. Even intelligent design, doesn't hold up.Don't you know, Breakup, that god planted misleading evidence to test humans' faith in him and his powers? He also planted a fossil record to test humans faith in the creation story. Lois I've heard that many times before, but I don't really believe it. That would mean that God was lying to us, and I don't accept that. I would rather believe that those who interpret the Biblical account as saying that the earth and the Universe was created 6,000 years ago, are wrong.
I've heard that many times before, but I don't really believe it. That would mean that God was lying to us, and I don't accept that. I would rather believe that those who interpret the Biblical account as saying that the earth and the Universe was created 6,000 years ago, are wrong.Going on the assumption that you are being serious, how could God lie to us if we are unequipped to understand what she's "saying" or "thinking"? PS http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/2008/08/god-flowing-into-word.html 8-/
I've heard that many times before, but I don't really believe it. That would mean that God was lying to us, and I don't accept that. I would rather believe that those who interpret the Biblical account as saying that the earth and the Universe was created 6,000 years ago, are wrong.Going on the assumption that you are being serious, how could God lie to us if we are unequipped to understand what she's "saying" or "thinking"? PS http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/2008/08/god-flowing-into-word.html 8-/ I agree. Even if God exists in a metaphysical form, it would be hubris to claim not only knowledge, but exclusive knowledge of the nature and intentions of God, while at the same time acknowledging that God works in mysterious ways. It's all very convenient when questioned about the nature, attributes, and functions of such a God. One can easily claim that you have to experience God (and of course not everyone is able to do that) or you have to just accept the premise and believe in God, which will then be instrumental in your ability to experience God (which of course not everyone can do either). Instant exclusivity and superiority. p.s. Your blogspot is excellent.
Going on the assumption that you are being serious, how could God lie to us if we are unequipped to understand what she's "saying" or "thinking"?Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that God, being God, will be capable of understanding our limited capability and give us the message that is within our understanding. The idea that God would give mankind a message that is beyond our capabilities, is just a bit unreasonable.
This is a short video on Spinoza’s life. His writings played a part in my father’s discovery.
PHILOSOPHY - Baruch Spinoza - YouTube
Going on the assumption that you are being serious, how could God lie to us if we are unequipped to understand what she's "saying" or "thinking"?Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that God, being God, will be capable of understanding our limited capability and give us the message that is within our understanding. The idea that God would give mankind a message that is beyond our capabilities, is just a bit unreasonable.It's only unreasonable within the set of limitations you set on it. To me, well considering I have a fairly intimate appreciation of evolution and how humans were formed, it's seems a far greater stretch to think that God adjusts herself to accommodate human egos and self certitude.
Going on the assumption that you are being serious, how could God lie to us if we are unequipped to understand what she's "saying" or "thinking"?Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that God, being God, will be capable of understanding our limited capability and give us the message that is within our understanding. The idea that God would give mankind a message that is beyond our capabilities, is just a bit unreasonable.It's only unreasonable within the set of limitations you set on it. To me, well considering I have a fairly intimate appreciation of evolution and how humans were formed, it's seems a far greater stretch to think that God adjusts herself to accommodate human egos and self certitude. I'm not sure what you mean by "adjusting herself", but I wouldn't expect God to change in any way to suit human expectations, but I would expect that God could adjust the Message, (What God reveals to man) according to man's capabilities. BTW, I really don't set any limits on what God is capable of, I don't think that I am that capable.
He, peacegirl, there are still a few questions] to be answered.
Going on the assumption that you are being serious, how could God lie to us if we are unequipped to understand what she's "saying" or "thinking"?Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that God, being God, will be capable of understanding our limited capability and give us the message that is within our understanding. The idea that God would give mankind a message that is beyond our capabilities, is just a bit unreasonable.It's only unreasonable within the set of limitations you set on it. To me, well considering I have a fairly intimate appreciation of evolution and how humans were formed, it's seems a far greater stretch to think that God adjusts herself to accommodate human egos and self certitude. I'm not sure what you mean by "adjusting herself", but I wouldn't expect God to change in any way to suit human expectations, but I would expect that God could adjust the Message, (What God reveals to man) according to man's capabilities. BTW, I really don't set any limits on what God is capable of, I don't think that I am that capable. I agree.
He, peacegirl, there are still a few questions] to be answered.There are more than a few questions to be answered. That's what it will take to appreciate the significance of this discovery.
He, peacegirl, there are still a few questions] to be answered.There are more than a few questions to be answered. That's what it will take to appreciate the significance of this discovery. So you intend to just ignore relevant and sincere questions?
He, peacegirl, there are still a few questions] to be answered.There are more than a few questions to be answered. That's what it will take to appreciate the significance of this discovery. So you intend to just ignore relevant and sincere questions? No, I'm done discussing the eyes. Your questions are inaccurately framed and, consequently, will falsely conclude that Lessans was wrong.
I typed this in my present and before you see it it will be several minutes old, but you are reading and experiencing this old message in your present.Exactly, but this is a distinction that many fail to grasp.
Your questions are inaccurately framed and, consequently, will falsely conclude that Lessans was wrong.Translation, - Peacegirl doesn't have a clue as to what you are talking about.
He, peacegirl, there are still a few questions] to be answered.There are more than a few questions to be answered. That's what it will take to appreciate the significance of this discovery. So you intend to just ignore relevant and sincere questions? No, I'm done discussing the eyes. Your questions are inaccurately framed and, consequently, will falsely conclude that Lessans was wrong. No, I correctly conclude that YOU are wrong when you claim light can be somewhere before it can get there. But I wasn't even asking about my questions. I was asking about GdB's questions. Are you going to dishonestly evade those too?
He, peacegirl, there are still a few questions] to be answered.There are more than a few questions to be answered. That's what it will take to appreciate the significance of this discovery. So you intend to just ignore relevant and sincere questions? No, I'm done discussing the eyes. Your questions are inaccurately framed and, consequently, will falsely conclude that Lessans was wrong. No, I correctly conclude that YOU are wrong when you claim light can be somewhere before it can get there. But I wasn't even asking about my questions. I was asking about GdB's questions. Are you going to dishonestly evade those too? That's because you are framing it wrong. That was not an invitation to continue the discussion. I have been answering GdB's questions honestly, and I will continue to do so.
He, peacegirl, there are still a few questions] to be answered.There are more than a few questions to be answered. That's what it will take to appreciate the significance of this discovery. So you intend to just ignore relevant and sincere questions? I thought GdB was asking questions about his first discovery. I am not interested in discussing the eyes.
He, peacegirl, there are still a few questions] to be answered.GdB, I'm sorry but I'm done with this topic. No one has read the chapter so I'm at a complete disadvantage. If you want me to respond to Perebloom's article, give me the link again, or if you want to discuss why not blaming prevents the very thing that threats of punishment can not accomplish, I will continue for a little while longer. It is important to understand that certain changes have to take place in the environment before the "no blame" principle can achieve peace, but once these are put into place, our world will look completely different. :)