I can make several point about this. First I pointed out that it wasn't just people of faith who died, but the actual people who claimed to have seen Christ after he died. Why would a group of men who fled and hid themselves when Christ was arrested suddenly reappear and claim that he was alive again? There were no other possible motives since they didn't gain anything from their claim and in fact all of them, except perhaps John, gave up their lives rather than renounce him. Secondly Christ said that "he who would save his life will lose it, but he gives his life willingly shall find it," and also "he who denies me before men I will surely deny before my Father". So in other words, he does hold it against you because he didn't have to die, but he still chose to. How can we do anything else?

Concerning your cliched Bible argument you are seriously misinformed. Thanks to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls we have copies of the Old Testament books from 200 B.C. How do you think our Old Testament measures up to it? 99.99% the same and the differences are not important to doctrinal questions. Next if we look at the New Testament we have copies of every single book that date before 100 A.D. and some of them are dated in the 60's! That is incredibly close to the time line considering that the earliest copy we have of the ancient Greek and Roman authors is almost 1000 years later!! And yet we don't question their accuracy. Why? Because Plato doesn't claim to be the word of God. However, you can't dismiss something just because of what it claims to be you have to be SCIENTIFIC and look at the evidence.

By the way concerning evolution I already gave you at least four instances where it breaks scientific law, but if you can somehow explain how evolution could occur without doing so I would be willing to listen.

"SIGH. This is why I get bored of these discussions so quickly. It's all just back and forward, back and forward. It's useless pitting two completely different ways of thinking together and expecting to change each other's mind or debunk each others theories. Creationists will never believe in science. Science-minded people will never believe in Creation. There are tonnes of grey areas in between, sure, but one extreme will never be able to convert the other.

I don't know what created the universe, or how. And, honestly, I don't think we'll ever know."

Here you are lieing about my arguments since I purposely focused on scientific, and not theological, evidence in my first post, but you refused to respond to it. If evolution defies the laws of science how can it then claim to be scientific? Your comment about "science-minded" people never believing in creation is also false. There are thousands of creationist scientists and many of them are former athiests who agree with Einstein that "the more I study the universe the more I become convinced of the existence of a Supreme Being." Besides every major branch of science was founded by a Christian and scientific laws run on the assumption that the universe can be explained because it was created by an intelligent designer.

(PROTIP: Referencing the Bible when trying to present an argument to someone with a distinct absence of faith DOESN'T WORK.)

People who die for their faith obviously mean srs bizness. That was never the question. I just THINK that it's a little extreme, that's all.

So in other words, he does hold it against you because he didn't have to die, but he still chose to. How can we do anything else?

Easy. We can sit down and wonder if it's really worth it worshipping a God who demands you believe in him, enough to sacrifice yourself, or he'll send you to Hell. Yeah. Sounds fair.

Thanks to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls we have copies of the Old Testament books from 200 B.C. How do you think our Old Testament measures up to it? 99.99% the same and the differences are not important to doctrinal questions. Next if we look at the New Testament we have copies of every single book that date before 100 A.D. and some of them are dated in the 60's!

Neat. I don't care.

I find it kind of hypocritical that Creationists (not referring to you here, I'm just making a general comment) accept carbon dating when it's being used to find the age of the Dead Sea Scrolls, but they don't like it when evolutionists present them with hominid skeletons that are CARBON DATED to being millions of years old.

And yet we don't question their accuracy. Why? Because Plato doesn't claim to be the word of God. However, you can't dismiss something just because of what it claims to be you have to be SCIENTIFIC and look at the evidence.

...What?

Your comment about "science-minded" people never believing in creation is also false. There are thousands of creationist scientists and many of them are former athiests who agree with Einstein that "the more I study the universe the more I become convinced of the existence of a Supreme Being."

I know that, silly! But if you read that part carefully, you'll notice that I mentioned GREY AREAS. "There are tonnes of grey areas in between, sure, but one extreme will never be able to convert the other." See?

Actually it is not only the Bible that speaks about early Christianity. Several Roman historians and Josephus talk about the faith of the apostles and attest to their martyrdoms.

"Easy. We can sit down and wonder if it's really worth it worshipping a God who demands you believe in him, enough to sacrifice yourself, or he'll send you to Hell. Yeah. Sounds fair."

First it must be noted that He sacrificed himself for us first. Secondly He doesn't want anyone to go to Hell that is the whole reason Christ came. Humanity chose to sin, it would be like if someone jumped off of a boat and were drowning. You can throw them a rope, but you can't force them to grab on and be pulled to safety. The person drowning can't blame you in this instance because you offer them help, but they can refuse to accept it. Lastly it is because God is fair that he gives us this choice. It's the gift of free will.

Refering to carbon dating, I believe the argument is that scientists assume that the earth's atmospheric content has always been the same. Since if it were different it would affect the dating system. However, with the dead sea scrolls I'm pretty sure that their were tools and other writings that helped place their time period as well. By the way I don't know if you heard about the scientist who did a study of the earth's magnetic field that helps block certain sun rays and other harmful light. Anyway he found that because of its rate of deteriation the earth could only have supported life up to 100,000 years ago. It made me laugh because an evolutionist looked at the data and assumed that the field decayed at a delayed rate and responded ", No the earth could have supported life 100 million years ago" if you haven't noticed that's a lot less then what scientists try to say.

"I know that, silly! But if you read that part carefully, you'll notice that I mentioned GREY AREAS. "There are tonnes of grey areas in between, sure, but one extreme will never be able to convert the other." See?"

You're right in a sense since not everyone, actually most won't, believe. Christ discribed it as a narrow road that few find, but in the end "every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord."

The whole 'free will' argument is such a cop-out. Sorry, but "believe in me even though I choose not to show my face or BURN" is not free will. It's an ultimatum. Big difference. If God gave us free will not to believe, why should he punish that? That's like telling a little kid to choose whatever desert he wants and the smacking him for making a choice different than yours. Hypocritical garbage.

By the way I don't know if you heard about the scientist who did a study of the earth's magnetic field that helps block certain sun rays and other harmful light. Anyway he found that because of its rate of deteriation the earth could only have supported life up to 100,000 years ago.

No, I haven't heard that. Which makes me suspicious. If such an important discovery was made, why not spread the news worldwide? And did that finding take into account global warming, or anything? The atmosphere isn't exactly the way it used to be. I dunno, just my two cents on that one. Unless you don't believe in global warming either...some Christians don't, apparently. /shrug

Christ discribed it as a narrow road that few find, but in the end "every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord."

I guess I'll find out, won't I? In the mean time, I gonna continue living my life the way I see fit, not according to what some book of fairy tales tells me.

God does show himself to us through nature and through His word. Free will isn't garbage even in democratic societies you have the choice to break the law you just have to pay the consequences if you do. In the same way you have the right to deny Christ, but if you do then you can't blame God for letting you do so. He could not have made it ANY simpler.

"I guess I'll find out, won't I? In the mean time, I gonna continue living my life the way I see fit, not according to what some book of fairy tales tells me."

Here you are again dodging the issue. I have given you scientific evidence both as to why the Bible can be trusted and why God has to exist. Did you respond with evidence pointing the other way? No you responded with the only thing a person confronted with facts can stubborn denial. It is obviously not an issue of facts or likelihood with you but like many an issue of pride. You refuse to allow yourself to rationally except God because if you do you must also accept the fact that He is perfect and expects certain behavior from you.

What scientific evidence? Can you back up anything you say with a link to a reliable source? Is there anything you can show me that I can examine for myself and form my own judgment without having to blindly accept what you tell me? I'm going to need more than your word. By the way, you neglected to respond to my suggestion about global warming.

Did you respond with evidence pointing the other way? No you responded with the only thing a person confronted with facts can stubborn denial.

And you are responding with the only thing a person can when confronted with someone who disagrees with his/her opinion: anger. You being unable to handle the fact that I don't share your views in a calm fashion is YOUR problem, not mine. If you're going to accuse me of being stubborn and irrational, Healo, first take a look at YOUR behaviour.

It is obviously not an issue of facts or likelihood with you but like many an issue of pride. You refuse to allow yourself to rationally except God because if you do you must also accept the fact that He is perfect and expects certain behavior from you.

And what about you? Let's examine you for a moment. What if tomorrow you were presented with irrefutable evidence that God doesn't exist? What would you do? Would you still cling to that last little shred of faith you have left, desperately unwilling to admit that we're alone here, always have been, always will? If it turns out you're wrong, you stand to lose something precious. If I am wrong, I stand to gain enlightenment. I can see how that would make you a wee bit twitchy.

Whoops, sorry I missed this post. Belated replies ftw.

And oddly enough, I kind of get what you're talking about. I guess martyrs can't be cynics like me. :3

And yet I was supposed to just blindly accept your argument since you refused to give me any evidence pointing the other way. Forgive me for assuming that you understood the idea behind the law of casuality (cuase and effect), the second law of thermodynamics, the facts about mutations, and everthing else I pointed to. It is not my responsibility to make sure that everyone I argue with has their facts straight, besides I don't use the Internet for research and I'm at college right now so I don't have any of my books with me. However, the second law of thermodynamics, spontaneous generation, mutation, and even cause and effect are all mentioned in many science books its just that since the writers in general are evolutionists no one points out what these laws mean for origin.

I didn't really say anything about global warming because it really isn't an issue to me. The Bible says that as time goes on nature will become more violent so I don't see anything to be afraid of in global warming. I don't agree with politicians and others who use it to frighten people for their own agenda.

"If you're going to accuse me of being stubborn and irrational, Healo, first take a look at YOUR behaviour."

As I pointed out before my arguments are not based on emotion. I purposely gave you scientific facts so that you couldn't use this argument and I am perfectly willing to argue with you over the facts. However, they are so simple and so obvious that you cannot really say anything against them so instead you throw my statements back at me.

"And what about you? Let's examine you for a moment. What if tomorrow you were presented with irrefutable evidence that God doesn't exist? What would you do? Would you still cling to that last little shred of faith you have left, desperately unwilling to admit that we're alone here, always have been, always will? If it turns out you're wrong, you stand to lose something precious. If I am wrong, I stand to gain enlightenment. I can see how that would make you a wee bit twitchy."

If there is no God then this whole life is illusionary, because of cause and effect, and I don't think you're really making that claim. So that will never happen plus you can't prove there is no God because to do so you would have to be everywhere at once really you would have to be God. We are certainly not alone because if the universe does have a creator, and scientific law means there has to be, then there is someone else in the universe. I have no fear of ever finding anything that will destroy my beliefs because they are based on both faith and fact. Christianity is not unscientific if one will take the time to carefully examine the arguments. In fact several branches such as archealogy have bulstered Christianity and the Bible through finds such as discovering Jericho, proving that Hittites were once a real people, proving that Pontius Pilate did exist, and many other discoveries. Still the whole reason you are using this argument is to deflect pressure from you to me. I am still waiting for your scientific response.

I never told you to blindly accept what I was saying - they were my opinions. I'd be very worried if that's all it took to convince you. I'm not trying to prove to you that he isn't real. Believe what you want to believe. You were the one bringing up scientific theories to make your point. I wasn't - all I did was respond to them as best as I could given my lack of faith and the fact that I hadn't heard about most of these findings. I was just stating that I happen not to believe in God and I don't see enough evidence to support his existence, in spite of what you presented, at least not yet. I haven't seen anything that can totally debunk the theory of evolution. Maybe I am a little biased - who here isn't? We're all clinging to different notions and it would be hard to just switch beliefs because some person over the internet told us about a few discoveries (would you mind telling me where you heard about that study of earth's magnetic field or whatever? I'd like to read up on that). I'm willing to admit that yes, there have been historical findings that correlate with the Bible. Like finding Jericho, as you mentioned. That kind of thing I can accept. It just isn't enough for me. Sorry.

I keep mentioning my beliefs, so I might as well give you a brief rundown of what they are. I have no doubt you'll have something to say about each of them.

I believe in evolution. The evidence (bones, fossils, the fact that we share so much of our DNA with chimps and other apes), to me, seems more in favour of this theory. It makes way more sense to me than the Bible, even though it certainly isn't perfect, and who knows? We may yet find something better.

I have no idea how the universe originated. Maybe God did it. Maybe something else did it. Nobody really knows (except maybe you, of course), so I'm not going to argue this point.

I believe it's possible that some kind of supreme being exists out there. Could be your God, could be another God, could be something else entirely. However, until that supreme being shows its face around here, I'm just gonna stick to the good old atheist point of view.

Anyway, I hunted around and found some links for you to examine at your leisure. If you want, anyway.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/scienceandsociety/2008/01/evolution-overw.html

http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=bV4_lVTVa6k

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY (part of a pretty informative series - the guy seems a little pompous, but it sounds like he knows what he's talking about)

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/thomas_and_kc.htm (kind of a one-sided argument since the creationist guy doesn't seem to know what he's talking about, but it’s interesting anyway)

Peace!

If Adam and Eve were the only two humans than they would have had to populate the entire Earth origianally by themselves. Now in the Bible it says that Cain, after murdering his brother, left the land and found a wife. Now if you say that there was no one else besides Adam and Eve origianally, than how in the world did Cain get married unless he had married a sister? Now aren't we told that marrying a sister is incest and doesn't it create a messed up gene pool. So shouldn't more of us be mentally retarded if that were so?

Now to God, and this is in the Bible, a person's life is less than a day to him and days to us are moments to him. So isn't it possible that God created the Earth in six segments of time although they were days to him?

Now God said,"Let us create man in our own image." It doesn't say,"Let us create a man in our own image." Man in by itself is plural. Then later it says that he created man and he called them male and female. Now if Adam was the only one than how could God call two sexes male and female if there was only one at the time as you say? God simply gave Adam the privelidge of naming all the animals and the care of the garden. He was alone, and none of the animals could take away his desire to be loved. Why? Because although animals are companions they can never fill in the space that only the love a person can fill. That's why it says no partner could be found for him.

Eve's name may be "the mother of all living" but how could she? There are so many different races of people out there that she would have had to have had black, oriental, hispanic, ect., ect., children. Can a caucasian couple or black couple or oreintal couple have a genetic baby that is of a different race unless it's somewhere in their genes? So in order for there to be so many of us now, there would have had to been more of us then. Well there's my two sense.

I have to aggree with you that Christianity is not a crutch. Why would people be willing to suffer death, torture, and pain for a "crutch"? Why would people travel thousands of miles and suffer daily for a "cruthch"? Christianity and Jesus more importantly is not a crutch but a beleif.

Second it is true that God says that a day is nothing to him, but in Genesis he takes care to calculate time through human measurements "and morning and evening were the # day" besides it would have to have been in day segments because plants were created before the sun so they would require that light to grow.

Next you talk about how God says "Let us make man in our image" however you forget that just a few words later (Genesis 1:27) it says ",So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He crated him; male and female He created them." Notice how the word "him" is used; I'm sure you know that him is singular so we know that he created one man. Also you have to remember that when he says that he created them it is talking about Adam and Eve, it makes sense if you don't jump over the first part where it uses the singular "him".

Next you asked how Eve could be the mother of all people. I have a very good example for this to. If you look at dogs you will immediately notice that they are the same species but that there are many different breeds. This is possible because there were once wild dogs who carried in them the genes for different appearances. Over time humans in different areas breed them for specific purposes and their appearances changed, but they are still the same species. It is the same with humans, Adam and Eve carried the genetic material that was passed down through the generations. As different groups of people seperated into their own cultures certain genes were lost in different groups. For example I've heard that in Asia people, generally, do not drink as much milk even when it is available. Why? Because the genetic defect for lactose intolerance is far higher among their populations then with Europeans. Why? Because their people were, again in general, kept seperate from other peoples and that gene was lost because they all had similar genetic material. This explains how different races could come about. If a mutation happened to an individual a part of a seperate group it is very plausible that within a few generations it would begin to appear in their descendants.

The races we have today are genetic branches off the original human DNA. After the division of languages at the Tower of Babel, different groups settled in different locations. And in that post-flood era, they had other factors playing on their genetic development. Namely weather. Weather did not exist before the flood. A mist used to water the earth. After that global catastrophy, deserts and polar ice caps formed. It rained frequently because of the trade winds and the presence of larger bodies of water. Everything changed. Noah got off the ark in an alien world. Because of the new climates and seasons, man had to adapt accordingly.

By the way, Noah's sons became the ancestors of the following people:

Shem - Jews, Arabs, Hindis and other Southeast Asian peoples, Aboriginies(?), Orientals, Native North Americans, Native South Americans, Polynesians (2/3 of the world's population). The name "Shem" is where we get the term "Semitic."

Ham - Africans

Japheth - Europeans, including Greeks and Russians

In all reality, it doesn't matter who Cain married because his line was cut off at the flood anyway.

Interesting fact: Scientists have researched the history of humanity using mitochondrial DNA, and they discovered something interesting. About 5000 years ago or so, human populations were comparable to today. But then, for some strange reason, a "bottle neck" appears in the population. The gene pool was reduced to a few thousand genes. That's not very many people. Where did this bottle neck come from?

If a sister and brother get married their genetics are too close and the same so it brings forth a mentally challenged child, no matter how perfect the DNA is. In fact, tt doesn't matter if the DNA is perfect or not, what really matters is that the genes are too close so therefore you have a mentally challenged child.

God made morning and evening one day, but how does that prove your point that the Earth couldn't have been created in six segments of time? Also, just because God created the plants before the sun and moon does that mean that God couldn't have kept the plants alive. A farmer who plants his crops doesn't just leave them and not take care of them afterwards.

Now in the Bible it says God said,"Let us create man in our own image." It then goes on to say in my Bible,"God created man; male and female he created them." It's all plural, not singular. If Adam was the only one, it would be singular. Now with your version it says,"So God created man in his own image; in the image of God he created him" Don't you find it funny though that immediately after that it says "male and female he created them"? Now you may not believe it but him can actually mean both plural and singular. In this case it's plural because it's describing the whole human race as one instead of saying them. Besides have you read what other versions of the Bible have to say about how God created people?

(Then God said, “Let us make human beings in our image, in our likeness, so that

they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock

and all the wild animals,• and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

27So God created human beings in his own image,

in the image of God he created them;

male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the

earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over

every living creature that moves on the ground.”) It's all plural! I firmly believe the authors who wrote singular AND considered it singular, and people today who believe it's singular, were and are simply misinterpreting it's meaning.

If the from your beginning point you say that human DNA was perfect with Adam and Eve how could there then be a mutation in an idividual as you bring up in your final sentence that would have made it possible to create all these different races? It sounds like your saying that people of a different race are a mutation.

This is one of your quotes.

"Over time humans in different areas breed them for specific purposes and their appearances changed, but they are still the same species. It is the same with humans, Adam and Eve carried the genetic material that was passed down through the generations."

What? Adam and Eve were Hebrew and if you say they were the first humans, how could they have possibly carried the gene to genetically have caucasian, black, oriental, or arab children when they didn't have it? How could they have had different children of different skin tones when they were Hebrew and nothing else if they were the first humans? It's genetically impossible for a Hebrew couple to have a black, oriental, hispanic, ect., ect. child without it being somewhere in the genes. If they were the only two humans then the only people on this Earth would be Hebrew. Can a caucasian turn oriental? Can a oriental turn black? Can a black turn arab? No, so therefore there would have had to have been more people of different skin tones than just Adam and Eve to create all the different people we have now. Using dogs as an example, can two shi-tzus have a golden retriever puppy or the other way around? Or two bulldogs have a labrador puppy or the other way around? No, it's genetically impossible. They are the same species, but they are not the same breed at all. Eve therefore couldn't have been the mother of the world, she was just the mother of the Hebrew nation that is descended from her.

God bless and I hope you take these points into consideration.

Also, in the email you sent yes. I do believe they were right to fight for their independence.

God Bless!

"If the from your beginning point you say that human DNA was perfect with Adam and Eve how could there then be a mutation in an idividual as you bring up in your final sentence that would have made it possible to create all these different races? It sounds like your saying that people of a different race are a mutation."

Mutations would have begun to occur after sin entered the world. It's possible for a few individuals to, with a few generations, spread into many different peoples. I used the example of breeds of dogs and it could work the exact same way with humanity; even evolutionists don't have multiple types of humans that become todays races. Also the Bible does not state that Adam and Eve were Hebrew; the fathers of the Hebrew race aren't till much later (Abraham, Issac, and Jacob). So they could have already had the DNA for differen't human characterists since they really couldn't have been Hebrew.

Lastly concerning Southern Independence, what a weird subject for this forum, the whole movement was hypocritical. A bunch of people whining because they lost the presidential election and instead of obeying the laws they say "we wan't out!". The only reason they didn't want Abraham Lincoln as president was because they SUPPORTED slavery which you tried to deny in your profile. Their freedoms were not enroached upon instead they were rebelling which is treason and a Confederate system is weak and ineffective anyway.

...but I would just like to point out (I'm not sure why it's being discussed at all on this forum, but whatever^^) that the concerns of the southern states at that time and their desire for independence was a complicated socio-political-economic issue and that slavery was not the only issue or even the greatest issue in that regard (despite the fact that it is often portrayed that way in the pseudo-history that is taught in many of our present day educational institutions).

I'm not taking sides as to whether or not the desire for independence was legitimate - as I have stated it's very complicated - but I'm just pointing out that it was not a one-issue concern. Not even close to it. In fact, slavery was practised (to a lesser degree) in the northern states as well... and there was a time when it was outlawed in the southern states but still legal in the northern states. It's a long story... a multi-faceted history... and difficult to try to understand without some solid (and time-consuming) research. :)

Anyway, I just wanted to clarify that a bit.

I won't really comment on the rest of your post... since there is no need. You have it covered very well.

Your quote.

"First the whole reason incest causes mental and other illnesses in the children is because family members have the same DEFECTS in their DNA so it makes it even more like that the child will get that defect. However, if the parents DNA had no genetic defects in it then it would not be possible for the child to have any no matter how closely they were related." That is why there are mentally retarded children. But let me ask you a question, does sin bring death? Now if sin brings death doesn't death include sickness and disease? Sin brought this into the world. Adam and Eve may have once been perfect, but after they sinned they were tainted. So who's to say that when they sinned they didn't get gentic defects because now they were no longer perfect and whole? You can't be sure can you?

Sin is descended from Eve, not Adam. She was the one who first sinned first. Sin is descended from Eve, but how can does that refute the idea that there were other people than them?

You said,"Adam and Eve were the only humans because New Testament writers talk about how sin is descended from Adam which means he has to be the ancestor of everyone. Otherwise there could have been people who would still be perfect since they wouldn't have sinned." Ever heard the term that one spoiled apple spoils the whole bunch? Sin spreads. It's a toxin that hides it's true form as something enjoyable, and because Adam and Eve now sinned now the world could be infected by sin. God gave the keys of the world to Adam, and when he sinned he handed it over to the Devil. The rest of the people were corrupted too like Adam and Eve by Satan now because eventually they all started sinning, and it went so far that God sent a flood to destroy all the evil they had done.

"Otherwise there could have been people who would still be perfect since they wouldn't have sinned."

Look, if Eve sinned and Adam sinned even though they were perfect before, then that means everyone else out there would've been capable of sinning. So you can't say no one else would've sinned because they were capable of sinning, which they did.

This was my old quote.

"If the from your beginning point you say that human DNA was perfect with Adam and Eve how could there then be a mutation in an idividual as you bring up in your final sentence that would have made it possible to create all these different races? It sounds like your saying that people of a different race are a mutation."

You replied with,"Mutations would have begun to occur after sin entered the world. It's possible for a few individuals to, with a few generations, spread into many different peoples. I used the example of breeds of dogs and it could work the exact same way with humanity,"

WHAT? ARE YOU ACTUALLY SAYING THAT THERE ARE OTHER RACES OF PEOPLE OUT THERE BECAUSE OF SIN?

That is the most ridiculous statement I've ever heard. So now a black person can say,"The white race came about from sin." Or Asians can say,"The black race came from sin." Or whites can say,"The oreintal race came from sin." How the heck does sin create a race of people? HOW?

Adam and Eve were Hebrew. Noah was a descendent, at least I think, of Adam and Eve. Now wasn't one of his greatgrandchildren or grandchildren named Abraham? Abraham was the founder of the first Hebrew nation. Aren't the Hebrews God's chosen people? Wasn't Abraham a descendent of Noah? And isn't Noah a descendent of Adam and Eve? And didn't God chose Adam to be the caretaker of the garden? Wasn't he God's chosen one too? Wasn't Jesus Hebrew and a descendent of Adam and Eve themselves? So now please tell me, how were they not Hebrew? Adam and Eve were Hebrew plain and simple, and they were the parents of the Hebrews, not Abraham.

"So they could have already had the DNA for differen't human characterists since they really couldn't have been Hebrew." How many times do I need to say this? You know what, it's already obvious you're not listening to the point I gave out in my last post so I won't even waste words on that subject.

Lastly, why did you bring up the Southern Independecne into this? All I wanted to do was answer your question and then you bring your arguments into a Biblical argument. You're supposed to be posting stuff relating to the topic unless it's somehting very quick and it includes information related to the post. But I'm going to voice my side of things, BUT only this once in this topic ever again if you'll drop it also.

The movement was not hypocritical. The South fought exactly for what the founding fathers fought for and that was equal representation, which they didn't get. There were more northern states and therefore more Northern congressman who pushed on the South tariff after tariff after tariff. Then in an unconstitutional move forced the South to sell all it's good to the North. So while Northern politicians and businessmen made the money off the tariffs and forced sale of goods the average southerner and southern businssmen were left out to dry. The south realized that they were being put out do dry while others made profit off their gains. So they left to make a nation where they would be making themselves successful and not some politician in Washington. They didn't leave because Lincoln "supposedly" believed in ending slavery. Lincoln voted in Illinois to keep Black Americans from voting and said that he believed blacks were inferior to the white race. Lincoln didn't care about ending slavery, and he even made plans to send free blacks back to Africa. If they were all supporting of slavery then they would have loved to have had him as president. Why would an entire nation break away from another and leave to protect an institution that 8%-15% of the South actually practiced? Does that make sense?

You said,"they SUPPORTED slavery which you tried to deny in your profile." What? Where did I say the that no southerner supported slavery? Of course there were, but there also slavery supporters in the north. Did you know that while the South abolished the slave trade, not slavery, the north kept it legal in their states. If the North was so "righteous" then why didn't they end the slave trade? In fact, why didn't they end slavery? There plenty of norhtern representatives who could have ended the practice since there wouldn't have been enough Southern votes to keep it from being passed, even if every single Southern state opposed it! The South was right to leave the Union because it was becoming destructive to it's own ends for overstepping it's bounds.

If you say rebelling is treason, tell me this, do you think Washington was a traitor? Do you think the founding fathers were traitors? What some consider treason, others consider movements of Independence. Also, the Southern system of government was not as weak and ineffective as you want people to think. It had it's up and downs of course but they were not weak and ineffective. How do think a nation with less men, munitions, factories, food, and supplies were able to hold off a nation that beat us in all those factors for over 4 years?

(This part will sound like nonsense but I've babbled on forever so I might as well babble some more.) Cheers to the people like Robert E. Lee who did what others considered was wrong, because they knew that freedom and human rights are more important than so called "unity". Cheers!

Thread bumper! Sic the plot bunny wargs on Missile! JK :D

Adam repeated the rule to Eve, and she quoted God (or rather Adam) perfectly to the snake. But the snake managed to convince her that God was holding out on them (and thus we end up dealing with rejection and the fear thereof for the rest of history). So Eve took the fruit. Now, Adam was right there with her the entire time! He could have jumped in to stop her, but he didn't. You'll notice that it was only after Adam ate the fruit that they got into trouble.

I find it interesting that the first thing Adam and Eve felt after eating the fruit was shame. Not shame at what they had done, but shame over the fact that they were naked. The first reaction to sin was to feel embarrassed about the way God had made them. Their sin caused them to no longer appreciate one of God's most precious creations, and that fact is further highlighted when Adam blames Eve for giving him the fruit, and God for giving him Eve.

They lost the most beautiful, perfect, holy fellowship the world had ever known that day. In that sense, Adam and Eve died inside, just as God said they would. The natural result of that "death" was that their bodies started aging and wearing out, and their DNA has decayed a little more every generation since. The human race is dying.

All because our ancestors ate themselves out of house and home.

1. Forums are not to be used to post stories.
2. All discussions including language and content must be suitable for teens.
3. The owner/moderator(s) of this forum is solely responsible for content posted within this area.
4. All forum abuse must be reported to the moderator(s).

1. Forum admin/moderator
2. Fanatic (on site for more than 2 years)
3. Fan (on site for more than a year)
4. Regular (on site for more than 6 months)
5. Camper (on site for more than a month)
6. Apprentice (on site for more than a week)
7. Newbie (on site for less than a week)