Quote:

---

There are lots of religious stories about the creation of the world, and even the Bible records two conflicting accounts of creation...

---

Only two???

Maybe CREATION is like stereoscopic poetry?

Only this CREATION has an INFINITE number of eyes and highs...

Revelation 4:6 And before the throne there was a sea of glass like unto crystal: and in the midst of the throne, and round about the throne, were four beasts full of eyes before and behind.

Or is it only 7?

Revelation 5:6 And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

Or all those HIGHS, like FLAMES of FIRE?

Revelation 1:14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;



My GOD, MY GOD, all those VOICES in my HEAD!!!!

And all poets, as anyone with half a brain, or three brains in one knows, have multiple personalities; kind of like marbles in the marble.

It's all ART's fault, you know...



I saw the angel in the marble and carved until I set him free. Michelangelo

Me, Myself and High have created three Whirls in one. G!




CREATION does raise a fascinating question, in terms of mythologies, how comparative sources of origins of language and writing, in context of Creation Myths, how the ideas of ETERNAL TIME is treated.

Proverbs 8:12 I wisdom dwell with prudence, and find out knowledge of witty inventions.

Consider that the Genesis Myth begins with "In the beginning..." but doesn't really offer much about the origin of TIME itself other than an allusion to a division of light and darkness, very YIN YANG in its approach, Genesis 1:1-5, incidentally also, the fifth verse (numerological in musical/form context too!) is literally a shadow of the Genesis 1:1 statement (like the root note in a chord?) that the Heaven and Earth were created through a division of TIME: "In the beginning GOD created..." which is those two basic astrological? divisions, like in two divisions of polarity, i.e. up/down, right/ left, inside/outside, male/female, etc...

The second verse, Genesis 1:2 more or less describing the "mechanism" of HOW the major FIRST division comes about, that is through "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

In other words, the "origin of TIME" is somehow associated with the ACTION(movement?) of the "Spirit of GOD" upon the "face of the waters", which is a poetic way obviously? of talking about REFLECTION or a SHADOW of LIGHT; as is COMPLETED in the THIRD pattern, in Genesis 1:3, "...and there was light".

What this seems to imply is that : "mystically speaking?, according to the Genesis Creation Myth, LIGHT and TIME are both the same; perhaps as "reflections of each other.

I guess GOD can make anything possible, even a creation that "creates itself".

Paradox in spades!

I kind of circumscribe to both deistic and theistic p.o.v., much like the number zero has dual purposes as both a placeholder of magnitude (10, 100, 1000,...etc.) as well as a symbol to donate "the absence of value" as "nothing".

In fact, (or is it faith?) there's the third p.o.v. ,much like the quintessential trinary reduction of "states of matter; i.e. (1)gas, (2)liquid and (3)solid that seems to be abundantly clear throughout both spiritual and physical attributes, as in Spirit World as Trinity Godhead Theologies (1) Father/Mother, (2) Son/Daughter and (3) Holy Spirit/Matter and in Physical World as Space/Time; 3 visible dimensions of SPACE, (1)Length, (2) Width and (3) Height and TIME having causality "direction" of (1)Past, (2)Present and (3)Future.

Things in three's seems to be a very DEFT pattern. g!

So the third circumscription would maybe be atheism itself, which is not really a very accurate description, much like attempts to "define" infinity in terms of the division by zero the "undefined potentate".

Spiritually Atheism would denote the ineffable nature of a SUPREME BEING that is "outside the box" of REASONING; in "fact" outside of EVERYthing.

I would venture a guesstimation, in terms of Trinity p.o.v. that:Father/Mother is likened to ATHEISM; Son/Daughter is likened in similitude to THEISM; and Holy Spirit/Matter in as similitude to DEISM.

Three ZERO's in ONE!

G!

Magnitude as in atheism
Origin as in theism
Whole as in deism

Call it the TOE in the MOW!

The Theory Of Everything in the magnitude and origin of the hole!

Part One: Life

CXXVI

THE BRAIN is wider than the sky,
For, put them side by side,
The one the other will include
With ease, and you beside.

The brain is deeper than the sea, 5
For, hold them, blue to blue,
The one the other will absorb,
As sponges, buckets do.

The brain is just the weight of God,
For, lift them, pound for pound, 10
And they will differ, if they do,
As syllable from sound.
Emily Dickinson (1830–86)

She really flicks some ass, ya know...

Quote:

---

...do i really have to explain the difference between religion and science again?

---

Your so-connived explanation is like a butcher's explanation of the difference between a vegetarian and a carnivore.

The difference is not between religion and science, as you would impose to probably rationalize your own fundy mentality on the matter of demanding a purely MATERIALISTIC Epistemology as the sole and SOUL source of so-called SCIENTIFIC VALIDITY in science; you can genuflect now for the HOLY SHIT for the strains of a gnat you have to swallow the selective camels coming out of your...

Religion is like the apple in the high and science is like the juice.

Two Jewish Rabbi's were sharing a meal together at a Chinese restaurant and were discussing how jews were scattered all over the earth, and one said to the other,

"I wonder if there is any Chinese Jews"?

"Let's ask the waiter", said the other.

So they called over the waiter and asked,

"We were wondering, do you have any Chinese Jews"?

The waiter paused and puzzling, replied,

"I go find out for you".

He comes back after a few minutes and replies,

"We have apple Jews and orange Jews and tomato Jews".

Quote:

---

In the official journal of the South Australian branch of the Australian Skeptics (this organization has similar aims to American humanist groups), the entire 30 pages of The Southern Skeptic, Volume 2 Number 5, Autumn 1985, were devoted to an attack on the creation science ministry in Australia and the United States. On the last page, we read the following: "Even if all the evidence ended up supporting whichever scientific theories best fitted Genesis, this would only show how clever the old Hebrews were in their use of common sense, or how lucky. It does not need to be explained by unobservable God." These people who vehemently attack the creation ministry in saying we are a religious group are themselves a religions group. They have really said that even if all the evidence supported the book of Genesis they still would not believe it was an authoritative document. They are working from the premise that the Bible is not the Word of God, nor can it ever be. They believe, no matter what the evidence, that there is no God. These same people are most adamant that evolution is a fact.

---

Quote:

---

Evolution is basically a religious philosophy. We in creation ministries are explaining to people that both creation and evolution are religious views of life upon which people build their particular models of philosophy, science or history. The issue, therefore, is not science versus religion, but religion versus religion (the science of one religion versus the science of another religion).

---

Quote:

---

The famous evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhanksy (The American Biology Teacher, volume 35, number 3, March 1973, page 129) quotes Pierre Teilhard de Chardin: "Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow." To the Christian, of course, this is a direct denial of the sayings of Jesus as quoted in John 8:12 (NIV): "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life." In Isaiah 2:5 (NIV) we are exhorted to "walk in the light of the Lord." In verse 22 of the same chapter we read, "Stop trusting in man...."

---

Quote:

---

It does not take much effort to demonstrate that evolution is not science but religion. Science, of course, involved observation, using one or more of our five senses (taste, sight, smell, hearing, touch) to gain knowledge about the world and to be able to repeat the observations. Naturally, one can only observe what exists in the present. It is an easy task to understand that no scientist was present over the suggested millions of years to witness the supposed evolutionary progression of life form the simple to the complex. No living scientists was there to observe the first life forming in some primeval sea. No living scientist was there to observe the Big Bang that is supposed to have occurred 10 or 20 billion years ago, nor the supposed formation of the earth 4.5 billion years ago (or even 10,000 years ago!). No scientists was there--no human witness was there to see these events occurring. They certainly cannot be repeated today.

---

Quote:

---

All the evidence a scientists has exists only in the present. All the fossils, the living animals and plants, the world, the universe--in fact, everything, exists now--in the present. The average person (including most students) is not taught that scientists have only the present and cannot deal directly with the past. Evolution is a belief system about the past based on the words of men who were not there, but who are trying to explain how all the evidence of the present (that is, fossils, animals and plants, etc.) originated. (Webster's Dictionary defines religion as follows: "... cause, principle or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith." Surely, this is an apt description of evolution.) Evolution is a belief system--a religion!

---

Quote:

---

Fossil bones to not come with little labels attached telling you how old they are. Nor do fossils have photographs with them telling you what the animals looked like as they roamed the earth long ago.



When people visit a museum they are confronted by bits and pieces of bones and other fossils neatly arranged in glass cases. These are often accompanied by pictures representing an artist's impression of what the animals and plants could have looked like in their natural environment. Remember, no one dug up the picture, just the fossils. And these fossils exist in the present. For example, in Tasmania there is a sandstone bed containing millions of pieces of bones, most of which are no larger than the end of your thumb. The evolutionists have placed a picture at one particular excavation so that tourists can see how the animals and plants lived in the region "millions of years ago." You can stare at those pieces of bones for as long as you like, but you will never see the picture the scientists have drawn. The picture is their story of their own preconceived bias, and that, ultimately, is all it ever can be.



When lecturing in schools and colleges, I like to ask the students what can be learned from a fossil deposit. I ask the students whether all the animals and plants contained in the deposits lived together, died together, or were buried together. I then warn them to make sure that the answer they give me is consistent with true scientific research. As they think about it, they come to realize that they do not know if the organisms lived together because they did not see it happen. They do not know if the organisms died together because they did not see that happen either. All they really know is that they are buried together because they were found together. Therefore, if you try reconstructing the environment in which the organisms lived just from what you find there, you could be making a terrible mistake. The correct use of science needs to be emphasized in our educational system.

---

Quote:

---

The only way one could always be sure of arriving at the right conclusion about anything, including origins, depends upon one's knowing everything there is to know. Unless he knew that every bit of evidence was available, he could never really be sure that any of his conclusions were right. He would never know what further evidence there might be to discover and, therefore, whether this would change his conclusions. Neither could a person ever know if he had reached the point where he had all the evidence. This is a real problem for any human being--how can he ever be one hundred percent sure about anything? It is something of a dilemma, is it not? It is like watching a murder mystery on television. What happens? It is obvious. Halfway through the viewer knows who did it--the butler. Towards the end, this conclusion is still obvious. Three minutes before the end, new evidence is admitted that you did not have before, and this totally changes your conclusions. It wasn't the butler after all!

---

Quote:

---

However, starting with the irrefutable evidence of the Scriptures,

---

Quote:

---

I answered, "The reason scientific theories change is because we don't know everything, isn't it? We don't have all the evidence."
"Yes, that's right," he said.
I replied, "But, we will never know everything."
"That's true," he answered.
I then stated, "We will always continue to find new evidence."
"Quite correct," he said. I replied, "That means we can't be sure about anything."
"Right," he said.
"That means we can't be sure about evolution."
"Oh, no! Evolution is a fact," he blurted out. He was caught by his own logic. He was demonstrating how his view was determined by his bias.

---

Quote:

---

The problem is that most scientists do not realize that it is the belief (or religion) of evolution that is the basis for the scientific models (the interpretations, or stories) used to attempt an explanation of the present

---

Quote:

---

Evolution is no more fact than any statement(s) proving why a bumble bee can fly.

---