Evolution compatible with Creation?

Asked about creationism, Langan has said:

I believe in the theory of evolution, but I believe as well in the allegorical truth of creation theory. In other words, I believe that evolution, including the principle of natural selection, is one of the tools used by God to create mankind. Mankind is then a participant in the creation of the universe itself, so that we have a closed loop. I believe that there is a level on which science and religious metaphor are mutually compatible.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by GirlGenius


I believe you can only go so far in believing in both Creation and Evolution. You're going to be pitted between your faith and science. Many people might worship the same God or have a religious belief in life that is very similar. Jews of today believe God only gave humans free will. Which I believe all kinds species of animals are very in intelligent and sometimes are brighter then the average man. So to me evolution is somewhat compatible with creation. There are some parts that many will not like to convert to into believing.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

I give you answers, yet you say they are wrong, and say I have to try again....well I don't, because they are correct from my perspective, so I have nothing left to add. The only reason I even respond to your posts is so people that have spirituality and faith can understand.
There is another to blame for your inability to see all these things.

2 Corinthians 4:4

Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don't believe. They are unable to see the glorious light of the Good News. They don't understand this message

That's why I feel pity for you.
End of Discussion.(On the flood anyway)

Madness blinded by Satan...ahahahahaha, thx for making me laugh

I knew it, madness always seemed dodgy. How he tries to convince people with his well researched posts, his scientific sources, and all those facts. I knew no one could be so deceptive without being possessed by Satan.

Also, notice how "science" starts with an "s"...JUST LIKE SATAN!! Coincidence? I don't think so

On a more serious note: If a global flood really happened, we would find global sediment evidence...but we haven't. Which makes this whole flood discussion pointless. You've already stated that you're not willing to accept facts if they disagree with your belief.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


Let's see, last time I showed you were wrong you called me a troll. What will you call me this time?

Deceived by Satan

It seems I'm so deceived that I've looped all the way back to full understanding of scientific principles. In fact, you have not been able to counter a single factual claim I've made, you simply say that I'm deceived by Satan.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

I give you answers, yet you say they are wrong, and say I have to try again....well I don't, because they are correct from my perspective, so I have nothing left to add.

If they are correct, please demonstrate this to me. I asked for quite a few simple pieces of information as well as a bit of complex information.

You could simply counter my claims, if they are so necessarily wrong.

Here's the problem though, there's no such thing as 'correct from my perspective' when you're talking about science.

The only reason I even respond to your posts is so people that have spirituality and faith can understand.

You mean people lacking in a basic understanding that a system with enough water to be covered uniformly will stay covered uniformly.

The only reason I bother responding to even this nonsense is to show reasonable people, including reasonable theists, that I'm patient enough to deal with nonsense and that you lack any sort of basis for your claims outside of blind faith and an ignorance of basic science.

There is another to blame for your inability to see all these things.

My father? He's the one that got me hooked on science, and I can't thank him enough for that.

2 Corinthians 4:4

Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don't believe. They are unable to see the glorious light of the Good News. They don't understand this message

Um...no...I'm sorry. This is just a tad bit of hate speech.

That's why I feel pity for you.

And I feel pity for you because you clearly lack basic reasoning abilities.
I mean, this is the second time you've argued for something that is demonstrably impossible. The first one was that you claimed the sun was 'diffused' for hundreds of millions of years without leading to something akin to nuclear winter.

End of Discussion.(On the flood anyway)

You tend to do this. You label me as being unable to understand, when I clearly do understand which is how I can show that you're wrong, and then write "End of Discussion" without defending your thoroughly flimsy points.

This is only the "End of Discussion" because you are wrong, I have shown you to be wrong, and you are giving up on the discussion.

reply to post by edmc^2


i love how u dont know what ur talking about b/c in gen verse 26 it says Our and Us not my! in other words saying there are many gods (aliens)

hate to break it to u bubby but evolution and creation go hand in hand!

the universe is god! everything we see comes from stars these stars inhabit the universe! without the universe there can be no stars with out stars there can be none of us!

so with this said...the universe created stars that created everything else so as time went on everything evolved and as time went on further aliens came and helped out evolution

so creation-evolution-ancient alien theory goes hand in hand! hope one day u see this connection good day!

Originally posted by GirlGenius

Asked about creationism, Langan has said:
I believe in the theory of evolution, but I believe as well in the allegorical truth of creation theory. In other words, I believe that evolution, including the principle of natural selection, is one of the tools used by God to create mankind. Mankind is then a participant in the creation of the universe itself, so that we have a closed loop. I believe that there is a level on which science and religious metaphor are mutually compatible.

en.wikipedia.org...

I have the same basic view of reality as Langan, except I believe we each are god, each living within the mind of god in a separate reality, with the illusion of togetherness. This togetherness, I believe, is the whole purpose of physical existance, because it opens up possibilities that are not available to a solitary being.

This belief does not interact with evolution, as evolution is happening on the material plane, which is complete within itself.

So you can see Langlan is not a biblical creationist, and his outlook has no need for the silly "god of the gaps" theory, which is what Intelligent Design is all about. Thus he's most likely been conned into lending his name to the ID movement, without realising it's about denying teaching to students by wasting time in science class with the teaching of a fairy tale. Considering the value he places on education, and the work he's done to ensure special education for remarkably bright students, it's unlikely he would want unproven religious ideas being taught.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

I give you answers, yet you say they are wrong, and say I have to try again....well I don't, because they are correct from my perspective, so I have nothing left to add. The only reason I even respond to your posts is so people that have spirituality and faith can understand.
There is another to blame for your inability to see all these things.

2 Corinthians 4:4

Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don't believe. They are unable to see the glorious light of the Good News. They don't understand this message

That's why I feel pity for you.
End of Discussion.(On the flood anyway)

So yet again you are going to take your ball and go home?

If the biblical god is responsible for the illogical, blinkered vision illustrated by your posts, and the ill-natured insult behind the above mistranslated quote, and if Satan is responsible for Madness's intelligence, patience and kindness in continually, gently proffering one of the greatest gifts of all, education, then perhaps the Gnostics have it right, and Christians and Jews are mistaken about who is the good guy and who is the bad guy here.

By their fruits can you tell them.

reply to post by Astyanax

The only question left then to ask would be: why would a supposedly good God indulge in such an orgy of slaughter?

I know you are intelligent enough to already know the answer to this question. Really it a rhetorical question?
But I will answer it for the less informed, as this deals with the why, not the how part of the discussion.
Genesis 6

1WHEN MEN began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, 2The sons of God saw that the daughters of men were fair, and they took wives of all they desired and chose. 3Then the Lord said, My Spirit shall not forever dwell and strive with man, for he also is flesh; but his days shall yet be 120 years. 4There were giants on the earth in those days--and also afterward--when the sons of God lived with the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. 5The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination and intention of all human thinking was only evil continually. 6And the Lord regretted that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved at heart. 7So the Lord said, I will destroy, blot out, and wipe away mankind, whom I have created from the face of the ground--not only man, [but] the beasts and the creeping things and the birds of the air--for it grieves Me and makes Me regretful that I have made them.

I really believe one of the reason atheists/evolutionists feel so strongly about their belief system is that they strongly disagree with God in the way he projects his sovereignty over the planet he created to start with.
Hey everybody is allowed their own personal opinion, but to God if you aren't having faith in him, your opinion is irrelevant to him.

Originally posted by GirlGenius

Asked about creationism, Langan has said:

I believe in the theory of evolution, but I believe as well in the allegorical truth of creation theory. In other words, I believe that evolution, including the principle of natural selection, is one of the tools used by God to create mankind. Mankind is then a participant in the creation of the universe itself, so that we have a closed loop. I believe that there is a level on which science and religious metaphor are mutually compatible.

en.wikipedia.org...

Hello,
Please don't get me wrong - I'm not questioning you or this person Langan or Kailassa's belief system but just pointing out the incompatibility it.

If you read what I said in the OP - it clearly shows you why.

Here, I'll quote it again and let me know please how you can marry the two belief system:

QUOTE:

I agree with the statements above only for those who were misled, whose faith's were corrupted and not solidly founded on the Truth. Watch/consider this simple test: you can tell right away where they stand – mention the Bible, the Holy Scriptures and they will right away go on attack mode. They will come up with so many excuses to disregard and disparage the Bible. Belittle it and treat it as merely just a book written by as they love to say it here “goat herders” and not as it is truly is The Word of God – the Truth.

Why the adverse effect? IMHO, because it destroys the very foundation of evolution, it annihilates their ENTIRE belief system. It shows it what it really is a mere set of belief. A phylosophy if not a psuedo-science based on nothing with no real foundation, no real meaning and with no real purpose in the end. Above all it puts them in direct contradiction with the Bible and it's author - God.

(note: real science that inhance our lives and helps us understand the awesome universe is not the issue here but psuedo-science.)

...

Now please consider just this simple analysis:

If God used evolution to make men from beasts or directed bacteria to develop into fish and then to continue developing through reptiles and mammals, so that finally a race of apes (common ancestor) became humans. Then how can they reconcile these Bible verses.

(The creation of the first humans Adam and Eve)

“And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” – Gen 1:27

Jesus Christ confirmed it by quoting it.

In reply he said: “Did YOU not read that he who created them from [the] beginning made them male and female.” – Matthew 19:4

The physician Luke verified it through genealogy: Luke 3: 23-38. Confirmed that Adam was a real person just as Jesus is a real person.

What do you think? Compatible?

I look forward to your answer.

ciao,
edmc2

Pending reply to:
madness
next- mrXYX
mrSmth

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
Hey everybody is allowed their own personal opinion, but to God if you aren't having faith in him, your opinion is irrelevant to him.

According to Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus doesn't care whether you have faith in him,or even whether you acknowledge his existance.
In this passage he promises to return, and divide humanity into two groups, those who provided care for the needy, and those who did not. And those who did not were sent to hell forever, regardless of their beliefs, while those who did were brought to be with god in heaven, whether atheists, gays, "evolutionists", thieves or what.

So sorry, your opinion is irrelevant to the god you believe in; only your acts of caring charity matter.

reply to post by edmc^2


You continue to use the Christian Bible to prove your stance on this subject. Still I don't see any evidence that Christianity is basically truth. You see us as the image of God and Jesus as either a demigod or God in the flesh which actually go's against the original ideals of God.
G-D

Although many places in scripture and Talmud speak of various parts of G-d's body (the Hand of G-d, G-d's wings, etc.) or speak of G-d in anthropomorphic terms (G-d walking in the garden of Eden, G-d laying tefillin, etc.), Judaism firmly maintains that G-d has no body. Any reference to G-d's body is simply a figure of speech, a means of making G-d's actions more comprehensible to beings living in a material world. Much of Rambam's Guide for the Perplexed is devoted to explaining each of these anthropomorphic references and proving that they should be understood figuratively. We are forbidden to represent G-d in a physical form. That is considered idolatry. The sin of the Golden Calf incident was not that the people chose another deity, but that they tried to represent G-d in a physical form.

This followed directly from the fact that G-d has no physical form. As one rabbi explained it to me, G-d has no body, no genitalia, therefore the very idea that G-d is male or female is patently absurd. We refer to G-d using masculine terms simply for convenience's sake, because Hebrew has no neutral gender; G-d is no more male than a table is. Although we usually speak of G-d in masculine terms, there are times when we refer to G-d using feminine terms. The Shechinah, the manifestation of G-d's presence that fills the universe, is conceived of in feminine terms, and the word Shechinah is a feminine word.

I know you're set on the Christian POV on everything. That's common! As you see it many people of all religions even if the religions are similar explain their beliefs differently.
Why did God fashion man out of the ground?

Because plastic hadn't been invented yet. (Just kidding.) There are four layers of existence: Inanimate objects, plants, animals, and humans. Each level takes the level of life which is below it and elevates it. A plant derives its nutrition from the ground, elevating the ground and incorporating it into a higher level of existence. The same is true of all the levels. One reason we were created from the ground is to remind us that we can constantly strive to elevate every aspect of existence, even the lowly dirt.

God's image

We were created in G-d's image. The image of His vision. From a point before and beyond all things, G-d looked upon a moment in time to be and saw there a soul, distant from Him in a turbulent world, yet yearning to return to Him and His oneness. And He saw the pleasure He would have from this union. So He invested His infinite light into that finite image and became one with that image and in that image He created each one of us. As for that moment He saw, that was the moment now.

Can you agree with all the ex source I posted?

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


Wow, you didn't even bother to address my post. Nor have you addressed the post prior to it. Nor have you addressed a single point I've actually made on here.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by Astyanax

 

I really believe one of the reason atheists/evolutionists

For the (insert large number here because I'm not counting) time: Not all people who accept the scientific explanation for biodiversity are atheists. In fact, most of them aren't.

feel so strongly about their belief system is that they strongly disagree with God in the way he projects his
sovereignty over the planet he created to start with.

It's not a belief system. Evolution is a scientific explanation of biodiversity and atheism is a single lack of belief.
Atheism is no more a belief system than not wearing pants is a fashion line.

We don't even feel all that strongly about it. Sure, we object to the actions of "Yahweh" in the Bible, but it's in the same fashion that I object to the actions of one "Edward Cullen", as a literary figure and nothing more.

Hey everybody is allowed their own personal opinion, but to God if you aren't having faith in him, your opinion is irrelevant to him.

Um...actually, most of the problems I have are with the fact that events as you describe them violate reason and would leave behind an insane amount of evidence of which there is none

And you've yet to actually address a single objection I've made to any of your claims.

Of course, I'm just a troll who is deceived by Satan....oh wait, that's stupid.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


Evolution isn't a "belief"...just like claiming the sky is blue on a sunny day isn't a "belief"

reply to post by GirlGenius

I believe in the theory of evolution, but I believe as well in the allegorical truth of creation theory. In other words, I believe that evolution, including the principle of natural selection, is one of the tools used by God to create mankind. Mankind is then a participant in the creation of the universe itself, so that we have a closed loop. I believe that there is a level on which science and religious metaphor are mutually compatible.

I will assume, GirlGenius, that you're quoting this because it accurately states your own position. If that isn't the case, I apologize in advance for my error.

The scientific concept of evolution is that it is not teleological: that is, not directed towards some specific end. To put it in contemporary self-help lingo, evolution is not 'purpose-driven'. It just happens.

The words you have quoted disagree with this; they claim that the purpose of evolution is to create humankind.

It that is true, it raises a serious moral problem. It implies that God began by creating one (or more, if you like) imperfect creature or creatures, setting in motion a process in which countless other imperfect creatures lived and died, with the aim of bringing about a race of perfect (or more perfect) creatures, namely humankind.

These imperfect creatures, for no other reason than that they are imperfect, experienced pain and suffering in incalculable measure, simply in order that you and I--or some future perfect version of us--could come to be.

Now, who should bear the responsibility for all that pain, suffering and unfulfilled existence? Surely it should be the one who created these beings in the full knowledge that they were born to suffer and die? Logic permits no other answer--especially when we allow, as we must, that most of these creatures had no free will, no option that would allow them to save or redeem themselves from the fate God had decreed for them.

Would this not suggest that God is either:

1. limited in His abilities and therefore obliged to use this imperfect process, operating in a multitude of imperfect creatures over billions of years, in order to come up with the kind of creatures He is actually aiming for; or
   
   
2. simply heartless and evil?

Is this wrong? Or can you suggest a third possibility?

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

Thank you for your honest answer. You quoted Genesis:

The Lord regretted that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved at heart. So the Lord said, I will destroy, blot out, and wipe away mankind, whom I have created from the face of the ground--not only man, [but] the beasts and the creeping things and the birds of the air--for it grieves Me and makes Me regretful that I have made them.

1. So God, when he made mankind, failed to foresee how we would behave in the future. I thought God was supposed to be omniscient: that nothing in the past, present or future, is hidden from Him. What happened?
   
   
2. By regretting His creation of mankind, He acknowledges that He has made a mistake. What does He do to correct his mistake? Does He try to fix things so that humanity behaves better? Oh no--He puts the blame for His mistake on mankind, and vows to wipe them out.
   
   
3. In the process, he also massacres all the 'beasts and creeping things and birds of the air'--none of whom have behaved badly, or done Him the slightest bit of wrong.
   According to your own Holy Book, then, your God is limited in His powers, unreflective or in denial of His own errors, unjust, cruel to animals and generally a very unpleasant little deity indeed.

I have only one more question, if you will be so kind: why do you worship this evil being?

reply to post by edmc^2

You keep quoting the Bible as if it were a factual, accurate source of information.

Clearly it is not, so what's the point?

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by edmc^2

 

You keep quoting the Bible as if it were a factual, accurate source of information.

Clearly it is not, so what's the point?

OF course it is. A simple honest unbiased study of it will confirm that. Why even great men of science like Sir Isaac Newton found it to be factually accurate and so do does millions and millions more.

lets take a few sample:

“I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history whatsoever.”
-- Sir Isaac Newton

“The best informed medical researchers now doing the best work are arriving at the conclusion that the Bible is a very accurate scientific book. . . . The facts of life, diagnosis, treatment, and preventive medicine as given in the Bible are far more advanced and reliable than the theories of Hippocrates, many still unproven, and some found to be grossly inaccurate.” -- The AMA News

Dr. A. Rendle Short in his book The Bible and Modern Medicine, after pointing out that sanitary laws among the nations surrounding ancient Israel were very elementary if they existed at all. Note what he said:

“It is the more surprising therefore that in a book like the Bible, alleged to be unscientific, there should be a sanitary code at all, and equally surprising that a nation just escaped from slavery, frequently overrun by enemies and carried away into captivity from time to time, should have on its statute books so wise and reasonable a code of rules of health.”

James T. Fisher, a psychiatrist, had this to say about the psychological value in Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount:

“If you were to take the sum total of all the authoritative articles ever written by the most qualified of psychologists and psychiatrists on the subject of mental hygiene—if you were to combine them, and refine them, and cleave out the excess verbiage—if you were to take the whole of the meat and none of the parsley, and if you were to have these unadulterated bits of pure scientific knowledge concisely expressed by the most capable of living poets, you would have an awkward and incomplete summation of the Sermon on the Mount. And it would suffer immeasurably through comparison.”—A Few Buttons Missing, page 273.

Concerning the Christian Greek Scriptures, a leading authority on Bible manuscripts, Sir Frederic Kenyon, wrote:

“The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.” He also stated: “It cannot be too strongly asserted that in substance the text of the Bible is certain. . . . This can be said of no other ancient book in the world.”

As to details such as chronological and geographic statements in the Bible, Professor R. D. Wilson writes in A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament, pages 213-14:

“The chronological and geographical statements are more accurate and reliable than those afforded by any other ancient documents; and the biographical and other historical narratives harmonize marvelously with the evidence afforded by extra-biblical documents.”

“There has been a general return to appreciation of the accuracy, both in general sweep and in factual detail, of the religious history of Israel. . . . To sum up, we can now again treat the Bible from beginning to end as an authentic document of religious history.” -- Archeologist William Foxwell Albright

Upon studying the accuracy and authenthecity of the Bible Professor Kurt Aland wrote:

“It can be determined, on the basis of 40 years of experience and with the results which have come to light in examining . . . manuscripts at 1,200 test places: The text of the New Testament has been excellently transmitted, better than any other writing from ancient times; the possibility that manuscripts might yet be found that would change its text decisively is zero.”—Das Neue Testament—zuverlässig überliefert (The New Testament—Reliably Transmitted), Stuttgart, 1986, pp. 27, 28.

I'll stop here for now before this post grows further as there are hundreds more findings showing the accuracy and authenthecity of the Bible.

Bottom line:
It's accurate when it comes to true science although it's not a scientific book.
It's accurate when it comes to history.
It's accurate when it comes to human affairs and traits.
It's accurate when it comes to nature.
It's accurate when it comes to geography.

Most of all it's accurate when it comes to prophetic events -- now this topic alone has hundreds and hundreds of proof of the Bible's accuracy and authenthecity.

No other BOOK can get even close to it.

Of course, the only way to disprove these people is to discredit them but good luck.

Now between you and Sir Newton, I'll side with Newton unless you have ample evidence that refutes his conclusion.



ciao,
edmc2

reply to post by edmc^2


The bible is accurate?? Maybe there's some stuff in there that is, just like Spiderman has some accurate descriptions of NYC...but crucial things such as genesis (we know humans didn't just pop up in their current form), the global flood (apart from having no evidence, it's also physically impossible), and people living in whales (do I really have to go there) for days are total hogwash.

reply to post by Romantic_Rebel


Rebel,

you said:

You continue to use the Christian Bible to prove your stance on this subject. Still I don't see any evidence that Christianity is basically truth."

Deffinitely understand your point. IMHO the reason behind it, is the co-opting of "Christendon" of Christianity.
Right at its inception - "Christendom" has become synonymous with Christianity. Do a google search about "Christendom" and you'll see what I mean - make sure the source is a reputable one (like encyclopedia Britanica / others that you can trust).

As for the ex quotes - yes I do agree with the statements:

God - can't have any representation as he is a Spirit person and no man has seen God (except his Son Jesus and the angels). Thus to make any image to represent him is idolatry - including the cross the people wear around thier neck.

As for God in the flesh - correct again, it goes as you said "against the original ideals of God". This is an unscriptural teaching introduced by "Christendom". I totaly reject it.

As for

"One reason we were created from the ground is to remind us that we can constantly strive to elevate every aspect of existence, even the lowly dirt."

I agree but not to elevate the "lowly dirt". Man was created from the 'elements' of the earth because he was meant to live on earth (forever). The earth supplies us all the necessary elements and nutrients to keep us alive. And in so doing we appreciate the gift of life.

Consider, not only the fruits and vegetables we consume keeps us alive and healthy but they are also delicious. Why the taste? Evolution has no satisfactory answer other than it evolved. If so, why is there taste in the first placed? We can survive without the sweetness of a mango fruit, but why is it there? There are animals that are alive and can eat food without taste. We too can do that, but what kind of existence will it be? So it's a gift from the Creator of life. It was there to not only keep us alive but to enjoy life. Of course, due to man's disobedience, here we are in a dying state.

Now please consider the accuracy of this verse when verified against science:

“Jehovah God proceeded to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a living soul.” -- Genesis 2:7

Do you know that Scientists today list over a hundred elements as being found on this earth. They say however, some of these are man-made. And as many as sixty of the natural elements have been found in living things and some forty have been found in man.

They also said, not included in the list for special consideration are the four major elements described as “having a molecular weight of 16 or less.

And in thier findings these account for 96 percent of the body’s composition. They include oxygen, 65 percent; carbon, 18 percent; hydrogen, 10 percent; nitrogen, 3 percent.

That explains the fact that 75 percent of the body’s composition is oxygen and hydrogen would seem to show the need of daily drinking sufficient liquids.

In these regard note what the late famed biologist Nobel Prize winner Dr. Alexis Carrel stated:

“Man is literally made from the dust of the earth. . . . The staple foods may not contain the same nutritive substances as in former times. Mass production has modified the composition of wheat, eggs, milk, fruit, and butter, although these articles have retained their familiar appearance. Chemical fertilizers, by increasing the abundance of the crops without replacing all the exhausted elements in the soil, have indirectly contributed to changing the nutritive value of cereal grains and vegetables. Hens have been compelled, by artificial diet and mode of living, to enter the ranks of mass producers. Has not the quality of their eggs been modified?”—Man the Unknown.

Now notice these list - where the nutrients to sustain man comes from, proving that man was indeed "from the the dust of the ground":

MINERALS IN THE BODY
Macro Minerals

Mineral -- % of Body -- Where Located -- Value -- Some Good Sources

Calcium -- 1.5-9 99% -- in bones, teeth. -- Milk, -- other dairy

Aids in blood clotting, - products, cabbage,
muscle activity, - kale, etc.,
nerve function, - unrefined cereals,
heart action; - legumes, bone
activates certain - meal.
enzymes. (Most persons
do not get enough
calcium.)

Phosphorus -- 1.0 - 75% in bones, teeth. - All protein foods:
Aids in cell life, re- meats, fish, nuts,
production utilization legumes, dairy
of carbohydrates, fats products,
in maintaining acid-base unrefined cereals.
balance; nourishes brain
etc.

Potassium --.35 - Found in cells. Plays All fruits, vege-
leading role in utiliza- tables. Potato
tion of proteins, carbo- peelings richest
hydrates; helps maintain source. (Must be
normal heartbeat. taken daily.)

Sulfur -- .25 Found in (and important Protein foods,
to) skin, fingernails, onion, cabbage
hair; the “beauty families.
mineral.”

Sodium -- .15 Found throughout body. Table and sea
Maintains water balance, salt, cheese,
osmotic pressure in body butter, cereals.
fluids; aids in maintain- “A diet truly
ing acid-base balance; low in sodium
indispensable for kidney would be hard to
function. achieve.”

Chlorine --.15 Mostly in extracellular Salt, meat, leafy
fluids, part of hydro- vegetables, milk,
chloric acid in stomach. tomatoes, etc.
Aids liver function,
maintaining acid-base
balance.

Magnesium -- .05 Bones, soft tissues. Nuts, legumes,
Important to heart, fish, whole
nerve tissue; vital grains, blackstrap
to a host of enzyme molasses, raw
functions. leafy vegetables.
Micro or Trace Minerals

Iron -- .004-7 In hemoglobin. Aids in Liver, lean meats,
bringing oxygen to cells; legumes, egg
aids certain cellular yolks, molasses,
enzymes. (Women need dark leafy greens,
more iron than do men.) raisins, apricots,
berries, onions.
oysters, whole
grains.

Manganese-- .0003 Essential for bone Whole grains,
formation, body growth, legumes, beet
normal metabolism; tops, pineapple,
activates many essential bananas, blue-
enzymes. berries, saltwater
fish.

Copper --- .0002 Aids in utilization of Liver, kidney,
iron; activates many shellfish,
essential enzymes. “Key legumes, nuts,
element to life itself.” raisins, unre-
fined cereals.
Micro or Trace Minerals


Iodine -- .00004 Mostly in thyroid gland. Seafood (animal
Controls metabolism and vegetable),
rate, aids in forming mushrooms, crops
thyroid hormone, grown near oceans,
prevents goiter, etc. iodized salt.

Zinc -- Trace Mostly in sex organs Animal proteins,
and thyroid. Plays fish, whole grains,
vital role in enzymes maple sugar.
needed for growth and
body functioning.

Molybdenum --Trace Essential for bone Legumes, whole
formation, normal grains, dark
metabolism, body growth. leafy greens,
organ meats.

Cobalt --Trace In pancreas, liver, Liver, legumes,
spleen. Aids in blood whole grains.
formation, vital part
of vitamin B-12.

Fluorine -- Trace Found in bones and Seafood, tea.
teeth. Prevents tooth
decay.

Chromium -- Trace Contributes to growth, Raw sugar.
longevity, resistance
to disease, especially
diabetes.

Bromine --Trace Persons suffering from Watermelons,
depressive psychoses tomatoes.
found to have less than
average in blood.

Note: It is to be expected that authorities differ; listings are representative rather than comprehensive. New findings might add more.

As for we were made "in God's Image" - yes we are in that we posses the Creator foremost attributes such as:

Love, sense of Justice, Mercy and Power - along with kindness and other beautiful traits. No other creation on earth posses these attributes - thus we are made in his image.

ciao,
edmc,


good find - thanks for posting.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2

 

The bible is accurate?? Maybe there's some stuff in there that is, just like Spiderman has some accurate descriptions of NYC...but crucial things such as genesis (we know humans didn't just pop up in their current form), the global flood (apart from having no evidence, it's also physically impossible), and people living in whales (do I really have to go there) for days are total hogwash.

edit on 1-12-2010 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-12-2010 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

MrXYZ, may I suggest to stick to reality - no comic strips please.

ciao,
edmc2

research is tedious but fun.