Sorry, but I don't do links. I prefer that others briefly quote what they feel is documentary evidence. In this instance, you are attempting to present proof that organic/macroevolution is the lifeline of modern medicine. I say it is not and that organic/macroeveolution has no connection with what I suspect you are bringing to the table: Darwinian Medicine.
FYI: Whenever I present evidence in my posts, you will see me quoting my source briefly by giving an excerpt of the points I want to prove. Only then will I provide a weblink at the end of the brief quotation. In that way, I can't be accused of plagiarism, and I enable others to go read the entire document if they choose to. A weblink by itself is a no, no.
When a woman gives birth to child, does she build it? Or does it come from her? Her child is comprised of not only the mother, but also the father, yet the child was not a "creation" of the father and mother, but rather a product - an extension of their own being. This is how nature works.
We come OUT OF the world, not IN TO the world.
And if you want to see evidence of an organism that is created by entities within itself, you need not look any further than yourself. You are comprised of systems within systems. Each cell in your body works together to create the form that is you. Yet, you did not create each cell, did you? So how would that be any different than viewing you as a "cell" in a larger organism that we shall call God?
Fact is, if you use the argument that for every thing that is built, there must be a designer and builder, you will always run into the problem that the designer and builder would in turn need a designer / builder to build IT. How far back does that go? And if you say, the builder / designer built itself or was always built, you are essentially defeating your own logic.
---------- Post added at 07:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:35 PM ----------
Actually, the Judeo-Christian Bible was written thousands of years ago. What makes the Bible unique among all other religious books is that it presents evidence of being written by divine inspiration of God. The evidence is in the form of almost 2,000 accurately fulfilled prophecies.
The Bible being translated multiple times from "divergent languages" is your opinion. You presented no evidence that the language used in the original writings of the Bible was "divergent." I will watch for your evidence along that line.
It is unfortunate that such manipulations by the authors of the New Testament completely hijacked Jesus' original message and intent, but it is what it is.
And also, the many translations of the Bible are not my "opinion", it is fact. The Bible is a Frankenstein document, comprised of documents whose original languages vary greatly, from Hebrew to Aramaic to Greek and so forth. It is believed that parts of the New Testament we have today were based off a second translation after the original has been lost for all time. So you are reading a translation of a translation of a translation in some cases.
If you speak more than one language, as I do, you will know how meaning can be altered drastically when translated. It is impossible to create a word for word translation of a document of that magnitude while retaining all the original meaning and subtext of the original text.
Now you're dodging the issue that you raised when you said everything in existence does not require God to create them because all created things are actually God. I don't care how many different scenarios of the "Builder Metaphor" you present. This one with the woman and child is just another builder metapor that you refuse to recognize as such. Below is your comment that started this entire debate between us.
Using your logic that the entire universe and everything in existence are part and parcel god, let's apply it to the woman and child you are now presenting. When your logic is applied in this example, we wind with this: The child is the woman because the child came from the woman. Likewise, since everything in existence came from God, everything in existence is God. That's your logic, not mine.
It would be, however, wrong to say the woman BUILT the child. The child is not comprised of parts not found within its parents.
When you build a house, you must get pieces from external sources to create the objects that comprise it. This is not so with birth and life. When one gives birth, it is internal process wherein the new life is comprised of the elements of the parents, not from an external source.
I am beginning to believe that there is a breakdown in communication here. I feel that our definition of "God" might be the source of the problem.
To be clear, I do not believe that "God" is some sentient, omnipotent being that sits around in some elsewhere putting people together and planning out goals for them. My concept of God is that God is the universe, and the universe is God. It is not, in of itself, a sentient being with its own personality and concept of mind. God is not separate from us, and by "us", I mean all life, all energy, all matter and all of existence.