[airspirit]

Those people you quoted are specialists in a specific religion, not scientists.

In evolutionary theory, nobody ever said that a cell just magically appeared. That is a myth created by closed-minded creationists. If you look at the cell, it is comprised of multiple different types of structures. These structures are comprised of multiple organic chemicals ... organic chemicals that can be created from inorganic chemical reactions. It is not hard to imagine that starting from a soup of inorganic/organic chemicals that there is a possibility that a simple structure was created that had the ability to replicate itself. Viruses, after all, aren't considered living creatures, but can replicate themselves quite easily. The current belief is that through consumption certain early and simple cells (consisting of little more than a nucleus and a cell wall ... DNA in it's current form isn't needed, neither any other modern structures) consumed and absorbed other wildly different structures that are now found today in our cells. There is no supposition here, and there is nothing that could prove that something like this couldn't take place ... in fact, statistically speaking, it is very likely to take place. Consider that if you shuffle a deck and remove the top 26 cards, it leaves you with a 1.99^e41 chance that you would get that specific ordering of cards. Isn't it possible that in the multitude of galaxies that we can see (and if light actually moves at its measured speed proves the age of the universe at over 10 billion years ... not the 6000 years or whateverthefsck you believe through mythological record) that on one planet there would be the proper combination of events to allow simple life to be created? On that note, since we can watch simple cells evolve quite rapidly today, isn't it logical that they might have back then? Similarly, isn't it interesting that, for example, a structure such as the eye can be seen from creature to creature in varying states of evolution, from a few light sensitive cells to the eyes of a hawk to the non-backwards eye of a squid (whose eye has the correction to the refraction error in the human eye, but God must have been drunk then, right?)? Look: blindly believe in whatever nonsense and fairy tales you want. I don't care. As the above essay so aptly put, though, it is you that is trapped in the ghetto of ignorance, not me.

Oh: I don't give a damn what your "inspired" dictionary says. Elohim is a plural word in the Hebrew language. You can't change that. Sorry. Ding-ding, an apologists creed gets shown to be an inaccurate piece of crap. Read that page I gave you the link to for a further explanation. Once upon a time I was a bible scholar and worked with people on the Greek, Latin, and Hebrew translations of ancient texts including the bible and other apocryphal works. The discussions at that company were pretty interesting since we had a number of pHD linguists that couldn't believe what they were reading.