Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?

[4WD]

John 4:24  God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth."

[Amo]

John 4:24  God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth."

So, the above scripture means just what it says according to 4WD's understanding, but all scripture which attach any physical attributes to God or angels who are of the spirit absolutely cannot mean what they say. Is this correct. 4WD says being of the spirit means having no physical being or attributes, thus all scripture describing such does not really mean what it is saying, but is only spiritual in nature. Which nature apparently is some floaty or non physical state of just consciousness, is that correct? If we as physical beings can worship God in spirit, then why does being in the spirit have to preclude any physical being? Where are you getting this thought process from? I would ask you if Adam and Eve were spiritual beings before the fall, but you don't even believe in creation, or the fall. Though you will not ever explain exactly what you do believe about our beginnings and how that relates to us and the gospel message of Jesus Christ. What is a spiritual being to you, and where do you draw your conclusions from?

[Amo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W4e4MwogLo

An interesting video concerning a basic premise of the theory of evolution.

[4WD]

.....you don't even believe in creation, or the fall.

Amo, I really don't care what you believe.  That is completely up to you.  But I do care when you LIE THROUGH YOUR TEETH about me as you have done here.  Trump responded and addressed Ted Cruz as Lyin' Ted. I think perhaps that fits you as well, Lyin' Amo.  And every time you lie as you have done here I will simply respond to you as  Lyin' Amo.

So Lyin' Amo, how does lying fit into your religious beliefs?  Can you, Lyin' Amo, give some Scriptural support for your lying?

[The Barbarian]

If that comes as a surprise to you, then you are more science challenged than I thought.  I can't be certain, but I would imagine in this day and age, that is taught in high school science classes.  If it isn't then the educational system is even worse than I imagined.

It's in the 8th grade curriculum.  You may recall that Einstein got his only Nobel for the photoelectric effect, which could only happen if light is particulate.  But diffraction is only possible if light is composed of waves.   I guess most physicists have concluded that light is something that has aspects of waves and aspects of particles, but exists in a form that we can only see part of it at a time.

[The Barbarian]

"Visible light is carried by photons". CARRIED by photons.

You think God is carried by photons? 

[Amo]

Amo, I really don't care what you believe.  That is completely up to you.  But I do care when you LIE THROUGH YOUR TEETH about me as you have done here.  Trump responded and addressed Ted Cruz as Lyin' Ted. I think perhaps that fits you as well, Lyin' Amo.  And every time you lie as you have done here I will simply respond to you as  Lyin' Amo.

So Lyin' Amo, how does lying fit into your religious beliefs?  Can you, Lyin' Amo, give some Scriptural support for your lying?

Please do prove me wrong and a liar, and explain to me your belief concerning creation and the fall according to the theory of evolution. If you would ever do such as requested, then it could be determined what your thoughts actually are concerning the same. You do not believe that the world was created in six days, is this correct, or a lie? You do not believe that humanity fell in the garden when they disobeyed God, and believed Satan's words above God's. Is this correct or a lie. You could easily solve this misunderstanding if you would explain your views with some details as to what you think actually happened according to what is written in scripture. If you refuse to do this, then why should I or anyone else think you believe the world was created by God as scripture testifies? Or do you admit, that you do not believe what is plainly stated in scripture, but are not sure what the scriptures really mean, or how they could support what you actually believe? What is one supposed to think, when you say the creation account is not literal, but offer no explanation as to what it actually is, or how it is to interpreted?

[4WD]

Please do prove me wrong and a liar, and explain to me your belief concerning creation and the fall......

Lyin' Amo, I believe the genesis account of the creation and the fall.  You declared that I don't.  You, Lyin' Amo, lied.

[Amo]

Lyin' Amo, I believe the genesis account of the creation and the fall.  You declared that I don't.  You, Lyin' Amo, lied.

So how do creation, the fall, and the theory of evolution work out together?

[4WD]

So how do creation, the fall, and the theory of evolution work out together?

Just fine. Actually the fall has nothing to do with creation.  Or evolution for that matter.

[Amo]

Just fine. Actually the fall has nothing to do with creation.  Or evolution for that matter.

So I guess you will not explain what you believe, just declare that creation didn't happen the way Genesis records it, the fall either I suppose, and evolution is how we came about. So be it. I'll stick to my conclusion, that your general testimony regarding fundamental themes of scripture are that they do not mean what the simply state, and are left up to the individual to decide for themselves what they really mean other than what they plainly state.

[4WD]

So I guess you will not explain what you believe, just declare that creation didn't happen the way Genesis records it, the fall either I suppose, and evolution is how we came about. So be it. I'll stick to my conclusion, that your general testimony regarding fundamental themes of scripture are that they do not mean what the simply state, and are left up to the individual to decide for themselves what they really mean other than what they plainly state.

What a crock.  I asked you for the meaning of what Genesis 1:3; what it plainly states.  And you give us some bogus falderal about "God is light".  So in fact rather than read verse 3 for what it plainly states you decide for yourself what that verse means.  You do that because you can't accept what it plainly states because it doesn't make any sense for the rest of your young earth creation interpretation.

[tooldtocare]

The Barbarian posted:

You're still confusing science with faith.   Two different ways of knowing.    Let God be God, and this will cease to bother you.

And I say in response--- Amen (:- 

[The Barbarian]

So I guess you will not explain what you believe, just declare that creation didn't happen the way Genesis records it, the fall either I suppose, and evolution is how we came about. So be it. I'll stick to my conclusion, that your general testimony regarding fundamental themes of scripture are that they do not mean what the simply state, and are left up to the individual to decide for themselves what they really mean other than what they plainly state.

Amo, you seem like you're a decent person in most ways.  What do you hope to gain by attributing opinions to 4WD that he has never expressed here?   He disagrees with you on what scriptures say; he does not say that creation didn't happen as Genesis records it. 

Keep that difference in mind, please.

[KiwiChristian]

The Barbarian posted:

You're still confusing science with faith.   Two different ways of knowing.    Let God be God, and this will cease to bother you.

And I say in response--- Amen (:- 

Yes, the evolutionist has FAITH that we all came from a rock or slime 4.6 billion years ago.

[The Barbarian]

Kiwi gets it backwards, and confuses abiogenesis with evolution again:

Yes, the evolutionist has FAITH that we all came from a rock or slime 4.6 billion years ago.

Nope.  "Evolutionists" have evidence that new species evolve from other species.   However, the origin of life is not part of evolutionary theory.   And God says that life came from non-living matter, so it appears that abiogenesis is at least consistent with God's word. 

As you learned, evolution is also consistent with His word.  How could it not be?  He created it.

[4WD]

And God says that life came from non-living matter....

I would put it a little differently.  I think God says that He gave life to non-living matter.

[The Barbarian]

I would put it a little differently.  I think God says that He gave life to non-living matter.

I think that's pretty close. 

The air, earth, and water brought forth living things as He commanded.

[KiwiChristian]

Kiwi gets it backwards, and confuses abiogenesis with evolution again:

Nope.  "Evolutionists" have evidence that new species evolve from other species.   However, the origin of life is not part of evolutionary theory.   And God says that life came from non-living matter, so it appears that abiogenesis is at least consistent with God's word. 

As you learned, evolution is also consistent with His word.  How could it not be?  He created it.

of COURSE speciation happens.

NO-ONE denies that.

[Alan]

of COURSE speciation happens.

NO-ONE denies that.

That's just a soft admission to believing evolution.

[The Barbarian]

That's just a soft admission to believing evolution.

Yep. Speciation is all that's necessary for common descent.  That's why there's no end of transitional forms in the fossil record, and there is a huge amount of genetic data confirming it.

[KiwiChristian]

That's just a soft admission to believing evolution.

well, if that is your definition of "evolution", fine. I believe it.

[The Barbarian]

Kiwi writes:

well, if that is your definition of "evolution", fine. I believe it.

So you're good with Darwinism, but not with abiogenesis.   O.K.

[KiwiChristian]

Kiwi writes:
So you're good with Darwinism, but not with abiogenesis.   O.K.

Nope, not good with darwin, who btw had no accredited degree.

darwin said it was a fact that ALL living things are related to eachother.

Sorry, i am NOT related to a flower or potato.

Also, i challenge the NAME of his book. Would you please quote the full name?

[Alan]

Nope, not good with darwin, who btw had no accredited degree.

darwin said it was a fact that ALL living things are related to eachother.

Sorry, i am NOT related to a flower or potato.

Also, i challenge the NAME of his book. Would you please quote the full name?

No need to make attempts to discredit Darwin, he did indeed study at Cambridge where he received a bachelors degree. He also enrolled in other courses for the sake of knowledge, but for the sake of his interests and studies, there was really no published works at the time, Darwin was a pioneer in his detailed works.


Which book are you referring to? He had many published works/books. 

[KiwiChristian]

No need to make attempts to discredit Darwin, he did indeed study at Cambridge where he received a bachelors degree. He also enrolled in other courses for the sake of knowledge, but for the sake of his interests and studies, there was really no published works at the time, Darwin was a pioneer in his detailed works.


Was cambridge accredited?

What did he get a bachelors in?


Which book are you referring to? He had many published works/books.

Yeah, i thought someone would get pedantic over that.

I think you know what book i am referring to since this is posted under the "evolution" banner.

"the theory of evolution".

Please quote the full name of the book.

Also, i dont need to try to discredit darwin. His own personal life does that quite well on its on.

[The Barbarian]

Nope, not good with darwin, who btw had no accredited degree.

He graduated from Cambridge,  one of the best colleges in England.   More importantly, his work, indentifying barnacles as arthopods and his correct solution for the puzzle of Pacific atollls guaranteed him a high place in British science.   

darwin said it was a fact that ALL living things are related to eachother.

Later, genetics would verify his conclusion.   

Sorry, i am NOT related to a flower or potato.

You and plants are both members of the Eucarya, organisms with nucleated cells.   And DNA analysis confirms the fact.

Also, i challenge the NAME of his book. Would you please quote the full name?

[tooldtocare]

Someone just said:
Barbarian observes:
It is an observed fact. There is a theory that explains it, just as Newton's theory of gravitation explains the fact of gravity.

gravity is wanting to be one 

[KiwiChristian]

He graduated from Cambridge,  one of the best colleges in England.   

Was cambridge ACCREDITED?

What did he get his doctorate in? why wont anyone answer?

More importantly, his work, indentifying barnacles as arthopods and his correct solution for the puzzle of Pacific atollls guaranteed him a high place in British science.   

Later, genetics would verify his conclusion.   

You and plants are both members of the Eucarya, organisms with nucleated cells.   And DNA analysis confirms the fact.


So my DNA is the same as a plant? Sorry, that doesnt wash.




There you go. "favored RACES".

he was quite the raciest it seems.

No wonder only his COUSIN would marry him! LOL

Again, what accredited degrees did darwin have in the field?

[Amo]

Same old same old by "Christian" evolutionists and not just a few others. We believe the bible, just not what it says, the way it says it.

[4WD]

Same old same old by "Christian" evolutionists and not just a few others. We believe the bible, just not what it says, the way it says it.

So do Christian evolutionists.  They just don't always believe what you say it says.

[Amo]

So do Christian evolutionists.  They just don't always believe what you say it says.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. 6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. 9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. 11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.13 And the evening and the morning were the third day. 14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. 20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. 23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. 24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. 31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

There it is, I believe what it says. I don't have to say what it says, it is right there in front of us. Do you believe what it says? What do you say it says? I don't add to it, I simply believe what it says. Do you? How does the above say evolution over vast periods of time?

[4WD]

2Pe_3:8  But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.

[4WD]

Amo, do you believe God created "the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind"?

[Alan]

Again, what accredited degrees did darwin have in the field?

Charles Darwin's education gave him a foundation in the doctrine of Creation prevalent throughout the West at the time, as well as knowledge of medicine and theology. More significantly, it led to his interest in natural history, which culminated in his taking part in the second voyage of the Beagle and the eventual inception of his theory of natural selection. Although Darwin changed his field of interest several times in these formative years, many of his later discoveries and beliefs were foreshadowed by the influences he had as a youth.

Of course Cambridge is an accredited University, it is one of the highest learning institutes in Great Britain.

Sorry, but you DO share similar DNA to plants, it's an undeniable FACT that can be easily proven through simple tests.

"Favored Races" has nothing to do with racism, it is speaking of natural selection prior to the popularization of the term itself.

Attacking the man doesn't benefit your already weak argument, Darwin is regarded as a brilliant man that put the wonders of creation into perspective.